|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2005 : 00:06:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How can you "accept" that dark matter has a significant impact on the universe as a whole yet reject it has any influence on solar density models? How much of the mass of the unviverse remains 'dark' to our sight at the moment? Define "significant" in terms of percentages for me. Is "dark matter" a potentially significant factor in our solar system? If not, why not?
Sigh... Although I suspect most of your questions here are retorical and you aren't actually seeking information, here you go. Dark Matterquote:
I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about accelleration itself. It's the difference between crusing in your car at 40MPH and feeling no acceleration and punching the gas pedal and feeling the acelleration. Speed isn't the issue, only the change in speed.
What accelleration are you refering to?quote:
quote:
If the force of universal expansion were insanely greater than what it is then yes this would have an effect, but when you use a reasonable estimate for its value the effect is so small as to be insignificant.
I think you are looking at this issue only in terms of what you WISH to be true. People once "wished" the earth and then the sun were the center of the universe.
Not everyone reasons the way you do. You're projecting.quote:
In most circles we accept that we are not the center of the universe, not in a early sense, and not in a solar sense. That is true for everything *EXCEPT* for density calculations related to the sun. Why is that?
In modern use heliocentrism is just an arbitrary coordinate system and doesn't involve assuming that the sun is the center of the universe.quote:
quote:
If the sun were being yarded about like a puppy on a leash then again, yes this would affect our ability to correctly measure density. But when we observe the sun we see that this is not in fact the case.
But just the opposite is true! We DO see that the universe continues to acellerate. What Einstein once described as his biggest blunder has yet again been proven true. There is a "force" that expands and accellerates our universe. We are being yarded around like a puppy on a leash!
This was in response to your ideas about movement on the z axis skewing density measurements, not to your ideas about the overall expansion of the universe skewing density measurements. Context is important.quote:
quote:
The current density calculatoins are quite sound despite your need for them to be flawed.
No, they are quite limited. Since I didn't calculate density, I have no NEED here.
Then why not acknowledge the obvious flaws in your model?quote:
It is you that has the NEED to believe that the sun can be seen as the center of the universe in density calculations or you cannot disprove my ideas. It's not ME that has needs here, but you.
More projecting.quote:
The theory you put before us both is hopelessly limited, and I think even you realize that about now.
Actually despite what you believe, it has a fair bit of evidence backing it up.quote:
The only way for this measurement to be meaningful is if we ASSUME a heliocentric view of reality.
Where are you getting this idea? Heliocentrismquote:
You and I both know that this makes no sense and I refuse to be swayed by such a limited view of motion, particularly in light of recent findings.
Unfortunate, but sadly not unexpected.quote:
quote:
If you have evidence of significant acceleration on the z axis by all means factor it in to the equation, lets see what you come up with.
I already did that.
Well why didn't you say so. Show your work.quote:
Why is the universe expanding and accelerating in your opinion? What is that force?
More retorical questions? Oh okay, here you go. Dark energy.quote:
quote:
Then why is it so hard for you to understand that if the top layer of the sun is iron then the lower layers must be more dense than iron?
When you blow up a balloon, is the air inside the balloon always more dense than the material that makes up the balloon?
Normaly I would suspect this to be an argument by flawed analogy, but... holy crap! you actually believe this don't you?quote |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 05:12:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Of course it is. It's basic 3D geometry. Simply assume that the z-axis goes straight through the center of earth, breaks the earth's surface at the Equator at longitude 0° at Spring Equilibrium, to then continue through the center of the sun, where origo is. Y-axis basically is the sun's rotationan axis. How difficult was that?
I don't think we're all on the same page here Dr. Mabuse. Are you suggesting that the earth rotates around the sun's Z axis in some way, or are you simply describing shift in precession?
I'm trying to figure out what the direction of your z-axis is pointing. If an acceleration along the Z-axis affects the density, then the volme must be changing, and if it is, then it should be detectable. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 07:13:59 [Permalink]
|
Mike, this somewhat weak statement was made in your paper:
quote:
The energy source for the Sun and ordinary stars seems to be neutron-emission and neutron-decay, with partial fusion of the decay product, rather than simple fusion of hydrogen into helium or heavier elements.
