|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2006 : 13:08:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The could also be in the process of heating up...
Not if quantum physics is correct. An atom which emits a photon is switching to a lower energy state, not a higher one.
I'm not going to discuss your non-scientific ideas anymore. If you really want to talk science, then go learn the science first. The idea that atoms emit photons when heating up is absurdly wrong. Nobody who is interested in the science of the Sun would ever say such a thing. You've demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you're not addressing the issues your model brings to light with any amount of science, but instead argue using strawmen, your disbelief, raw speculation and obviously incorrect "facts." That you demand others stick to the "science" only shows your hypocrisy. |
- 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 - 01/27/2006 : 13:13:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
"Electricty" is not an erosion process. You claim it is the driving mechanism of this mysterious process, but eletricty in and of itself is not sufficient to account for the rebuilding of "mountains" one they've been vaporized away. No geologist would ever stop at "wind" to explain erosion here on Earth, since it is a woefully incomplete description.
The flow of electricity in and around the surface features is the process that drives the vast majority of the surface changes we see. There are of course techtonic forces at play as well, but the dynamic nature of the surface changes is mainly related to the surface erosion that is caused by the arcs. I even posted images to demonstrate what this looks like in both the Trace RD image (peeling on right) and in the RHESSI/TRACE composite movie. The blue areas from the Rhessi image represent areas of posititron/electron anihilation. These are the processes that drive most of the surface change.
quote:
First of all, Dave and I don't need to explain anything or "be on the same page." We aren't defending a theory, remember?
In a very overt way, you both ARE defending gas model theory. Both of your are in fact USING gas model theory to explain these images. You can't claim you aren't supporting gas model theory if you are using use parts of that theory to explain the images! You are in fact defending gas model theory and using that theory in your explanation. So is Dave. You both are supporting gas model theory and using it to explain satellite images. You must both therefore conform to gas model theory. That theory insists that this layer sit in the lower corona, not the photosphere. According to current theory, there is an entirely different plasma layer (presumably thinner) sitting between the convecting photosphere and this layer. You can't then use your explanation since those structures relate to the photosphere, not the lower corona.
Even if you don't want to defend the gas model, you can't create what amount to "ad hoc" explanations that don't jive with gas model theory or Birkelands model, or you're simply promoting your own alternative theories and you do need to 'prove' your alternative, just like I do. Since NASA and Lockheed
quote:
Secondly, my remarks weren't meant to be taken as anything more than a layman's description.
Your layman's description is incorrect according to NASA and Lockheed. Even by NASA's standards, this transition region not located in the photosophere so structures in the photosphere cannot be used to explain these images.
quote:
Since clouds of gas can hold "shapes" for extended periods of time, your obeservations are absolutely worthless.
That fact that clouds in an air atmosphere might hold "shapes" for extended periods of time has nothing to do with this conversation since we have vastly different proceses going on at the surface of the photosophere. In addition we're talking about temperatures that create convective forces in the plasma, and the plasma is boiling like a pot of boiling milk, while filaments are created and destroyed every 8 mintutes or so. We can see OBVIOUS changes in the photosophere in closeup images over even 15 minute timelines. The rotation is due to the thinness of the plasma and the fact that plasma is not rigid. The lower corona is even LESS thick than the photosphere and MORE ACTIVE in terms of heat and movement.
quote:
I don't care how long you've stared at images taken over a few hours. I will always reject them as being consistent with a plasma.
So really, you've already made up your mind, and nothing anyone says or shows you is going to change your mind?
quote:
What you consider to be the strongest aspect of your case, I consider to be the weakest. I don't care what you think you see. I don't believe you understand what you're looking at.
But you essentially gave me a handwave of an arguement that was also inaccurate according to the same theory that you were using at the time. I can't then accept this explanation as viable. In essense, I know for a fact that your answer is not correct, not according to Birkeland, and not according to NASA. You can't then logically expect me to believe that your explanation is even scientifically viable in the first place. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/27/2006 15:06:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 14:47:03 [Permalink]
|
Before I get into a full response, I have two simple questions for you Dave....
