|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:57:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Manuel's work certainly supports Birkelands model as does the satellite imagery. It's not MY model, and this debate is not about ME. Get over it.
Then stop throwing a tantrum every time someone shows how you've miserably failed to provide any evidence. How about instead of whining and bitching, you actually set about the job of building a scientific body of support for your guess? Holy smokes, for someone who's so certain it's not about you, you sure do take it personally when someone proves you have so utterly failed to support your case.
Oh, and again you spend a whole posting with nothing more than whining. And again I'll be happy to point out that there isn't a mote of evidence in the whole lot. Discarded. 
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:58:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by Dave W....
Where can I read about Birkeland's solar model in Birkeland's own words?
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
This material does not seem to provide any information that might confirm Birkeland's notion that the sun has a solid surface. Please provide references to his specific comments on that issue.
Oh for goodness sake GeeMack, read something! Start with the two volumes found on that link. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 19:08:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Then stop throwing a tantrum every time someone shows how you've miserably failed to provide any evidence.
You are so full of it GeeMack. I've provided isotope analysis that shows the sun is mostly iron and mass separates the plamsa in it's atmosophere. You "discard" it with a careless handwave. I showed you running difference and doppler images that show no signs of differential rotation. You discard it. I show you evidence of flow plasma patterns that end right where the sound wave change and flow patterns consistent with Birkeland's model, and you "discard it".
You're absolutely, positively, full of it. You're just doing what every good creationist does. You're ignoring the isotope analysis. You are doing what creationist do when they ignore the science entirely! That's all you are doing. I have about as much respect for your opinion as I do for any stanch creationist that ignores isotope analysis.......in other words: none. Get over yourself and get over me GeeMack. I don't care what you think of me. I could care less what Dr. Discard chooses to discard. It's no skin off my nose. You can believe Birkeland, or you can believe Galileo. It doesn't matter to me. I'm not even involved in this internal choice of yours frankly, other than the fact you keep trying to personalize it to an individual like any good creationist might do. It's not about me. Why don't you get that? Who cares what you think Dr. Discard? Certainly not me. Get over yourself.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 19:16:41 [Permalink]
|
In one post Michael again claims that there's some kind of importance to the isotope analysis...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You still don't seem to get it GeeMack. You're nothing but a two bit creationist in my book. The only thing that you've "discarded" is all sense of logical and rational thought. You can "discard" anything you wish, it's certainly no skin off my nose. I personally couldn't care less what you personally think. If you had a single ounce of integrity in your body, you would have dealt with the isotope analysis by now. Instead you handwaved it away just like any good creationist. Bravo Dr. Discard.
You're such a whiner, Michael. You'd be much more productive towards actually doing your job here if you'd leanr how to get over your little kid tantrums. I dealt with the isotope analysis. Directly. I showed exactly where you said it doesn't provide any support for your solid sun conjecture. Then in the post immediately after the one above you said...quote:
There is a HUGE difference between suggesting that the isotope analysis in and of itself does not prove the existence of a solid crust, vs. saying that Dr. Manuel's analysis does not support my model. You ALWAYS (I'll take the five point hit) take sentences out of context and build straw men. Yawn....
I'm not building a straw man, Michael. You see, literally one minute you demand that other people are neglecting isotope analysis, and the next you're admitting again that it's meaningless to your case. You simply don't have the slightest idea what it is you're trying to say. You contradict yourself. You waste thousands of words doing nothing but whining and moaning about how lousy your case is and how desperately you wish people would just believe you anyway. Well until you can actually build a case, you're only going to continue to make yourself look like a babbling idiot.
Now, do you actually have any evidence to provide that might, in some legitimately scientific way, support the idea that the sun has a solid surface?
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 19:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You are so full of it GeeMack. I've provided isotope analysis that shows the sun is mostly iron and mass separates the plamsa in it's atmosophere. You "discard" it with a careless handwave.
