|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2006 : 13:12:12 [Permalink]
|
| How bout the 20 or so other major issues you've been ignoring then? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 13:30:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But I never claimed it moved around an "intact" solid surface feature. That was Dave's EYEBALLING of the presumed "center" of a crater you are refering to, and I wasn't the one making that claim. Dave never explained how he eyeballed the center of the crater in these images...
Yes, I did, in detail. You've repeated that misinformation twice now, despite being corrected, so I am currently leaning towards the conclusion that you're lying about me on purpose, rather than simply not paying attention.quote:
...nor did he explain how he differentiated arc emissions from surface features. Until he can do that, I can't really go any further on that issue.
I've been waiting for you to give me your methodology for distinguishing between surface reflections and arc emissions. You're the one who claims to be able to do so, not I.
(If the answer is "running difference images," then I will repeat my request for detailed instructions on how you created your RD images in PhotoShop, as you claimed.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 14:14:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
But I never claimed it moved around an "intact" solid surface feature. That was Dave's EYEBALLING of the presumed "center" of a crater you are refering to, and I wasn't the one making that claim. Dave never explained how he eyeballed the center of the crater in these images, nor did he explain how he differentiated arc emissions from surface features. Until he can do that, I can't really go any further on that issue.
You made the claim about the crater being evidence to support your assertion. Although Dave W. did describe how he went about determining the center, edges, and movement of your crater, it wasn't his responsibility to do so. It was, in fact, your responsibility to demonstrate how you determined the center, edges, and movement of your crater. You have completely neglected to even attempt to do so.
I think we can safely accept now that you either can't support your claim, or you won't support your claim. If you can't do your job, it shows that you are deluded, or maybe hoping for the best from some wild guess, or perhaps you're just an out and out liar. If you won't do your job, then you're simply lazy. Either way, lacking the ability or lacking the willingness, you're not holding up your end of supporting your claim. And as we all know (well, all of us except you apparently), in science, any unsupported claims may be simply dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 14:42:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Yes, you did dodge the issue of the crater and Dave W.'s analysis of it.
No, I did not. I showed you the EXACT nature of my objection to Dave's EYEBALLING of the presumed "center" of a crater when he has no way to differentiate surface features from atmospheric light changes.
quote:
You made the claim that the crater was evidence of your interpretations of your observations.
I claimed this crater image over a 2 1/2 minute window was evidence to support my case. I did not try to follow that particular crater over a multihour window as Dave attempted to do. I have however tracked all sorts of surface features over many hours of timelines, including those RD SOHO images I posted on my website. You don't see any differential rotation in any of those images.
Dave tried to essentially eyeball the center of a crater that is covered by all sorts of atmospheric light changes and never accounted the most basic of problem of differentiating between atmosphere and surface!
quote:
That claim has been legitimately brought into question.
That depends on how one defines "legitimate". I hardly think it's a legitimate objection to simply to eyeball the center of a crater without regard to changing light conditions. That isn't even logical from my perspective.
quote:
You do the work. You attempt to substantiate that it is indeed a crater of some sort and explain, thoroughly, how it supports your theory of a solid surface.
I've already done the work *MY WAY*. I did not attempt to do what Dave did, and I see no logical reason to believe that Dave's "method" had any merit to begin with.
quote:
If you can't substantiate your own "evidence", set it aside.
I can substanciate it, and I have.
quote:
Admit that having brought that crater into the discussion was moot, and move on to other things.
It's not moot IMO, and Dave's "method" is not valid to begin with. The fact you see it a different way is no skin off my nose, but it certainly does not change my mind one iota. Dave never accounted for changing light conditions, and these lighting conditions change rapidly. You can see those lighting changes play out on the surface structures in the first RD Lockheed movie on my website. The structure remain consistent throughout that video, but the lighting shifts around constantly. That is typical since the arcs are changing postions constantly. If you don't factor that aspect into your analysis, it won't give us valid results.
quote:
Or maybe you're just too lazy to work the bugs out of your own theory.
I think it's you guys that have been "lazy" IMO. I doubt for instand that HH even bothered to read the link I just posted for him, and I doubt you have as well. Its the fact you guys HAVEN'T spent any time analying solar images that causes this confusion. It ahs nothing to do with ME being personally lazy. I've collected evidence now from four different solar satellite programs to support my views. I've been involved in four different papers published on Arxiv in less than a year. I've been doing my homework and posting my results.
quote:
You've expressed some wonder at how you are being perceived as arrogant. This is one clear example.