Is the density value for the surface of the photosphere a "calculated" value based on this heliosiesmology data set, or is the data set "normalized" to the theoretical prediction of density at the surface of the photosphere based on gas model theory?
Do these techniques assume that sound changes reflect density changes in soilds, or do the techniques ASSUME that speed changes are a result of temperature changes in plasma?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 15:02:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The could also be in the process of heating up...
Not if quantum physics is correct. An atom which emits a photon is switching to a lower energy state, not a higher one.
So what? Electrical arcs emit lots of light Dave. As long as power is available, the arcs will emit light.
quote:
I'm not going to discuss your non-scientific ideas anymore. If you really want to talk science, then go learn the science first.
That is ultimately nothing but a cheap shot based on a strawman. I've even gone to all the trouble of going through the heliosiesmology papers you asked me to read for you and I isolated the exact ISSUE that I'm concern with. I also pointed out several phenomenon in this data that supports Birkeland's model, including the flow patterns of the plasma.
Notice how that is VASTLY different than than how you have dealt with the isotope analysis.
quote:
The idea that atoms emit photons when heating up is absurdly wrong.
You simply took my quote and built a strawman from it so you could get on your soapbox. Are you proud of yourself?
An electrical arc will continue to emit light as long as there is sophicient current present and flowing in the arc. The mechanical atomic reactions that release the photons do emit photons most actively *with* the electricity applied, and only BECAUSE the electricity is applied to add excess energy to the system. The electricity heats the material that ultimately results in photon output. The moment the electrical source is removed, the materials cool down and the arcs stop emitting photons. All I was suggesting is that it is the excess energy from the electricity that ultimately provides the energy to release these photons, regardless of the mechanical inner workings at the atomic level. All you did is build a strawman to go on crusade. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/27/2006 15:06:19 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2006 : 20:43:36 [Permalink]
|
Michael Mozina is trying to prove his conjecture about there being a solid iron surface on the sun. I've broken down one of his typical postings below and shown that within all that material, over 3,000 words, he has not provided a single solitary piece of evidence to support his conjecture. In tens of thousands of words he has written in these threads, he has not yet once shown any relevant calculations, provided any supportive equations, demonstrated a reasonable working knowledge of the kind of physics necessary to substantiate his claim, or for that matter, offered any details to explain the supposed properties of his "solid" surface.
This much we do know so far...
(1) He has acknowledged that helioseismology research by Dr. Kosovichev and others does not provide support for his position. (Although he seems to wildly waver between believing it supports his notion and believing it is a wholly unreliable method for determining density. But for the most part, he admits it can't possibly back his claim, mostly because the most widely accepted explanations of its use and its results bear evidence of a surface which isn't solid.)
(2) He has acknowledged that Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis does not provide evidence to support his claim. (Although he will alternatively accuse others of neglecting to consider it, demanding that it does support his guess, and admitting that it does not support his guess.)
(3) He has acknowledged that the University of Maryland research into coronal loops only indicates that electricity is associated with the loops, but does not actually provide evidence that it causes erosion of his solid surface. (Yet he is willing to cite that research to support his guess.) He has acknowledged that this research has not substantiated his claim that electricity is the source of light from the sun. (But he cites the research when trying to support that guess, too.)
So by Michael's own admission, the isotope analysis, the electricity associated with coronal loops, and the helioseismological evidence can all be discarded as evidence. He admits that he is unable (or maybe unwilling) to do any calculations that might provide a legitimate scientific connection or correlation between any of these things and his guess in order to support the idea that his conjecture might be true.
That leaves one singular individual piece left that he can claim as evidence, and that is his interpretation of the pictures and videos he's looked at for a long long time. And to this point, he hasn't been able to explain what he sees thoroughly or well enough to get nearly anyone else to agree with his interpretation.