You're the one who said isotope analysis does not support your wild guess about the sun being solid. When will you learn to just shut the fuck up and stop making such a fool of yourself? On the issue of isotope analysis, anytime you mention it from this point onward, you'll know, and I'll know, and anyone else that reads any of these threads will know, you're just babbling irrelevant nonsense. We don't care about it anymore. It's useless information.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 19:25:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You're such a whiner, Michael.
You might be right about the whining. I do tend to whine when people handwave away isotope analysis. I tend to whine when people handwave away a running difference image that took million of dollars and hundreds of man years to acquire. I tend to whine when people resort to the use of ad hominem in debate rather than deal with the scientific issues that have been presented. I guess that does make me a bit of a whiner alright.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 19:27:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You're the one who said isotope analysis does not support your wild guess about the sun being solid.
It's not a wild guess, and that isn't the same as suggesting his work does not support my case or that he disagrees with my interpretation of the evidence.
The only one that is making a fool of themselves here is you. The longer you keep ignoring the isotope analysis that suggests the sun is mosly iron and mass separates the plasmas in it's atmosphere, the more foolish you will look. How long do you intend to look like a fool GeeMack? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 19:52:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You're absolutely, positively, full of it. You're just doing what every good creationist does. You're ignoring the isotope analysis. You are doing what creationist do when they ignore the science entirely! That's all you are doing. I have about as much respect for your opinion as I do for any stanch creationist that ignores isotope analysis.......in other words: none.
[...]
The only one that is making a fool of themselves here is you. The longer you keep ignoring the isotope analysis that suggests the sun is mosly iron and mass separates the plasmas in it's atmosphere, the more foolish you will look. How long do you intend to look like a fool GeeMack?
Keep in mind that I'm being 100% consistent and you're the one who can't stay on track from minute to minute. I am clearly pointing out again and again how you've failed to support your case. You on the other hand, are wobbling out of control. Isotope analysis has nothing to do with supporting your case for a solid surface sun. You've already admitted that twice. And I have reviewed the material. And the fact that you and I both agree it does not support your case, yet you insist that I'm dismissing it without reviewing it, only goes to show you're losing any sense of reality about your project. Remember, you've clearly stated at least twice now that it does not support your solid surface sun fantasy. Too bad you can't let it go.
Add two more complete postings that were all filled with words but didn't contain an iota of support for the notion that the sun has a solid surface.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 20:29:12 [Permalink]
|
Before going further, Michael, in what units would one measure "absolute" density? What materials comprise your allegedly solid surface? How dense is it? What is its modulus of elasticity? What is its electrical resistance? Melting point? Are the plasmas in your model transparent to EUV light? How did you measure the depth at which the "action" in the Lockheed "gold" video takes place? What is under your allegedly solid shell? Using Dr. Manuel's equations, can you calculate for me the solar abundance of nickel?quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Bull. His statement was nothing more than a mathematical look at the odds of random chance. Period.
Baloney. "Could this be a coincidence?" is only a worthwhile question if the standard solar model claims that the similarities between the Sun and supernovae and meteorites are just coincidences. And if the question and answer weren't worthwhile, then Dr. Manuel was engaging in idle chit-chat in his article.quote:
You slapped on the label "creationism" on it to smear him by association.
Utter crap, I just pointed out the similarity between his bad argument and the creationists' same bad argument.quote:
Actually you have that backwards. He's already spent his whole life studying the solar output, and he knows more about astrophysics that most human beings. He's an EXCELLENT astrophysicist, and his work supports Birkeland's model who was another EXCELLENT astrophysicist.
Well, why is this "EXCELLENT" (+10 points) astrophysicist making such crappy arguments?quote:
I'll give you that one, since I edited the comment after you started responding. It was simply a mathematical look at the odds of random chance favoring specific elements.
It clearly is no such thing. It is an attempt to say that the Sun and supernovae are similar not by chance, in a paper which says that the standard solar model is wrong. Since no solar model I know of says the similarities are random, it's a completely unscientific argument.quote:
You were the one to slap a judgment label on a mathematical look at the odds.
No, Dr. Manuel's "Hardly!" (with an exclamation point, no less) was the first thing to "slap a judgement label" on it.quote:
Well, I haven't heard a single comment from you regarding the actual chemistry.