This isn't about arrogance or anything of the sort. I simply see no logical viability to support Dave's analysis that never considered any of the more significant "problems" that relate to satellite images and how they must be "analysed" to get proper results. For instance, if one never considers the fact the loops move around, then sure, the images "move" around from a brighness of the pixel perspective. That is not evidence that the SURFACE moved. See that distinction?
quote:
So for a serious analysis of the "crater", how about you measure it and measure its movement.
I wouldn't try to measure it's movement from STANDARD images. I would do so with running difference images since that isolates the "surface" features.
quote:
Describe the depth and width.
It's depth? How would you suggest I do that without STEREO 3D capabilities?
quote:
Explain the mechanism for the "erosion".
Electricity rips off surface features into the arc and transports them somewhere else.
quote:
How much material gets moved? How fast? How?
That depends entirely on the amount of amperage flowing through the surface at any give moment. The electrical activity is the "cause" of the erosion.
quote:
Is it anomalous or is it something that we might expect to see regularly?
On small scales, the sun is "constantly" in the process of releasing elecrical arcs from all around the surface. We would therefore expect to see "some" surface erosion "regularly". There are however areas of intense activity where "significant" erosion takes place in a short period of time. You can see both these processes taking place in the first Lockheed running difference movie on my website. The "surface features" are not changing very much, but you can see "peeling" happening along the right side where heavy erosion is taking place because of intense electrical activity in that region. This is still a "minor" amount of surface change compared to some events.
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 14:50:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The fact the surface is erroding and pieces of it are being moved around the surface by the arcs precludes us from expecting the surface to remain "constant".
That is not a fact, that's just your (so far unsupported) conjecture. You've offered no mechanism by which large surface feature can "move around" intact over a solid surface.
Did you even BOTHER to READ the article I posted for you, yes or no?
When did I EVER claim that surface features move around 'intact'? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 15:01:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, I did, in detail. You've repeated that misinformation twice now, despite being corrected, so I am currently leaning towards the conclusion that you're lying about me on purpose, rather than simply not paying attention.
Where did you explain how you "eyeballed" the presumed "center" of the crater? How did you isolate light in the atmosphere, from the surface itself? Your use of terms like "lying" is what irks me about you Dave. I've been patient and I've been fair. You however toss out lingo that is intentially designed to SMEAR the individual.
quote:
I've been waiting for you to give me your methodology for distinguishing between surface reflections and arc emissions. You're the one who claims to be able to do so, not I.
That depends on what timeline we are talking about Dave. If I'm only looking for consistancy over a short window, even the raw images work fine. If we're talking hour long timelines, I personally prefer to use running difference images. I also tend to look for and isolate larger structures, preferably in less electrically active areas.
quote:
If the answer is "running difference images," then I will repeat my request for detailed instructions on how you created your RD images in PhotoShop, as you claimed.
I have created many running difference images in Photoshop, but NASA's RD image sand especially Lockheed Martin's RD images work better than mine, since no one can claim that I manipulated any of these images in any way. I prefer to use NASA's SOHO images to demonstrate surface rotation over a many hour time frame. I have provided movies on my website that are simply the combined NASA images, one frame after the other, with a short "morph" between the images to simulate movement. You can find an example of a single RD image here:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/20050527-1913.JPG
You can find a string of such NASA images in movie form here:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The%20Surface%20Of%20The%20Sun_0001.wmv
Again, this movie shows that not only do "some" features rotate with the sun's rotation, but ALL of them move, and move in unison. You won't find any signs of differential rotation in these images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/12/2006 15:07:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 15:17:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
How bout the 20 or so other major issues you've been ignoring then?
Like? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 15:34:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
First of all, I never "whine"....These are the kinds of childish and pointless tirades that get very old.
Main Entry: ti·rade
Pronunciation: 'tI-"rAd also ti-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, shot, tirade, from Middle French, from Old Italian tirata, from tirare to draw, shoot
: a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language.
I'd say that definition has described your communication "method" to a tee.
quote:
Clinging to a model that can't even explain the density of the sun without speculating about "unknown dark energy" is not a reasonable position. It is not the response of a sound mind.
What? According to current theory, dark energy/matter presumably accounts for not some but MOST of the matter of our universe. It "pushes" again things and affects our concept of "density". Since I can't technically "see" inside the crust, I have never actually posited a number that I claim represents the sun's *ABSOLUTE* density.
You are in fact the one that is claiming that a heliocentric model of the sun without regard to 90+ percent of the universe's mass is somehow a meaningful problem for me in some way. I simply disagree that heliocentric views of "absolute" density have any bearing at all on true absolute density in an ever accererating universe that is mostly composed of matter we can't even "see".
