|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2005 : 18:44:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I merely pointed out that many of the arguments you put forward are exactly what we would expect if you were a crackpot.
That is simply false. YOU created what amounts to a "strawman" and then used your own strawman to create the "crackpot" arguement. That is not true skepticism. That is a logical falacy.
quote:
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.
A real skeptic need not stoop to below the belt ad hominem arguements and false labels and meaningless strawmen. I have provided pages upon pages of information that is based on a scientific explanation of everything I see in satellite images. If you have a useful scientific rebuttal to offer, feel free to put it on the table, otherwise your strawman and ad homimen approach is not going to impress me, or any other real skeptics for that matter.
quote:
I will, of course, admit that you may be correct in everything you say. I just doubt it.
So everything you "doubt" is a "crackpot" idea even if you can't explain your "doubt" in any scientifically precise way?
quote:
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.
How do you know this force affects every body in the solar system exactly the same way?
quote:
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.
I have provided LOTS of evidence on my website and in the papers I have been involved in. It was your side of the aisle that INSISTED that density measurement could be used to falisify or corroborate a solar model even though such density measurements do not account for acceleration or movement of any sort. THAT was the handwave of an arguement. Don't blame me for being skeptical of heliocentric models of the universe. It's just that we already know that the sun isn't the center of the universe and we know it's accelerating and moving. I can't ignore that reality only because you don't like it.
I am not trying to use this arguement to strenthen OR falsify my model. It is therefor up to YOU to demonstrate where the affects of acceleration and dark energy are accounted for. Obviously they are NOT accounted for since they were originally done BEFORE the concept of "dark energy" was ever introduced.
The whole notion of "dark energy" is in fact another of those rather metaphysical astronomy thingies by the way. Why isn't this just "light energy" or "light inertial mass" rather than "dark energy" anyway?
The bottom line here is that no theory is a sacred cow and all theories are open to scrutiny given new data. The new data suggests that there is a solid surface under the visible photosophere. The presense of a "stratified layer" has in fact been confirmed by Stanford. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm simply showing you the recent data that lends support to Dr. Birkeland's solid surface solar model, the same model he experimented with about 100 years ago. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 11/28/2005 18:45:53 |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 19:24:40 [Permalink]
|
Well I realize that you don't sweat context or comprehension, but this should be beyond even you. You're talking to yourself!quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
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. :)
andquote:
quote:
I already did that.
No you did not or I certainly missed it. What density calculation factors in universal acelleration and dark energy?
I did not make either of the statements that you are responding to here, you did!  |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 19:30:27 [Permalink]
|
Let me step in for a second, and please just slap me back down if I'm way off here:
Michael Mozina - Is one of your arguments that Mass/Volume = Density is wrong with regards to the sun and that it should be Mass/Volume + factoring in the effects of Dark Energy = Density of the Sun, and that this value could vary substantially from the one currently used?
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 19:37:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
Let me step in for a second, and please just slap me back down if I'm way off here:
Michael Mozina - Is one of your arguments that Mass/Volume = Density is wrong with regards to the sun and that it should be Mass/Volume + factoring in the effects of Dark Energy = Density of the Sun, and that this value could vary substantially from the one currently used?
Actually, I think it's:
Mass/Volume + factoring in the effects of Dark Energy + Universal expansion + anything else we haven't thought of = Density of the Sun.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 19:50:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It was your side of the aisle that INSISTED that density measurement could be used to falisify or corroborate a solar model even though such density measurements do not account for acceleration or movement of any sort. THAT was the handwave of an arguement.
Except it's not a handwave. It's a valid criticism. You must address it. quote:
Don't blame me for being skeptical of heliocentric models of the universe. It's just that we already know that the sun isn't the center of the universe and we know it's accelerating and moving. I can't ignore that reality only because you don't like it.
No one is ignoring reality. Currently we have no reason to suspect our density calculations are in error. You "skepticism" of them is empty unless you provide the hard numbers which would show them to be in error. Simply saying you're suspicious of them doesn't allow you to wave them away.
quote:
I am not trying to use this arguement to strenthen OR falsify my model.
You should always be trying to falsify your model, since that is the only way to strengthen it. That you haven't taken these steps says a lot about the rigors of your methodology.
quote:
It is therefor up to YOU to demonstrate where the affects of acceleration and dark energy are accounted for. Obviously they are NOT accounted for since they were originally done BEFORE the concept of "dark energy" was ever introduced.