Well, it's obviously going to take me some time to find a full copy of "The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903" and then read it, since the link you provided only contains 19 pages from one volume, and I'm sure you'd castigate me for basing any opinion upon a less-than-complete knowledge of Birkeland's model. Given just those 19 pages, however, I can find no mention of the construction of Birkeland's cathode, so I would assume that any good conductor of electricity would work, and thus both Manuel's mostly-iron model and the standard solar model would support Birkeland's model. Manuel's model thus does little more than contradict the standard solar model, which certainly isn't a necessary condition for Birkeland's model to be true.
I can also note that Birkeland was wrong about Saturn's rings, as well as the existence of coronium (of course, everyone before 1930 was wrong about coronium). How many more things was he wrong about? Probably quite a few, just like everyone else (Einstein and quantum mechanics comes to mind). How you can accurately predict that because he was right about the aurorae he will also be right about the Sun is beyond me, since history shows the opposite is often true.quote:
All I've heard from you amount to emotional reactions to an individual sentence that has nothing to do with the science he is presenting.
An individual sentence?! Facts really do mean nothing to you, do they?quote:
But Dave, you've not been able to dismiss my suggestion either!
Which is irrelevant. You are defending your solar model. If I point out an alternative explanation to one of the things which is necessary for your model to be correct, and you cannot dismiss it, then I don't need to agree that your model is correct.quote:
The fact the plasma flow stops at .995, makes you're suggestion that this is a "minor" change in density seem rather suspect. Your suggestion that this stratified layer is made of plasma is further eroded by the underside movement of that plasma that spreads out as it reaching the surface.
Once again, an argument from incredulity. If you aim two vertical jets of smoke directly at one another, you'll see both flows "stop" and "turn horizontal" with little density change and no solid surface.quote:
None of these movement patterns suggest a "small" change in density, in fact they suggest a significant one exists at .995R...
Well, now you're just saying things that are contrary to observations.quote:
...right where we see a significant change of sound speed and plasma flow directional shifts.
Once again, you don't seem to care about the facts. 3,480 km is not "right where" 4,800 km is.quote:
The fantasy here is believing that anyone's work is beyond scrutity and there there cannot be *any* other valid epxlanations for the data that is extracted from these methods.
All you've come up with are questions, and not a single shred of evidence that any helioseismic data point is wrong. Your questions assume things about helioseismology which are not correct (see below).quote:
You've no |
- 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 - 01/28/2006 : 23:40:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
When are "we" going to dicuss this issue anyway?
Why not now?quote:
The solar atmosphere is everything above the surface extending out to the sheath at the edge of the solar system.
Okay, show me the evidence that the Sun "mass separates" the plasmas between 45 AU and 90 AU. |
- 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 - 01/29/2006 : 00:44:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Keep in mind that I'm being 100% consistent and you're the one who can't stay on track from minute to minute.
The only consistent thing you've done around here is run like hell from the images and the isotope analysis. You're right about that part. You are consistent.
quote:
I am clearly pointing out again and again how you've failed to support your case.
You are clearly full of it.
quote:
You on the other hand, are wobbling out of control. Isotope analysis has nothing to do with supporting your case for a solid surface sun.
Manuel's analysis certainly does support Birkeland's model, dispite your stupid dodges.
quote:
You've already admitted that twice.
The only thing I have admitted here is that evidence of mass separation and evidence of a mostly iron sun is not in and of itself a guarantee that the sun will have a solid crust. Dr. Manuel has however hitched his wagon to my analysis of the satellite images, just as I have hitched my wagon to his isotope analysis. You are the one asserting this kind of BS:
quote:
And I have reviewed the material.
You have "reviewed the material" like a creationist might "review" isotope analysis.
quote:
And the fact that you and I both agree it does not support your case,
BZZZZZT. I didn't say that. This is your BS, not mine, and it's false. Manuel's work does support my work, and he agrees with my assessment of the satellite imagery. It is you that keep asserting that *I* (like you read my thought) claim his work does not support my case. It certainly does support my case that the sun is mostly iron. It certainly does support my case and my observations that the sun is mass separated. It certainly does support my case that the sun leaks hydrogen gas that mass separates the plasma. His work supports my case in many ways. That is what I have "agreed" to, not your crap.
quote:
yet you insist that I'm dismissing it without reviewing it, only goes to show you're losing any sense of reality about your project.