You however cling to a gas model concept based on FAITH, even though you can't use this theory to explain even the basics of that first Lockheed Martin RD image on my website. In fact you've never explained ANY solar image using gas model theory! You didn't explain that stratification layer at .995R with gas model theory. You didn't address that 35+ years of isotope analysis using gas model theory. Essentially you're just living on faith.
quote:
Neither is including a childish comment inside a comment where you accuse another of childishness.
Let's get real HH. Did you or did you not even bother to actually read the link I gave you? Yes or no? Who is being childish?
quote:
Michael:Ego is irrelevant to this discussion. I neither invented the iron sun idea, nor did I first propose it. I simply choose to favor Birkeland's/Bruce's/Manuel's model because it offers us a scientific means to explain what has been directly observed.
quote:
Ego has everything to do with it. You're smarter and more open-minded than all the other dogmatic scientists, remember?
No, you seem to have forgotten that Birkeland figured this all out nearly 100 years ago, remember? You seem to have ignored the fact that Bruce was talking about electrical discharges on the sun about 50 years ago. You seem to ignore the fact that Dr. Manuel has been promoting an iron sun theory LONG before I ever heard of any of these guys. Remember?
quote:
Why else can no one else working today see that the gas model is on such poor footing besides yourself?
Other people DO see this, and email me all the time. I get emails virtually every day supporting my work, and only ocassionally does anyone email me to complain.
This notion that I am somehow alone in my beliefs is false.
quote:
Though I'm not in the habit mincing words, since it seems to upset you so, I'll do my best to avoid derogatory slings in the future.
I think we would both enjoy the conversation more if you were able to convey your points in scientific terms rather than worry about my mental processes. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 16:00:53 [Permalink]
|
I've been following this debate for a while now, but there is one thing I am not sure I understand. It may have come up before but if it has, I have completely forgotten it. If so I apologise.
Michael, do you believe this model of the sun's composition holds true for all stars, or is it special for ours? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 16:30:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
This isn't about arrogance or anything of the sort. I simply see no logical viability to support Dave's analysis that never considered any of the more significant "problems" that relate to satellite images and how they must be "analysed" to get proper results. For instance, if one never considers the fact the loops move around, then sure, the images "move" around from a brighness of the pixel perspective. That is not evidence that the SURFACE moved. See that distinction?
Yes, I clearly see the distinction. You don't have any idea if that crater is stationary or not. You haven't applied any analysis to it. You're guessing that is it stationary, or maybe moves by erosion, but you're not willing to go through any effort to demonstrate how it might be either way. This assertion you make, based on the totality of your evidence, that you have observed what appears to you to be a solid surface, and all others who don't see the same things you see be damned.quote:
I wouldn't try to measure it's movement from STANDARD images. I would do so with running difference images since that isolates the "surface" features.
[...]
It's depth? How would you suggest I do that without STEREO 3D capabilities?
So you brought that crater in as evidence to support your idea that the surface is solid, yet you don't have any idea of its size.quote:
Electricity rips off surface features into the arc and transports them somewhere else.
[...]
That depends entirely on the amount of amperage flowing through the surface at any give moment. The electrical activity is the "cause" of the erosion.
So you don't have any idea how much material gets moved, or from where to where, or for that matter exactly how much electricity "rips off" the material or exactly how that ripping occurs.quote:
On small scales, the sun is "constantly" in the process of releasing elecrical arcs from all around the surface. We would therefore expect to see "some" surface erosion "regularly". There are however areas of intense activity where "significant" erosion takes place in a short period of time. You can see both these processes taking place in the first Lockheed running difference movie on my website. The "surface features" are not changing very much, but you can see "peeling" happening along the right side where heavy erosion is taking place because of intense electrical activity in that region. This is still a "minor" amount of surface change compared to some events.
So you don't know how dynamic this solid surface is. You don't know what amounts of "erosion" it might be subject to. You don't know how long this erosion might take.quote:
What is the light source? What is that "structure"? Why does the lighting change but the "structure" remain consistent? How does plasma stay "rigid" (since you think it's not solid)? What's the peeling going on along the right hand side?
Why are you asking us? You don't know the answers to those questions. It's your theory. Are you not able to answer those questions? Or are you not willing to answer them?quote:
These are the questions that gas model theoriest handwave away and never want to address. I find it then rediculace that you would accuse me of handwaving when I have provided scientific answers to every single one of these questions.