Buzz. Nope, not how it works. If you are calling into question the validity of the currently accepted density measurements, then it is indeed up to you to demonstrate them to be in error. It isn't up to us to assuage your doubts on this matter, especially since many have pointed out to you that they would have little impact on the measurements even if they are accounted for.
|
"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 20:10:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 20:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You might try the PDF "The (ferrite) surface of the sun".
How about giving me a link? I poked around your site for a while without finding it, and Googling "The (ferrite) surface of the sun" results only in an issue of The Aquarian Theosophist which has a chopped-down version. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2005 : 21:49:25 [Permalink]
|
One thing I did come across is your very clear statements, and Dr. Manuel's paper, that the Sun is made mostly of iron. Since neither you nor he seem willing to quantify that "mostly," I'll have to assume that you mean "more than 50%." This is a very different situation than a mostly-iron "shell."
My question to you now, Mr. Mozina, is do you mean "mostly" by mass or by volume?
Furthermore, some more thinking on the "density question" provides further insight. For one thing, nowhere does anyone articulate the idea that forces generated by dark matter or dark energy fluctuate. In fact, one of the links you recently offered us states that dark energy can be treated like Einstein's Cosmological Constant, in that it's effects are uniform and steady. And dark matter, of course, behaves just like any other matter. So, these two things would affect density calculations in exactly the same way regardless of the composition of the Sun, and would also effect density calculations of every other solar-system body the same way, including the Earth.
So yet another question to you, Mr. Mozina, is: are our calculations of Earth's density correct or not? Another one would be, can we correctly calculate the density of a cubic centimeter of water?
Since dark energy and dark matter are only stipulated to have measurable effects on a galactic scale, then if we can accurately measure the density of a single cc of water, we should be able to accurately measure the density of the Sun (which, on a galactic scale, is extremely close to us). At least as far as dark matter and energy are concerned. Also note that if our measurments of that single cc of water are off by orders of magnitude (from some "absolute" which will forever remain undefined), that's fine because we've defined our measures based upon that single cc of water, anyway. So, iron's density isn't based upon any absolutes, but only relative to our measure of water's density.
In short, any effects that dark matter and/or dark energy have on the Sun, they have on us, too. We say that iron has a density of 7874 kg/m3 within the dark matter and dark energy fields in which we find ourselves. Were dark energy and matter to make a difference of orders of magnitude across a scant 92 million miles, we'd find out about it between spring and autumn as the Earth courses through over 2.5 billion miles of the universe.
Now, onto the Z-axis movements. For one thing, it's a misnomer since relative motion of the Sun in any axis could have a similar effect. But really, the more-important thing here is to realize that you, Mr. Mozina, expect us to believe that amongst all the (essentially) random bobbing of the Sun (as cork) within the galaxy (as waves), the only times we've measured the Sun's density have coincidentally been those times when the Sun appears to be orders of magnitude less dense than it really is (were it made "mostly" of iron). We're terribly unlucky to never have measured the Sun when these mysterious factors would all point the other direction, and tell us the Sun is a million times denser than water (or however many orders of magnitude you want).
Oh, wait, let me step back a moment. Mr. Mozina, can we accurately measure the volume of the Sun? Per Wikipedia, the volume is 1.41×1018 km3. If you agree with that (to within an order of magnitude), then your density objections must be based solely upon our inability to correctly measure its mass.
How could we check the mass measurement? Well, we could simply calculate the acceleration a satellite or interplanetary probe would experience due to the Sun, and see if it's correct. Oh, Cassini shows we've already done that (unless you'd like to argue that Cassini is not in orbit around Saturn right now). I'm sure you'll bring up the "Pioneer Anomaly" again, but that anomaly is tiny (10-8m/s2 at 86 AU, or about 7.4×10-5m/s2 at Earth orbit), nowhere near enough to compensate for an "orders of magnitude" difference in mass measurements.
Actually, if you agree that we can measure a 10-8m/s2 acceleration anomaly, then you're agreeing that we know the Sun's mass to great precision. It simply isn't possible to be off by even a single order of magnitude if we can detect such small accelerations. Unless, of course, you're ready to say that the anomaly must also be off by orders of magnitude...
If you're not, then we'll be back to arguing about the volume measurements, since if we know the mass with precision, then to have a mistaken density we must have an error in volume.
Because it should be quite obvious that going from three-quarters hydrogen to a "mostly" iron Sun will present a drastic difference in average density. |
- 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 : 21:54:26 [Permalink]
|
Mike you said:
quote:
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..... :)
The article says nothing of the sort. Did you read the article. Here is a quote from the article [emphasis is mine]:
quote:
The mineral comes from elements that mixed during the violent explosion of a collapsed, dying star about 15 times as massive as the sun.