I know it irks you immensely Michael, that I have regularly shredded your claims, exposed your total lack of ability to perform calculations or demonstrate legitimate scientific methodology, pointed out your bogus attempts at guessing, and laid bare your flawed logic. But it's happened before, and as long as you persist on trotting through town in your Emperor's New Clothes, it will continue to happen. You'll either need to get used to it, knock off your incessant demands that your wild guesses prove your fantasy, or god forbid, actually do the kind of work necessary to develop and present an effective case in an even remotely scientific way.
And before you go pissing and moaning again about how you think other people aren't doing their share of the work, aren't helping you prove or disprove your guess, let me remind you again: It's your claim. It's your job to prove it. You haven't. So don't start your whining about that again. Consider not making yourself look even more foolish than you already do, and just shut up.
The 3,200 word posting, 100% devoid of evidence...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
The only logical "solid" here I can think of would be the two images of meteorite fragments on the first page of my website.
Not even a wild guess has been made as to the temperatures of the "solid" shell. No guess has been ventured as to how the meteorite material might stay solid within these temperatures. No guess within some broad range has been made as to the specific material composition of the shell. This is a guess that the solid shell is composed of the same material as shown in some pictures. (There's that looking at pictures for a long long time theme again.) This guess does not support the solid sun conjecture in any way. Discarded.
quote:
The sound travel will be directly related to the density and temperature and FORM of the material in question. By "form" here I mean "solid" or "plasma". Each layer will have it's own unique properties.
No attempt has been made by the claimant to make any scientific comparisons between the acoustical properties of plasma and that of a solid. No scientific analysis of any sort has been applied to this statement. A claim has been made of some relationship between temperature and form, yet no data has been presented, much less analyzed, to demonstrate such a relationship. This guess does not in any way support the wild guess of a solid shell sun. Discarded.
quote:
The penumbral filament layer IMO is neon plasma. I believe it to be quite a bit "thicker" than this aerogel consistency you attribute to the photosphere.
The claimant has stated an unsubstantiated opinion. No analysis has been presented to support the idea that the layer is composed of neon plasma. The claimant has admitted it is only his "belief" that this layer is non-specifically thicker than some other material. Straw man: Nobody has previously attributed an "aerogel consistency" to the photosphere. Discarded.
quote:
I have a quick question. Both you and Nereid seemed to be concerned about the propogation of light through this much plasma, but you seem to think it's outrageously thin in the first place. From your perpective, I'm suggesting that HUGE arc begin 3000 miles below this thin surface and extend all the way through it, into the chromosphere and beyond. I fail to see why you would logically question the fact that we would see light from giant arcs of this size through such a thin layer of material that you associate with the surface of the photosophere. I'm not altogether convinced that anything that thin and dispersed could ever hope to reflect sound waves, let alone block light from 3000 mile long arcs.
The claimant has not even made a rough guess as to how much electricity would make how much light. "Giant arcs" provides no measurable description of size. "Thin layer" provides no measurable description of size. The claimant displays a total lack of understanding of the light reflecting or refracting properties of plasma. Discarded.
quote:
Each and ever |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 10:09:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
It's not only "possible", in this case it is quite "probable" based on the evidence revealed in the technique. The "pinging" is actually caued by the electrical arcs in the first place. The movement of these sounds reveal a distinct transition layer at .995R. You can see this transitional region in the flow patterns of figure 3. The downward vertical flow patterns turn into horizontal ones at .995R. The underside vertical movements also "flatten out" as they hit the underside of the same layer. Despite Dave's claim there certainly *IS* evidence that plasma flows are interfered with by a stratification layer at .985R to .995R. In this region is a layer that interfers with the flow of plasma. That layer is certainly NOT "invisible" in the heliosiesmology data by any stretch of the imagination. You can see it's influence between figures 2A and 2B in the flow patterns near the columns, and you can see it's influence in figure 3 as downward flow patterns flatten out in this region.
It is interesting to note that Michael is arguing very strongly here that there is not a solid surface in the zone between 0.995R and 0.985R.