Well, except for all the questions that you can't answer because you just don't really know. And to those questions you somehow can't bring yourself to simply admit that you don't know. How about you say something like, "I don't know if that is or is not a crater. I don't know how it moves. I don't know how big it is. I don't know how much it erodes. I guess it's not really supportive of my solid surface sun theory. Sorry I brought it up." Why do you keep insisting that it moves by erosion, yet when others bring in the topic of its movement you claim that maybe it just looks like its moving? And if it takes the data from the STEREO satellites to really substantiate your ideas, why don't you just wait until you have that data to continue the development of your theory? After all, it's pretty clear that with what you have so far, you really don't know.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 19:57:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Where did you explain how you "eyeballed" the presumed "center" of the crater?
Page three.quote:
How did you isolate light in the atmosphere, from the surface itself?
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how to do so. As soon as you explain that, and the lighting effects, and the erosion, then I'll be willing and able to re-calculate that entire page-three analysis and see what answer comes up then. But I can't do that until you explain, with equations and examples, how I can distinguish erosion from lighting effects from high-altitude hot iron, and how I can merge them in with my calculations of rotation rate. All of this can be cleared up as soon as you do so. What I had before was obviously a first-order estimate, it's up to you to provide the necessary physics before anyone can more accurately analyze the data available.quote:
Your use of terms like "lying" is what irks me about you Dave.
You repeatedly claiming that I haven't done what I have done irks the fuck out of me, Mozina.quote:
I've been patient and I've been fair.
That's your opinion. Someone who's shown all of his calculations and raw data might feel differently in light of your complete lack of justification for any image being at 0.995R (for just one example of a calculation-free conclusion).quote:
You however toss out lingo that is intentially designed to SMEAR the individual.
You've been smearing me, Mozina. Do you really think you can get away with criticizing others when you exhibit the exact same behaviour?quote:
That depends on what timeline we are talking about Dave. If I'm only looking for consistancy over a short window, even the raw images work fine. If we're talking hour long timelines, I personally prefer to use running difference images. I also tend to look for and isolate larger structures, preferably in less electrically active areas.
You tell me what form of analysis is appropriate for the "crater," and over what time span. You've been working on this stuff far longer than I have. Heck, just give me your equations for erosion, lighting effects, and high-altitude ions, the rules for applying one method or another, and I'll learn them and apply them appropriately to whatever set of data you'd like me to.quote:
I have created many running difference images in Photoshop, but NASA's RD image sand especially Lockheed Martin's RD images work better than mine, since no one can claim that I manipulated any of these images in any way.
But we can't apply their tools to whatever data set we wish. Or is there someplace where their image manipulation software is available? Preferrably for free.quote:
I prefer to use NASA's SOHO images to demonstrate surface rotation over a many hour time frame. I have provided movies on my website that are simply the combined NASA images, one frame after the other, with a short "morph" between the images to simulate movement.
Yes, I know. I got less than halfway through analyzing those images, and then dropped the project because I know that if I come up with the wrong answer, you're just going to tell me that I didn't take erosion, lighting effects and high-altitude light sources into account. Tell me, precisely, your methodology for taking those 31 images and calculating a 27.3-day rotation rate. I want to know how you took erosion (etc.) into account.quote:
Again, this movie shows that not only do "some" features rotate with the sun's rotation, but ALL of them move, and move in unison. You won't find any signs of differential rotation in these images.
How did you take into account erosion, lighting effects, and high-altitude ions? What points did you measure within each frame? Did you consider the seconds value of each timestamp to be zero or some other value? No single feature spans all 31 frames, so did you run mutliple time analyses or did you merge the data somehow? What is the magnitude of the error inherent within a single pixel in those images? How far north and south did your analysis encompass? |
- 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 - 01/13/2006 : 10:49:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Page 3
quote:
I find the center of the "crater" at 06:56:47 on 18 August, 2003, to be at 626,526 in pixels.
Come on Dave. Evidently you "eyballed" the presumed "center" of an extremely large crater, and gave me not even a HINT of how you actually determined the "center", or how how you separated light from the atmosphere vs. light from the surface. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/13/2006 10:55:53 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 10:54:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I've been following this debate for a while now, but there is one thing I am not sure I understand. It may have come up before but if it has, I have completely forgotten it. If so I apologise.
Michael, do you believe this model of the sun's composition holds true for all stars, or is it special for ours?