The olivine crystallized when the supernova gas cooled to form dust. Numerous tiny olivine grains in one parcel of gas condensed and stuck together to form a submicron-sized olivine rock.
The olivine bided its time in the interstellar medium for millions of years, until it was swept up into a cold dust cloud and coated with a thin veneer of organic matter.
At some stage, the cloud collapsed to form our solar system, and the grain became trapped within a comet or asteroid for 4.5 billion years, the age of our solar system. If it was an asteroid, the asteroid would have to be a primitive asteroid, the kind that hasn't been heated enough to destroy such presolar grains.
Your paper stated that the sun is what was left after a supernova explosion, that is unsupportable and the article above in no way supports that view.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 11:09:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Well I realize that you don't sweat context or comprehension, but this should be beyond even you. You're talking to yourself!
Gah! How embarassing. :)
I guess that's what I get for trying to get by on two hours sleep the night before and trying to answer these messages between tech calls. :)
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 11:18:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You might try the PDF "The (ferrite) surface of the sun".
How about giving me a link? I poked around your site for a while without finding it, and Googling "The (ferrite) surface of the sun" results only in an issue of The Aquarian Theosophist which has a chopped-down version.
Sure:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 11:39:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Your paper stated that the sun is what was left after a supernova explosion, that is unsupportable and the article above in no way supports that view.
There is no specified "timeline" between the explosion of the supernova and the formation of the sun. It is not as though we are suggesting that the supernova blew up and left in the center was a sun. You seem to be confusing ideas here IMO. The sun formed from what was left after the supernova explosion, and the presense of olivine in this dusts suggests that our sun and solar system contain parts of a supernova that was about 15 times the size of our own sun, somewhere in our neighborhood.
Olivine as you probably know is rich in iron and silicon. These elements are present in great abundance in the inner planets. We also see these same elements in spectral analysis and in satellite images of the sun. Based on direct observation, we can see that the sun is not that different in compostion from any of it's closest neighbors. That is not really surpising either since all of the material came from exactly the same source. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 11:55:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It was your side of the aisle that INSISTED that density measurement could be used to falisify or corroborate a solar model even though such density measurements do not account for acceleration or movement of any sort. THAT was the handwave of an arguement.
Except it's not a handwave. It's a valid criticism. You must address it.
It cannot be a valid criticism unless it accounts for the more important movement characteristics of our universe. Since it is a purely heliocentric concept of "density", it cannot therefore be a "valid criticism". It lacks any concept of solar movement and we know that the universe is not only moving, it is accelerating as well. A heliocentric concept of density therefore cannot be a valid criticism of a real life solar model of a real sun that is experiencing acceleration. You are attempting to compare apples to oranges. *IF* the universe was not accelerating, *THEN* you might have a point. As it is, you are trying to use flat earth concepts to disprove a round earth idea.
quote:
No one is ignoring reality. Currently we have no reason to suspect our density calculations are in error. You "skepticism" of them is empty unless you provide the hard numbers which would show them to be in error. Simply saying you're suspicious of them doesn't allow you to wave them away.
Einstein already provided the numbers decades ago! His work was confirmed recently within about a 10% margin of error. I would say that is more than enough "proof" than a heliocentric concept of the sun is not an accurate model!
quote:
You should always be trying to falsify your model, since that is the only way to strengthen it.
I agree actually. That is why I pointed out that the STEREO program will be able to falsify or validate this model. I'm looking forward to having a real 3D view of the sun's atmosphere to work with so these ideas CAN be validated or falsified, once and for all.
quote:
That you haven't taken these steps says a lot about the rigors of your methodology.
That is a purely bogus statement. I've debated these ideas in cyberspace ever since I put up the website. I'm certainly looked for and solicited valid scientific feedback in an attempt to falsify the model. I'm not however impressed by a stationary heliocentric concept fo "density" and I see no way to apply it to the real life scenario of an expanding and accelerating universe.
Not only have I taken steps to try to falsify it, I stuck my neck out and made predictions about a stratified layer being just under the photosphere. Just a month ago, that was confirmed by Stanford. I therefore can not only provide some falsification mechanism (Stereo), I can also show support in the current body of science.
quote:
Buzz. Nope, not how it works. If you are calling into question the validity of the currently accepted density measurements, then it is indeed up to you to demonstrate them to be in error.