My question is how does this process account for the amount of E-M radation from the sun and where are all of the neutrinos that this process would produce?
Your paper also states that the sun is the collapsed core of a supernova explosion. There have been many observed supernova explosions and there are many old supernova sites and NONE of them have resulted in a G type star. I would go as far as to say it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a G type star to form from the collapse of a super nova core. The heavy elements in our solar system are the results of supernovas but not the sun being a supernova.
I know that you have spent an incredible amount of time on this project, but your argument is weak and just not convincing at all. Your main point continues to be "well... the sun looks solid."
Good luck
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 12:25:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sorry, you just shot that argument in the foot by asserting that the surface is riddled with impurities like iron meteorites. Obviously, since the ionization energies of different elements are different, you're not going to wind up with the "iron plasma" you asserted was lighting the scene.
Sure you will, particularly if the iron melts first.
quote:
It certainly wasn't vague - you specifically answered it, which shows you knew exactly what I meant. Plus, you're now equivocating on the term "material," since both you and I know that solids and plasmas are two wholly different states of matter.
They are made of exactly the same material. The only difference here is temperature.
quote:
The idea that they're the same "material" is like saying that I should be able to ice-skate in July, since water and ice are the same "material."
Not at all. All I'm noting is that when iron melts and becomes a plasma, it will still conduct electricity just like it did when it was a solid. You can in fact ice-skate in July by the way, particuarly if have access to an indoor ice-rink. ;)
quote:
Frankly, I found the page linked to in the OP of this thread to be poorly structured, and so a very tedious read. Plus, I find arguments of the "if you'd just read this" sort to be even more tedious.
You might try the PDF "The (ferrite) surface of the sun". It's relatively short and to the point, and focused on the visual evidence.
quote:
What I'm really interested in is your evidence which shows that what you can see in those images is truly a solid surface, and not - like the ionosphere of the Earth to shortwave radio, or a salinity gradient to sonar - just a reflective (or emitting) "transitional layer."
Well, for starters, the structures in this layer rotate uniformly from pole to equator over a period of days and weeks. The structures in this layer conduct electricity and are imaged in Doppler imaging systems as well as imaged by light on various wavelengths. The structures in this transitional layer breathe with the solar cycle. While the stratification layer is "relatively" thin in comparison to the whole sun, it is still quite thick. This layer slows and blocks the downwelling plasma under sunspots. How is that for starters?
quote:
Surely you, who've been investigating this idea (for how long?),
I've studied the sun for almost thirty years. I've studied solar satellite imagery since the Yohkoh program, equating to about 15 years of solar satellite imagery analysis. I'm not sure how many folks have at NASA or Lockheed have actually reviewed more raw data and images, but I can say that there are very few people at NASA or Lockheed or Stanford who are willing to try to explain these images in any detail.
quote:
can supply a link or a citation of some sort (to independent research) which demonstrates that the surface you propose is reflective to the frequencies of light used in those images.
I can't do that precise thing at the moment, by many types of light reflect of many types of elements. Furthermore many wavelengths reflect off the crust of the earth. It should not be that big of a deal actually.
I can howover cite heliosiesmology data from Stanford that shows that sound waves are affected by a stratified layer that breaths and expands and contracts with the solar cycle. I can show you Doppler images with angular "structure" under the surface of the photosphere.
quote:
Ah, so you don't know what the pixels in those images actually represent.
No, that isn't what I said. I said I cannot tell you the exact timing between shots since both NASA and Lockheed treat this information as though it were a state secret. The images on my website from SOHO are 512 x 512. The Trace images come from raw data that begins as 1024 by 1024 pixels and is "cropped" to show a specific region. Again however I cannot tell you the exact specifics of images that other people created. I can tell you it is relatively easy to duplicate these images using Photoshop and FITS files.
quote:
Really, it's been convincingly argued that the idea that most Europeans thought the Earth was flat is a myth.
I'm not going to get into that one with you. Fine, have it your way. Pick a different concept that has been falsified based on new information. Satellite images aren't something that have been around for hundreds of years. It's only now that we have the technology to put "theory" to the test and see how well it jives with reality.
quote:
Like with, say, neutrino counts?