It sure was a lot more fun wasn't it Michael, when it was your supposedly well evidenced "theory" that the sun has a solid iron surface. But it's obviously becoming a whole lot less fun for you now that Birkeland's cheesy unsupportable model is being hauled off to the county dump. They're your kids when they're good and his kids when they're bad, eh? 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 12:15:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It is interesting to note that Michael is arguing very strongly here that there is not a solid surface in the zone between 0.995R and 0.985R.
Or, he might be arguing that the surface is so thin - on the order of 500 km - that it "misses" the data point bins or was averaged out of them. This would give a thickness-to-radius ratio of 0.000723, while the same ratio for Earth is 0.00235 (Earth's crust is 3.25 times thicker than the Sun's, proportionally speaking). Earth's crust has an average density of about 2.5 g/cm3, while Mozina's meteor-like crust would have a density of about 7.9 g/cm3. Earth's crust "floats" upon a mantle with an average density of about 3.9 g/cm3, while the Sun's "shell" somehow is buoyed up by a plasma of perhaps 0.00004 g/cm3. Mozina suggested that the Sun is built no different from any of the planets, but how he could possibly reconcile the Earth and the Sun while accepting any of the helioseismology data is beyond me.
Or, Mozina might have been arguing that there was a 247-million amp current running through the "shell," coincidentally at the same slow speeds - for electrons in a conductor - and directions as the plasmas above and below. Nevermind that current flowing in a conductor has not been shown to affect the velocity of sound in that same conductor. Of course, that amount of current is too low - by a factor of about 7,000 - to produce the typical magnetic fields seen near sunspots. Hell, 247 million amps produces a magnetic field of only 0.14 Gauss at 3,460 km (Earth's magnetic field at the surface is 0.5 Gauss, almost four times as strong). |
- 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 - 01/28/2006 : 12:40:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
(2) He has acknowledged that Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis does not provide evidence to support his claim. (Although he will alternatively accuse others of neglecting to consider it, demanding that it does support his guess, and admitting that it does not support his guess.)
I'm not even going to bother with most of your post, but this statement clearly demonstrates the depth of your denial process. Since Kosovichev doesn't share my interpretation, you MIGHT have a legitimate reason to question my use of heliosiesmology data from Kosovichev to support my case. On the other hand Dr. Manuel has included my work in his last four papers and has made if very clear, personally and professionally that he believe satellite images support his work and that my work is accurate. In fact, we are very good friends at this point, and we both respect one anothers work. The fact you deny this reality is indicative of the *SERIOUS* denial process you are engaged in. Since you don't have the scientific knowledge to deal with the isotope analysis, you simply hand wave it away and refuse to deal with it. In the process, you made a claim that is OBVIOUSLY false. I have no respect for you at this point GeeMack because your actions are exactly like those of a creationist. You haven't a clue how to deal with the isotope analysis, so you deny it exists or supports my case. You really should look up the term "denial". Your attitude toward Manuel's work is a textbook example of denial in action. :)
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 12:51:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It is interesting to note that Michael is arguing very strongly here that there is not a solid surface in the zone between 0.995R and 0.985R.
What? Are you even paying attention at all? There certainly *IS* a solid surface at the top of this layer, but like the crust of the earth, the crust of the sun is relatively "thin", and there is magma under the crust.
quote:
It sure was a lot more fun wasn't it Michael, when it was your supposedly well evidenced "theory" that the sun has a solid iron surface. But it's obviously becoming a whole lot less fun for you now that Birkeland's cheesy unsupportable model is being hauled off to the county dump. They're your kids when they're good and his kids when they're bad, eh?
Birkeland was 100 times the scientist that you will ever be GeeMack because he did the work that you refuse to do and he wasn't lazy like you. Birkeland currents have been confirmed just as he predicted, and the solar model he predicted has also been confirmed. The only thing headed to the county dump is Galileo's gas model. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 12:52:24 [Permalink]
|
I have two simple questions for you Dave....
Is the density value for the surface of the photosphere a "calculated" value based on this heliosiesmology data set, or is the data set "normalized" to the theoretical prediction of density at the surface of the photosphere based on gas model theory?