Einstein already did that! It's now up to you to prove Einstein was wrong about an accelerating universe, or to show me a density measurement that includes this force of acceleration in the equations. You have provided neither. Instead you are trying to apply a heliocentric view to the real universe, where it just doesn't apply.
quote:
It isn't up to us to assuage your doubts on this matter, especially since many have pointed out to you that they would have little impact on the measurements even if they are accounted for.[/quote]
Excuse me? No one has demonstrated that the force of acceleration of our universe would not have a significant impact on density calculations. PERIOD! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 11:56:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It was your side of the aisle that INSISTED that density measurement could be used to falisify or corroborate a solar model even though such density measurements do not account for acceleration or movement of any sort. THAT was the handwave of an arguement.
Except it's not a handwave. It's a valid criticism. You must address it.
It cannot be a valid criticism unless it accounts for the more important movement characteristics of our universe. Since it is a purely heliocentric concept of "density", it cannot therefore be a "valid criticism". It lacks any concept of solar movement and we know that the universe is not only moving, it is accelerating as well. A heliocentric concept of density therefore cannot be a valid criticism of a real life solar model of a real sun that is experiencing acceleration. You are attempting to compare apples to oranges. *IF* the universe was not accelerating, *THEN* you might have a point. As it is, you are trying to use flat earth concepts to disprove a round earth idea.
quote:
No one is ignoring reality. Currently we have no reason to suspect our density calculations are in error. You "skepticism" of them is empty unless you provide the hard numbers which would show them to be in error. Simply saying you're suspicious of them doesn't allow you to wave them away.
Einstein already provided the numbers decades ago! His work was confirmed recently within about a 10% margin of error. I would say that is more than enough "proof" than a heliocentric concept of the sun is not an accurate model!
quote:
You should always be trying to falsify your model, since that is the only way to strengthen it.
I agree actually. That is why I pointed out that the STEREO program will be able to falsify or validate this model. I'm looking forward to having a real 3D view of the sun's atmosphere to work with so these ideas CAN be validated or falsified, once and for all.
quote:
That you haven't taken these steps says a lot about the rigors of your methodology.
That is a purely bogus statement. I've debated these ideas in cyberspace ever since I put up the website. I'm certainly looked for and solicited valid scientific feedback in an attempt to falsify the model. I'm not however impressed by a stationary heliocentric concept fo "density" and I see no way to apply it to the real life scenario of an expanding and accelerating universe.
Not only have I taken steps to try to falsify it, I stuck my neck out and made predictions about a stratified layer being just under the photosphere. Just a month ago, that was confirmed by Stanford. I therefore can not only provide some falsification mechanism (Stereo), I can also show support in the current body of science.
quote:
Buzz. Nope, not how it works. If you are calling into question the validity of the currently accepted density measurements, then it is indeed up to you to demonstrate them to be in error.
Einstein already did that! It's now up to you to prove Einstein was wrong about an accelerating universe, or to show me a density measurement that includes this force of acceleration in the equations. You have provided neither. Instead you are trying to apply a heliocentric view to the real universe, where it just doesn't apply.
quote:
It isn't up to us to assuage your doubts on this matter, especially since many have pointed out to you that they would have little impact on the measurements even if they are accounted for.
Excuse me? No one has demonstrated that the force of acceleration of our universe would not have a significant impact on density calculations. PERIOD! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2005 : 12:05:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Excuse me? No one has demonstrated that the force of acceleration of our universe would not have a significant impact on density calculations. PERIOD!
Yes, I did. Last night. If that force (which you refuse to quantify) had a "significant" impact across a distance of just 92 million miles, we would know about it as our calculations here on Earth varied as we float around the Sun and zip through the galaxy. Because we can measure the density of pure water at STP (and other simple substances) to be unwavering to within however-many decimal places over decades, we can be certain that the "acceleration of our universe" does not affect our density measurements to a measurable degree, period. |
- 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 - 11/29/2005 : 12:59:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
Let me step in for a second, and please just slap me back down if I'm way off here:
Michael Mozina - Is one of your arguments that Mass/Volume = Density is wrong with regards to the sun and that it should be Mass/Volume + factoring in the effects of Dark Energy = Density of the Sun, and that this value could vary substantially from the one currently used?
Yes, that is ultimately what I am suggesting. Einstein's greatest blunder turns out to be his greatest achievement, and he was within 10% according to recent measurements. This force of acceleration is not accounted for in current density models. That is what I am suggesting. Considering the other ideas like "dark matter" (which I think is just light matter) and dark energy (which I think is light energy) are now thought to compose most of the mass of the unviverse. But these ideas and concepts have not ever been applied to density calculations of the sun either. I therefore believe that it is highly inappropriate to attempt to use heliocentric concepts to attempt to disprove a real life scenario, with moving and accelerating galaxies. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