Neutrino counts didn't originally falsify the gas model when people thought there were too few of them. Now that they believe the neutrinos change flavor, it still doesn't "prove" that the gas model is valid. It only lends some "support" to the model. Again however there is satellite evidence and heliosiesmology evidence and nuclear chemical evidence to consider as well. Neutrinos are only ONE kind of emission to consider.
quote:
Except that disproving that model in favor of a better model will win them fame and fortune in the form of a Nobel Prize.
Assuming that I'm right, I'd say Dr. Manuel is likely to get the Nobel Prize for the discovery. He's been saying the sun is mostly iron and mass separates it's atmospheric plasma for over thirty years. I doubt anyone but him is going to win any prizes for the "discovery" the Birkeland made in the early 1900's.
quote:
I don't give a rats' ass about your allegiances, I was interested i |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/28/2005 13:56:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 13:50:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Sigh... Although I suspect most of your questions here are retorical and you aren't actually seeking information, here you go. Dark Matter
All that told me is that visible matter makes up about 4% of the total mass of the universe. You supported my case quite nicely. It could potentially be more than one order of magnitude of a difference, depending on how you factor in this force.
quote:
What accelleration are you refering to?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18362
quote:
If the force of universal expansion were insanely greater than what it is
What is it? How and where was it factored into any density calculation?
quote:
then yes this would have an effect, but when you use a reasonable estimate for its value the effect is so small as to be insignificant.
What exactly is a "reasonable" estimate in your opinion, and where is it accounted for in current density calculations?
quote:
In modern use heliocentrism is just an arbitrary coordinate system and doesn't involve assuming that the sun is the center of the universe.
In this case, that's exactly what we are assuming for purposes of density. If the sun moves up and/or down in the z axis, this movement could certainly affect density calculations. If the dark energy of the universe pushes out from solar bodies, particularly solar bodies that "shine" like a sun, this too could affect density calculations.
The problem here is that you are attempting to use a "flat earth" type of concept to disprove a round earth idea. We are debating the very concept that the sun's density can be computed as a stationary or fixed point without respect to it's other movements.
quote:
The current density calculatoins are quite sound despite your need for them to be flawed.
I'm not even suggesting they are "flawed" actually, only that they are "relative" to a variety of other factors that have not even been considered. You however are INSISTING the sun is fixed, when we do in fact know that the universe is acellerating even as we speak. Your model is illogical in light of the movements we already understand.
quote:
Then why not acknowledge the obvious flaws in your model?
Because the model is not flawed. The "concept" that the sun, for the purposes of density measurements, can be treated as a fixed fixed and stationary point, and is unaffected by the forces of acceleration is flawed. There is nothing wrong with my model, only your concept of "density".
quote:
More projecting.
Not really. I made no prediction about density. I have no need to support any specific "density" calculation per se, but I refuse to put a lot of faith in a completely heliocentric concept of reality. I already know enough about the expansion of the universe to know that this idea is way too simplistic to be used to falsify or validate any particular solar model. It certainly cannot be used to falsify a model that could even include electromagnetic fields between bodies.
quote:
The theory you put before us both is hopelessly limited, and I think even you realize that about now.
Well, I agree it's "limited" at this point. It has certainly been limited by lack of research. Few folks expected to find a stratified surface sitting just under the photosphere at .995R. That doesn't even fit gas model theory. Time however will certainly remove any feeling of "hopeless" that you might have at the moment. For instance the STEREO program to be launched in the Spring should be able to falsify or validate this model quite convincingly based on the triangulated location of the surface of the transitional layer seen in TRACE images in relationship to the photosphere. I say it's under the photosphere. Lockheed and NASA claim it's above the photosphere. That should be easily reconcilled in 3D images that will come with the STEREO satellite technology. Nothing is really "hopeless", though I agree it's currently limited to satellite imagery, chemistry and heliosiesmology data at the moment. :)
quote:
I already did that.
No you did not or I certainly missed it. What density calculation factors in universal acelleration and dark energy?
quote:
More retorical questions? Oh okay, here you go. Dark energy.