The fact of the matter is that you have not reviewed the material and you have not shown anything about the material that is false. Manuel's work fully supports Birkeland's model just as I've said all along. If you want proof of a solid surface you'll need to actually look at the images, starting with the Lockheed RD image and try to explain them logically. You of course won't deal with that data either.
quote:
Remember, you've clearly stated at least twice now that it does not support your solid surface sun fantasy. Too bad you can't let it go.
You are living the fantasy, not me. Dr. Manuel and I have already done four different papers together and he does certainly agree with my assessment of a rigid surface at a shallow depth under the photosphere. You'd have to read some of those papers of course, but you won't do that part. That takes real effort.
quote:
Add two more complete postings that were all filled with words but didn't contain an iota of support for the notion that the sun has a solid surface.
I'm getting awefully bored of trading pointless insults with you. It's pretty clear you can't disprove anything Dr. Manuel has said, and you won't touch the material. Instead you're looking for any loophole to run through, and any reason you can think of to play Dr. Denial with this evidence. Who do you think you're kidding? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 00:50:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why not now?
Fine, when do you intend to start?
quote:
Okay, show me the evidence that the Sun "mass separates" the plasmas between 45 AU and 90 AU.
Why would you start there instead of the chromosophere, photosphere, penumbra or umbra? The delineations in these regions is very demonstrateable.
What causes the density change between the chromosophere and photosphere, how big a difference is it, and what is the difference between the umbra and penumbra, and why are they separate layers? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 01:07:58 [Permalink]
|
Before going further, Michael, in what units would one measure "absolute" density? What materials comprise your allegedly solid surface? How dense is it? What is its modulus of elasticity? What is its electrical resistance? Melting point? Are the plasmas in your model transparent to EUV light? How did you measure the depth at which the "action" in the Lockheed "gold" video takes place? Can you prove that the loops and arcs move around during the period that movie takes place? How can I tell a shadow from a lack of emissions in that movie? What is under your allegedly solid shell? Using Dr. Manuel's equations, can you calculate for me the solar abundance of nickel? Where is the evidence that helioseismologists always assume that a change in sound speed means a change in temperature?quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Fine, when do you intend to start?
I already have.quote:
Why would you start there instead of the chromosophere, photosphere, penumbra or umbra? The delineations in these regions is very demonstrateable.
Because the claim that the Sun mass-separates plasmas in the "solar atmosphere" is a very broad claim, indeed, when the "solar atmosphere" is defined as everything from 1.0R to 100 AU. I already suspect I know the answers when the question is "very demonstrable," what's interesting to me is what the answer would be way the hell out in the solar system. You're the one who defined the term as you did, and made the claim that you did. You should be able to demonstrate the truth of your claim no matter what distance from the Sun was requested. If you cannot do so, then why did you make those claims in the first place?quote:
What causes the density change between the chromosophere and photosphere, how big a difference is it, and what is the difference between the umbra and penumbra, and why are they separate layers?
It's your model, why don't you tell me? I'm extremely interested in why you think the umbra and penumbra are "different layers," and where you think they reside compared to granules and supergranules. |
- 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 - 01/29/2006 : 11:04:32 [Permalink]
|
Again a perfectly legitimate scientific question is asked, and again Mozina tries to slither his way out from under it. Then in his usual inimitable display of a total lack of scientific competence, he asks a question that he should be able to answer. Something about the concept of supporting his own claim just seems to be impossible for him to grasp.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by Dave W....
Okay, show me the evidence that the Sun "mass separates" the plasmas between 45 AU and 90 AU.
Why would you start there instead of the chromosophere, photosphere, penumbra or umbra? The delineations in these regions is very demonstrateable.
What causes the density change between the chromosophere and photosphere, how big a difference is it, and what is the difference between the umbra and penumbra, and why are they separate layers?