Do these techniques assume that sound changes reflect density changes in soilds, or do the techniques ASSUME that speed changes are a result of temperature changes in plasma? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 13:13:57 [Permalink]
|
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Here you go GeeMack....
Could you explain to me why you believe that Dr. Manuel's work does not support my work again? He's written 4 papers in the last year that have included my work. We are very good friend at this point, and it's clear even in our personal conversations that he fully supports my work. I'm really curious about how you deny all this. There must be quite a big fat juicy rationalization in there somewhere to explain that seemiingly irrational behavior. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/28/2006 13:17:55 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 13:44:58 [Permalink]
|
Sigh...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have two simple questions for you Dave....
No, actually, the questions are complex in that they assume a lot of stuff without actually mentioning it.quote:
Is the density value for the surface of the photosphere a "calculated" value based on this heliosiesmology data set, or is the data set "normalized" to the theoretical prediction of density at the surface of the photosphere based on gas model theory?
A false dichotomy which relies upon a lack of understanding of how the science was done. The top-of-the-photosphere value of 0.000002 g/cm2 and the just-above-0.995R value of 0.00003 g/cm3 are both from the standard solar model. Helioseismology has tested that theory and deemed it to be accurate to within 2% wrt density, to within 0.4% wrt the speed of sound squared and to within 0.3% wrt gamma (among other factors), by saying "if the standard solar model is correct (hypothesis), then sound should behave in certain ways when moving through the Sun (testable prediction), and it does (observational results)." If there were solids in the mix, then the observational results would not have matched those of the standard solar model, unless you are aware of a solid which has the same density (to within 2%) and compressibility (to within 0.3%) as a solar plasma. Do you?quote:
Do these techniques assume that sound changes reflect density changes in soilds, or do the techniques ASSUME that speed changes are a result of temperature changes in plasma?
Another false dichotomy which relies on ignorance of the techniques. Raw changes in sound speed can reflect changes in density, temperature, adiabatic exponent and/or media state, but these changes (especially the last two) will also affect the trajectory, amplitude and phase of the sound waves in detectable ways. So, the techniques assume neither of the proposistions in your question, but instead rely on the totality of the evidence to infer that a change in sound speed was due to one or more changes within the applicable parameters. |
- 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 - 01/28/2006 : 14:25:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm not even going to bother with most of your post, but this statement clearly demonstrates the depth of your denial process. Since Kosovichev doesn't share my interpretation, you MIGHT have a legitimate reason to question my use of heliosiesmology data from Kosovichev to support my case.
Most of my post is just a thorough analysis of one of your longer postings. I've shown without a shadow of a doubt that you haven't offered any legitimate evidence within it to support your notion. I wouldn't expect you to address it. I would hope, but not expect, because it seems way too difficult a task for you, I would hope you could include at least a tiny little bit of evidence in a 3,200 word "dissertation".
Regarding helioseismology, you waffle between condemning it as being totally unreliable when it seems to demonstrate that your conjecture is false, and dragging it in as supporting evidence when you believe it lends credence to your guess. Since even you can't agree with yourself on this issue, we will discard any concern for its possible support. You've only added more Mozina whining here. This lends no support to your guess. Discarded.
quote:
On the other hand Dr. Manuel has included my work in his last four papers and has made if very clear, personally and professionally that he believe satellite images support his work and that my work is accurate. In fact, we are very good friends at this point, and we both respect one anothers work. The fact you deny this reality is indicative of the *SERIOUS* denial process you are engaged in. Since you don't have the scientific knowledge to deal with the isotope analysis, you simply hand wave it away and refuse to deal with it.
I have nothing to deny. I'm not the one who postulated a notion about a solid surfaced sun and went out to tell the world without a shred of legitimate, scientifically acceptable evidence. That would be you. I certainly won't deny that you and Dr. Manuel respect one another's work. Whatever you two have between you is strictly your own business. But you've already agreed that Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis does not confirm your guess. Read it and weep, Michael...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
The isotope analysis cannot tell us whether or not the sun has a solid surface, which is your main conjecture.