I'm afraid that explains very little. I'm personally of the impression that 'dark energy' is nothing more than the inertial mass contained within photons moving from one place to another. I think it should have been called "light energy". Now I'm sure you and WIKI will have differing ideas, but the whole notion of 'dark energy' with down right "metaphysical" properties of pushing against normal matter can easily be explained in terms of intertial mass of photons striking atoms. I fail to see the need for exotic lingo to describe the pressure and inertial mass of photons.
quote:
Normaly I would suspect this to be an argument by flawed analogy, but... holy crap! you actually believe this don't you?
I actually do believe that I cannot see beneath the visible photosphere. I believe that a neutron core would push against an iron shell. I believe that self sustaining nuclear fission reaction could produce outward pressure. I don't really know all the details of what is under the surface. I can really only see the surface and the plasma above the surface. That is what I actually b |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/28/2005 13:58:28 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 14:11:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I'm trying to figure out what the direction of your z-axis is pointing.
I am assuming it's pointing parallel to the spin axis, and the plane of the solar system is roughly aligned with the plane of the galaxy.
quote:
If an acceleration along the Z-axis affects the density, then the volme must be changing, and if it is, then it should be detectable.
I'm obviously not explaining this very well. While the I believe the sun moves up and down on the waves from the galactic core, much like a cork bobs up and down on with the waves in the water. I do not however believe that the sun changes "shape" per se, other than the stratification changes noted by Alexander Kosovichev. In that work, we do see "movement" in the stratification that is measured in 10's of kilometers. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 14:20:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
My question is how does this process account for the amount of E-M radation from the sun and where are all of the neutrinos that this process would produce?
I'm not quite sure how to calculate the amount of neutrions that such a process would produce at this time. Call it a "weakness" if you like.
quote:
Your paper also states that the sun is the collapsed core of a supernova explosion. There have been many observed supernova explosions and there are many old supernova sites and NONE of them have resulted in a G type star.
I think it's premature to use terms like "none". We still have a lot to learn.
quote:
I would go as far as to say it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a G type star to form from the collapse of a super nova core.
You are quite right in saying that according to PRESENT THEORY, it would in fact be impossible for that to occur. However this iron sun theory of how a sun is built would change everything we think we know about astronomy and how stars form.
quote:
The heavy elements in our solar system are the results of supernovas but not the sun being a supernova.
Don't you find it odd that all the inner planets are rich in iron based on their overall composition, yet the sun is considered to be completely different in relative composition to every single one of it's closest neighbors? Recent studies suggest that even brown dwarfs can form suns around themselves. These kinds of discoveries don't fit very well with gas model theory.
quote:
I know that you have spent an incredible amount of time on this project, but your argument is weak and just not convincing at all. Your main point continues to be "well... the sun looks solid."
That is a bit unfair IMO since I have provide heliosiesmology evidence to support these images, and nuclear chemical analysis as well. If you find this overall arguement "weak", think of how the gas model concept of the sun must have seemed at first. It wasn't supported well either at first.
In this case I think the solid surface model has a few significant advantages, specifically it's been produced in lab and it jives with direct satellite observation and current heliosiesmology data as well.
Now if you would be so kind as to show me how a stratified layer from .97 to .995R is accounted for in gas model theory, perhaps we could begin to compare "weak" ideas. ;) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 14:45:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Sure you will, particularly if the iron melts first.
Not only does the iron have to melt first to make an iron plasma, it has to be the only substance in the shell which melts. Of course, nickel has a melting point 83°C lower than iron. Nickel also has a lower electrical resistance.quote:
They are made of exactly the same material. The only difference here is temperature.
And the lack of electrons bound to the nucleus.quote:
Not at all. All I'm noting is that when iron melts and becomes a plasma, it will still conduct electricity just like it did when it was a solid.
How can that be possible? One of the properties of solid iron which makes it conductive is the proximity of nucleii in a crystaline matrix. In a plasma, that proximity is lost.quote:
You might try the PDF "The (ferrite) surface of the sun". It's relatively short and to the point, and focused on the visual evidence.
I can't get to your site at all from this machine, but I'll try to later from home. However, if the PDF is one big "it looks solid" argument, I'm really not interested.quote:
Well, for starters, the structures in this layer rotate uniformly from pole to equator over a period of days and weeks.