So there goes another posting that could have provided some evidence that the sun has a solid surface, well, if there were any such evidence. But instead, Mozina dodged the question and tried to slide the burden of support away from himself. So is that posting accepted or discarded for providing evidence? Just like pretty much all of his others... Discarded.
Michael, you're quick to throw an insult because you don't have a case. I think we're all tired of your temper tantrums, your shucking and jiving, your snake oil pitch. Your signal to noise ratio so far is 0:100. You simply can not provide scientifically acceptable support for your claim. When your feeble attempt gets put through the shredder all you have left is more insults. You talk the talk, and you even do a lousy job of that. But you can't walk the walk. I'm calling you out. Put up or shut up.
I challenge you to go back through the entire 40+ pages of this thread and quote yourself even once, anywhere you've actually given legitimate, scientifically acceptable evidence to support the notion that the sun has a solid iron surface. Evidence backed with references which don't come from your own material, supported with an explanation demonstrating its validity according to the laws of physics, described in specific mathematical, chemical, and/or physics terminology, and not being an argument from incredulity, false dichotomy, ad hoc apologetics, or an assumption of evidence that relies on your guess already being true.
If the surface of the sun is solid it has describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. You have not locked in on even a broad range of specifications to describe these characteristics. If your allegedly solid surface is indeed solid, I challenge you now to...
- Specify the thickness of the surface within +/- 5000 km.
- Specify the temperature of the surface within a range of +/- 2000°C.
- Specify the density of the surface within +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
- Describe a material composition, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion of the whole within +/- 10%.
And I challenge you to create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
And, since you claim that you're only supporting Birkeland's conjecture, I challenge you to show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the sun. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers.
Time to stop all your babbling, whining, hollering, foot stomping, complaining, feeling persecuted, apologetics, ad hocisms, and all the other bullshit you spew that doesn't get you any closer to proving the sun has a solid surface, Michael. You won't do it because you simply can't. And you'll prove that you can't by continuing to refuse to do it.
In four months in the BAUT forum you apparently weren't able to create a single convert. In 40+ pages, almost 300 postings here you haven't created a single convert. The only people that accept your claim are Dr. Manuel and perhaps a half dozen of his disciples. Whether your conjecture is true or not, you clearly do not have what it takes to convince anyone. For christ's sake, more people believe the Earth is hollow! 
I predict Michael will give no straight answers to any of the above questions. I predict he will get defensive. I predict he will claim he's already provided the answers. I predict he will again show how he doesn't understand the simple concept that it's his responsibility to prove his own claim. And I predict an ad hominem attack on me for having the nerve to expect him to actually do the job he hasn't yet even begun to do. Any bets?
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/29/2006 12:33:18 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2006 : 12:28:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Again a perfectly legitimate scientific question is asked, and again[/i] Mozina tries to slither his way out from under it.
Look who's talking Dr. Denial? I must have asked you a dozen times to address the nuclear chemistry and you've "slithered" away from that issue ever single time. You obviously don't have the competence to deal with it, nor the integrity to admit it. You of all people should really avoid throwing stones. The only thing that is impossible for me to grasp is how you can utterly ignore the Lockheed and SOHO RD images, utterly ignore the isotope analysis, utterly ignore those flow patterns we see in heliosiesmology data, utterly ignore Birkeland's work, and utterly ignore Bruces work as well. I find that behavior impossible to grasp.
quote:
I predict Michael will give no straight answers to any of the above questions.
I predict you will never give me a straight answer to the very first question I asked you, specificallly the nuclear chemistry. I predict you will do what you always do and run like hell from anything even remotely related to science. I predict you will keep personalizing the issue, and ignoring the work of Birkeland, Bruce and Manuel only because it scares the hell out of you. I predict that no matter how much additional information I might lay out your feet, you will continue to personalize the issue, because you don't have the scientific knowledge to deal with any of the real issues openly and honestly. I predict instead that you'll keep looking for places to hurl cheap shots and pointless diatibe, since that seems to be about all you're good for.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/29/2006 12:30:15 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