That is quite correct.
And whether or not Dr. Manuel agrees with your speculation, whether you respect each other's work or not, or even whether you're pals has nothing to do with your case, or his, being valid. No evidence provided here. Discarded.
quote:
In the process, you made a claim that is OBVIOUSLY false. I have no respect for you at this point GeeMack because your actions are exactly like those of a creationist. You haven't a clue how to deal with the isotope analysis, so you deny it exists or supports my case. You really should look up the term "denial". Your attitude toward Manuel's work is a textbook example of denial in action. :)
I don't deny that isotope analysis exists. You haven't demonstrated in any way how you might calculate it into your guess about the solid surface. Until and unless you do that, it does not support your case, no matter what you think. You haven't made any scientific correlation between the isotope analysis and your solid surface guess. Well, other than to say it sure looks like it must be that 50+% iron, plus some otherwise totally indescribable mix of materials. Zero support provided here. Discarded.
And oddly enough you still don't understand who is responsible for proving your fantasy. I don't have to "deal with" isotope analysis. Allow me to repeat this simple explanation, in plain English, which has been stated many many times, yet you seem to lack the basic reading or language comprehension skills necessary to get it. It's your claim, Michael. The burden of proving it falls squarely upon you. You haven't yet done that.
So there goes another one of your postings without even a tiny piece of evidence presented. Another entire Mozina posting... Discarded. 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 14:28:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
He's written 4 papers in the last year that have included my work.
If all he's done is include your work, then it isn't very proper of him to suggest that you were a co-author. But if you were a true co-author, then it's improper for you to say that Dr. Manuel wrote those papers (you would have said, "we wrote four papers in the last year that have included my work").
Of course, what's really at issue here is that when GeeMack wrote that you've "acknowledged that Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis does not provide evidence to support [your] claim," you instead read it as saying that you've "acknowledged that Dr. Manuel... does not... support [your] claim." After all, the fact that Dr. Manuel supports you personally doesn't mean that the isotope analysis supports your theory, especially when you seemed to agree that an abundance of iron doesn't necessarily mean an iron shell.
Besides, you co-authored "Isotopes Tell Sun's Origin and Operation." It's not like the isotope analysis was wholly done by Dr. Manuel independent of your ideas.
By the way, where can we see an abundance list for the whole Sun, like in figure 11 of the above paper? Given that the Earth's atmosphere isn't representative of the Earth's interior, I'd like to see just how different the Sun's interior is from its photosphere (which is mostly hydrogen, you agree). |
- 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 - 01/28/2006 : 14:52:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What? Are you even paying attention at all? There certainly *IS* a solid surface at the top of this layer, but like the crust of the earth, the crust of the sun is relatively "thin", and there is magma under the crust.
Nobody has demonstrated in any scientifically acceptable way that there "certainly is" a solid surface at any level or any depth on the sun. To this point the only thing we know for certain is that's your guess. You don't have the slightest idea how "thin" your postulated crust is. You've never even remotely described its specific thickness. You use the term "relatively" here without providing even a hint how you've come to make that completely ambiguous assessment. Again you babble without interjecting anything that might even be loosely construed as evidence. Discarded.
quote:
Birkeland was 100 times the scientist that you will ever be GeeMack because he did the work that you refuse to do and he wasn't lazy like you. Birkeland currents have been confirmed just as he predicted, and the solar model he predicted has also been confirmed. The only thing headed to the county dump is Galileo's gas model.
First, you haven't presented any quantitative analysis to show how you arrived at your figure of "100 times the scientist". Second, you still seem to be living under the delusion that doing the work necessary to support your silly idea is anyone else's responsibility but your own. Third, the existence of field-aligned currents is a completely separate issue from the possibility that the sun has a solid surface, and it certainly doesn't follow that if Birkeland was correct in his notions about magnetic fields and plasma, he must have also been correct about any other conjecture. And fourth, you just wasted one more complete posting without even attempting to add a modicum of evidence to support your guess. Discarded.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