What about months and years?quote:
The structures in this layer conduct electricity...
Where is the evidence of that?quote:
...and are imaged in Doppler imaging systems as well as imaged by light on various wavelengths.
Until we find out whether that light is emitted or reflected, it doesn't mean much.quote:
The structures in this transitional layer breathe with the solar cycle.
What does that mean, exactly?quote:
While the stratification layer is "relatively" thin in comparison to the whole sun, it is still quite thick.
How thick?quote:
This layer slows and blocks the downwelling plasma under sunspots.
Temperature inversions can block air movement, and temperature gradients in the ocean can block water motion. That something can block plasma motion doesn't mean it's a solid.quote:
How is that for starters?
It just brings up more questions, as you can see.quote:
I've studied the sun for almost thirty years. I've studied solar satellite imagery since the Yohkoh program, equating to about 15 years of solar satellite imagery analysis.
And when (out of curiosity) did you start with the solid-shell model?quote:
I'm not sure how many folks have at NASA or Lockheed have actually reviewed more raw data and images, but I can say that there are very few people at NASA or Lockheed or Stanford who are willing to try to explain these images in any detail.
Do you mean they're unwilling to explain them at all, or that they're unwilling to explain them to you?quote:
I can't do that precise thing at the moment...
If your hypothesis is that the 171-angstrom light (for example) is reflected by the surface you posit, the reflectivity of the hypothetical shell at that wavelength is one of the first things I would have checked. After all, iron is only 65% reflective of 1000 nm light.quote:
...by many types of light reflect of many types of elements. Furthermore many wavelengths reflect off the crust of the earth.
Indeed. And we both know that intragalactic dust is opaque to visible wavelengths of light, but transparent to infrared. Just as I know that certain coatings (for eyeglasses) are transparent to visible light but reflect UV. Just as I know that water is mostly transparent to visible light, but absorbs lots of radio frequencies (one in particular is responsible for microwave ovens). Just as I know that the Earth's crust is reflective of some wavelengths, absorbtive of others and likely transparent to some.quote:
It should not be that big of a deal actually.
No, it's just a fundamental test of your hypothesis which you don't appear to have examined yet.quote:
I can howover cite heliosiesmology data from Stanford that shows that sound waves are affected by a stratified layer that breaths and expands and contracts with the solar cycle. I can show you Doppler images with angular "structure" under the surface of the photosphere.
Neither of which demonstrates that the "light source" in the images is reflected light.quote:
No, that isn't what I said. I said I cannot tell you the exact timing between shots since both NASA and Lockheed treat this information as though it were a state secret.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 15:33:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not quite sure how to calculate the amount of neutrions that such a process would produce at this time. Call it a "weakness" if you like.
Neutron Decay
N -> P + e + n Where n is a electron antineutrino.
Neutron emmission in lighter element of just a neutron being ejected from the nucleus of the atom.
I don't see where these processes yield the high levels of Electro-magnetic radiation that we see from the sun.
quote:
quote:
Your paper also states that the sun is the collapsed core of a supernova explosion. There have been many observed supernova explosions and there are many old supernova sites and NONE of them have resulted in a G type star.
I think it's premature to use terms like "none". We still have a lot to learn.
It is not at all 'premature' to state that there have been NO G-type stars found that resulted from a confirmed supernova. This is a fact. Supernova cores are extremely dense objects such as white dwarfs or neutron stars.
Why would you suppose that a supernova explosion produced the sun when this runs counter to all other supenova sites yet observed??
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 16:36:45 [Permalink]
|
| sigh... look what I started. because most of the stuff that you guys are talking about baffels me(z-axis acceleration?), i'm going to stick this one out. |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 17:07:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
I'm not quite sure how to calculate the amount of neutrions that such a process would produce at this time. Call it a "weakness" if you like.
Neutron Decay
N -> P + e + n Where n is a electron antineutrino.
Neutron emmission in lighter element of just a neutron being ejected from the nucleus of the atom.
I don't see where these processes yield the high levels of Electro-magnetic radiation that we see from the sun.