I don't recall anyone asking this, but I would assume our sun is the Rosetta stone of understanding stars in a general sense. In other words, whatever we learn from the star in our backyard is liable to tells us a lot about stars in a general sense. I believe our sun is not unique, and all suns probably have "surfaces". |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 11:20:48 [Permalink]
|
| In that case, if all stars contain massive quantities of iron and other elements: how did the first stars form? As I understand it, there wouldn't have been enough iron atoms during the first billion years of the universe to fill swimmingpool. Let alone congeal into millions upon millions of stars. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 11:47:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Yes, I clearly see the distinction. You don't have any idea if that crater is stationary or not.
No, that is not true. The crater (as a whole) is certainly stationary. In other words it doesn't just "float around". You can see the stationary nature of these larger structures in SOHO RD IMAGES in this movie I made from NASA's RD images:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The%20Surface%20Of%20The%20Sun_0001.wmv
You won't find any sort of differential rotation in that movie, even thought it spans over 8 days in length. You will however see the whole "surface" rotate, and all the structures on the surface rotate at the same speed, from pole to equator.
The crater isn't moving, though it "could" be in a state of erosion.
quote:
You haven't applied any analysis to it. You're guessing that is it stationary, or maybe moves by erosion, but you're not willing to go through any effort to demonstrate how it might be either way.
That is simply not so. I put together a whole movie of RD SOHO images to demonstrate my point. I used Lockheed Martin's own RD images to show a whole range of "structure" on a "surface" that is not moving in any way. This is over a several hour timeline as well.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
What "structure" do you see "moving around" in that image? I see LOTS of lighting changes, but that mountain range in the center isnt' drifting toward or away from any of the edges of the image, or any of the other structures on that "surface".
quote:
This assertion you make, based on the totality of your evidence, that you have observed what appears to you to be a solid surface, and all others who don't see the same things you see be damned.
If I only had a SINGLE set of evidence to support my case, I might understand your attitude. As it is, I've provided evidence from 4 different solar satellites to support my case. Those who disagree with me are welcome to offer me a "scientifically" better explanation using gas model theory. That has NEVER happened in over 9 months of debate. What I get are a lot of cheap shots taken at me as a person, and zero real explanations for those structures in the Lockheed RD image, or the lighting source, or the peeling, etc.
quote:
So you brought that crater in as evidence to support your idea that the surface is solid, yet you don't have any idea of its size.
Huh? I brought the crater in as evidence because you can "see" it's shape and it's unusual shaped sides very clearly in both images. There is obviously a streamer coming up from one side of that crater, but you can see the indentations in the center, and the various angled edges in remarkable detail in both images. You can (and I have) overlay the two images and see how the craters align with one another in both images.
quote:
So you don't have any idea how much material gets moved, or from where to where, or for that matter exactly how much electricity "rips off" the material or exactly how that ripping occurs.
I can tell you a whole lot about the energy states of these electrical interactions:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
As far as how much material is being moved, where it's being moved, etc: These are variables that change with the ever changing solar activity. In other words, some areas are not very active. Other areas are very active. The amount of electrical activity will directly affect these numbers.
quote:
So you don't know how dynamic this solid surface is. You don't know what amounts of "erosion" it might be subject to. You don't know how long this erosion might take.
That is simply false. I showed you time stamped movies to show you the dynamic nature of this process:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002462/ar9906-zoom-rotate.mpg
quote:
Why are you asking us? You don't know the answers to those questions. It's your theory. Are you not able to answer those questions? Or are you not willing to answer them?
I *HAVE* answered them all. It's customary when comparing two scientific theories that both sides offer such explanations and then we can choose which one makes the most sense. Gas model theoriests don't offer any explanations, so what is there to compare?
quote:
Well, except for all the questions that you can't answer because you just don't really know. And to those questions you somehow can't bring yourself to simply admit that you don't know.
Huh? I'm more than happy to admit what I don't know (like what is under the surface). I do know many things however because I can see them. Because I can see what goes on from the crust outward, I can explain about any behavior in about any solar image given a few details about the image. I can't whip out answers that aren't scientifically answerable, like how much erosions takes place? It is VARIABLE, and I can't just "guess" about local conditions.
quote:
How about you say something like, "I don't know if that is or is not a crater. I don't know how it moves. I don't know how big it is.
I do know it's a crater, I've watched it move. I can figure out how "big" it is if I was interested in every detail. Dave even (accurately) explained the process of determing size and working with arc seconds, etc. There's nothing mysterious about these kinds of techniques.
quote:
I don't know how much it erodes.
It doesn't erode based on some math formula. The erosion is a direct result of the current flow and that varies with time.
quote:
I guess it's not really supportive of my solid surface sun theory. Sorry I brought it up."
If I believed that, I'd say s |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/13/2006 12:01:34 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