The electromagnetic radiation comes from the arcs along the surface from energy released within the core.
quote:
It is not at all 'premature' to state that there have been NO G-type stars found that resulted from a confirmed supernova. This is a fact. Supernova cores are extremely dense objects such as white dwarfs or neutron stars.
While you may in fact be accurate that we have YET to show any correlation between Supernova and G class stars in the imediate vicinity of supernova, that is not evidence that no such thing ever occurs. The notion that our solar system formed of supernova remnants has already been give a boost by recent discoveries:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308
If it looks like a supernova and it spews iron and olivine like a supernova..... :)
quote:
Why would you suppose that a supernova explosion produced the sun when this runs counter to all other supenova sites yet observed??
Hubble is only about 15 years old and there is a lot about the universe and solar formation in general that we still do not understand. The clouds that form solar systems are in fact filled with the heavier elements that supernovas leave behind. Stars form from instellar dust, and much of this dust comes from supernovas. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/28/2005 17:18:42 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 17:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
sigh... look what I started. because most of the stuff that you guys are talking about baffels me(z-axis acceleration?), i'm going to stick this one out.
It mostly baffles me too. But Michael Mozina's main argument seems to be since we can't be 100% certain that measurements of the sun's density are correct, we must assume they are false. Which, of course, is a ridiculous argument. We should assume they are accurate unless evidence is provided to the contrary. He has provided no such information, and in fact seems to fail to even understand why the onus for providing such information rests on him. He seems to think that bringing up something which may or not be going on is enough. It isn't.
It's pretty classic crackpot hand waving, actually. First provide an alternative theory with little to no evidence behind it, then cry "bias" when scientists dismiss said theory as unevidenced. Point out science doesn't know everything about everything. Point out that many currently accepted scientific theories were decried in their day, but then fail to point out that scientists adopted the new theory only after enough evidence was actually accumulated. Bemoan the fact science is actually politics, and that you can't come up with the needed evidence for your theory because no one will fund your research until you come up with evidence... it's a vicious circle you see. Fail to point out that scientists fund new research every day, some with the express purpose of overturning existing theories. Classic crackpot tunnel vision.
Unfortunately, there is no convincing this type of anything. He will cling to his beliefs until he is proven wrong, which is of course impossible. We also can't prove the sun isn't made of really hot cheese, but appears gaseous to us due to a currently imperceivable cosmic anomaly.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 17:25:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
While you may in fact be accurate that we have YET to show any correlation between Supernova and G class stars in the imediate vicinity of supernova, that is not evidence that no such thing ever occurs.
This can be re-written to offer "support" for anything. "[T]hat we have YET to show any correlation between Supernova and fairies materializing with huge sacks of money in our closets, that is not evidence that no such thing ever occurs" is precisely as true as what you wrote. Therefore the truth of such a statement is meaningless. As is your whole "we're still learning how the stars form" argument from ignorance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 17:58:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It mostly baffles me too. But Michael Mozina's main argument seems to be since we can't be 100% certain that measurements of the sun's density are correct, we must assume they are false. Which, of course, is a ridiculous argument.
That would indeed be a ridiculous arguement, but it's not the argument I made. I made the arguement that current density models INGORE dark energy altogether, and this energy and mass make up most of the known universe. I didn't just suggest we can't be certain that heliocentric, stationary models are right, I suggested we can be SURE that that they are flawed and do not even include most of the mass of the universe. Such a calculation certainly cannot be considered "conclusive" one way or the other toward any solar model. I simply fail to see why we should ASSUME a heliocentric notion of reality actually applies in the real universe, expecially since the real universe continues to accelerate and none of that influence has been accounted for in heliocentric concepts about density.
quote:
We should assume they are accurate unless evidence is provided to the contrary.
I already provided it!
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18362
Where is dark energy or dark matter accounted for your notion of solar density? Without including these key concepts in solar physics, how in the world can you claim this to be accurate, let alone definitive?
quote:
He has provided no such information, and in fact seems to fail to even understand why the onus for providing such information rests on him.
That is simply false. I provided heliosiesmology evidence that confirmed my prediction of a stratified layer just under the visible photosphere. I put these things together nuclear chemical evidence with Dr. Manuel as well. I have also provided a way to falsify or corroborate my model using the STEREO system to be launched next year. I have provided several forms of scientific evidence to support these beliefs, meanwhile no one has really offered much of any explanation for even the first image on my website. What is a good skeptic like me to think of a model that can't even explain a single satellite image very effectively?
quote:
He seems to think that bringing up something which may or not be going on is enough. It isn't.
It's not a question of whether not the universe is accelerating. We already have confirmed this now several different times, as recently as last month. I'm not making up the concept of universal acelleration. It has been confirmed, yet never accounted for an any heliocentric notion of density.
quote:
It's pretty classic crackpot hand waving, actually.
This kind of personal insult is uncalled for. I'm here debating these ideas openly and fairly and I am open to SCIENTIFIC criticism. I am not however much impressed with name calling that is uncalled for and utterly unscientific. Dr. Kistian Birkeland was no crackpot. Neither was Dr. Charles Bruce, nor is Dr. Oliver Manuel. The only handwaving going on here is you guys handwaving away the direct observation satellite images without so much as single explaination of a single image using gas model theory. THAT kind of behavior is not going to impress me even slightly.
quote:
First provide an alternative theory with little to no evidence behind it, then cry "bias" when scientists dismiss said theory as unevidenced.
First of all, no one here has explained the heliosiesmology evidence in terms of gas model theory. No one here has explained even one satellite image using gas model theory. No one has pointed out the problem in the three decades of nuclear chemical research done by Dr. Manuel. You can't dismiss something rationally unless you can explain WHY it is wrong scientifically. If you can't do that, is nothing more than your bias speaking.
quote:
Point out science doesn't know everything about everything.
It doesn't. In fact astronomy is quite unlike most areas of science is that we can't easily put our hands on solar surfaces. :)
quote:
Point out that many currently accepted scientific theories were decried in their day,
They were!
quote:
but then fail to point out that scientists adopted the new theory only after enough evidence was actually accumulated.
I'm confident that the STEREO program and newer satellite systems will indeed continue to provide addtional evidence and scientists will come around. It's not like science is homogenously sold on the gas model in the first place!
quote:
Bemoan the fact science is actually politics, and that you can't come up with the needed evidence for your theory because no one will fund your research until you come up with evidence... it's a vicious circle you see. Fail to point out that scientists fund new research every day, some with the express purpose of overturning existing theories. Classic crackpot tunnel vision.
I've notice that those who are least capable of dealing with issues from a scientific perspective are the first to resort to ad hominems and personal attacks. Classic crackpot tunnel vision begins and end with the unwillingness to even consider new ideas based on new technologies because it happens to go against old ideas. I'm not a crackpot and neither are any of the scientists that have worked on solid surface solar models. It is simply a competing model with just as much merit as any other model. IT will take time to collect enough evidence to sway popular opinion, but opinions will change over time.
quote:
Unfortunately, there is no convincing this type of anything. He will cling to his beliefs until he is proven wrong, which is of course impossible. We also can't prove the sun isn't |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/28/2005 18:01:49 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 18:12:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So far, you are the only one here who feels the need to resort to ad hominem and personal attack. Those are not the tools of a true "skeptic".
I merely pointed out that many of the arguments you put forward are exactly what we would expect if you were a crackpot. They are not ad hominems because I never implied that your particular arguements were false because of my observations. You may consider my remarks personal attacks if you choose, but I'd rather you thought of them as an honest evaluation. You do argue as a crackpot would. That's all.
I will, of course, admit that you may be correct in everything you say. I just doubt it.
quote:
It's not a question of whether not the universe is accelerating. We already have confirmed this now several different times, as recently as last month. I'm not making up the concept of universal acelleration. It has been confirmed, yet never accounted for an any heliocentric notion of density.
Because the Sun and Solar system are accelerating at the same speed simultaneously. Acceleration doesn't have to be accounted for because it doesn't actually change anything.
And this is precisely what I mean when I said you "refuse to provide evidence." It isn't enough to state that accelation hasn't been accounted for. You account for it and then show us precisely how it affects density measurements. Until you do, I consider your objections to be hand-waving.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/28/2005 18:18:03 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
