|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2006 : 13:34:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not if the helioseismology was done improperly.
A single aspect of someone's work can be inaccurate, or can be misenterpreted based on a misconception, WITHOUT invalidating ALL of the work of an individual. It's never as back and white as you seem to suggest. The technique Kosovichev is using obviously works quite well at revealing mass flows and I have a great deal of confidence in the mass flow aspects of his findings. The ASSUMPTION that no solids can exist under the photosphere is NOT accurate however, and it skews the HEAT related aspects of these images. In other words the change in the speed of the sound waves is currently attributed to a temperature change, when in fact it could and does actually represent an area of density change. This idea is supportable based on the mass flow patterns seen in his other work. The downard mass flow patterns show a definite tendency to end at .995R. Likewise the underside mass flow patterns are quite different than the flow patters above this density change, and show signs that the column has risen into a layer that is rigid and causes the material to pushes away from the rising column.
quote:
And if it was done properly, then the density of your allegedly solid shell must be far less than that of any known solid.
In this case the term 'properly' relates back to a specific "assumption" that was made at the time these bits of data were being analysed. If we are trying to use this data to differentiate between a Birkeland solar model and a gas model, we would need to incorporate a METHOD to determine if a speed change was actually due to temperature change or density change. Since the "assumption" these results are based upon does not account for even the possibility that solids could exist under the photosphere, there is no way to use this data to help us answer this question. If and when you can show us a reliable METHOD to differentiate between density changes, and temperature changes, then you can make such statements. Since we do not know whether Birkland's model is correct or gas model theory is correct, it is not "proper" to simply ASSUME that everything below the surface of the photosphere is made of plasma and ASSUME that any sound changes are related to heat fluxuations. Because Birkeland's model was never considered in these density calculations, these results cannot be used to falsify Birkeland's model. That speed change at 4800km could be a solid, which would also cause an increase in the speed of the sound waves. This posibility of a solid layer under the photosophere was not considered in the density paper by Kosovichev. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 14:18:31 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 13:49:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
One of the things that the folks over at the BAUT forums kept "pinging" Michael on was his inability to present even a first-order estimate of anything (if I remember correctly).
Actually, that is false. I offered some general OOM calculations as it relates to the total output of the sun, and showed how that number relates to the Lockheed Martin images. When I offered this data, it was promptly ignored, just like every other piece of data I offered to support my case.
Instead of using or considering anything I presented and could present, I was instead *TOLD* to do OOM calcs on *ONLY TWO* images (so they woulndn't have to consider what Yohkoh or Rhessi see). Better yet, I was given a "two parter" that included the NEED to figure out light penetration through plasma, not one of my "stronger" suits at the moment. Not only did I present my own OOM calcs, I showed some from the University of Maryland. Had they not banned me, I would have posted some new info from Lockheed Martin, about the RANGE of capabilities of these satellites. The 171A and 195A filters are able to see calcium emisions in the 4 million degree range and are also able to see Fe XX ions at 10-20 MILLION degrees. In short, if the dark areas of that surface were "hotter" than the light areas, they would need to be in excess of 20 million degrees. My black body calculation already showed that they are WELL over budget in terms of energy release (by several orders of magnitude) even at 1 million degrees. I could of course run the black body numbers for a 20 million degree surface for you here, but what would be the point? That calculation would be completely rationalized away or utterly ignored, just like everything else I present.
http://trace.lmsal.com/Science/ScientificResults/Publications/phillips_tr_resp_apj.pdf
Not only did I provide OOM calcs of my own (1 million degree black body), I provided some from Lockheed and from the University of Maryland to support my case. None of that information was EVER considered, or dealt with. The "black body" calculation I provided was promptly ignored just as quickly as every other piece of data I presented. It doesn't matter if the information is mathematical or chemical or visual in nature. It all gets ignored. Since I wouldn't go away quietly, they just needed a reason to ban me. They therefore put up hurdles and required SPECIFIC calculations from me that I'm simply not qualified to give right now, particularly since we can't agree on what plasma is made of, or how 'thick' it is.
quote:
He hasn't done so here, either, thought that by itself is unlikely to get him banned here. Since he won't even report FOEs made by Birkeland, Bruce and/or Manuel, even in cases where Michael claims that they proved something or other (electrical arcs, for example), I can only conclude that he doesn't understand any of the things he's been proposing, nor does he understand the methods of science.
The University of Maryland has already demonstrated the link between CME and electricity:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~white/papers/03_norh_020723.pdf
So now it's ok to ignore the University of Maryland's work only because some indidual didn't provide some additional math?
From my perpespective, the need for mathematical representation by me PERSONALLY, before even considering the nuclear chemistry and the other data I've presented is unscientific. It would not matter if I personally could not do ANY MATH WHATSOEVER. That has no influence on the value of any of the other materials I have presented over the last year.
The whole notion of "banning" someone only because they disagree with you and won't do your personal bidding is rediculace. That is the way a RELIGION operates. That is not supposed to be how a SCIENTIFIC organization functions. IMO that website is properly named. It's definely "bad astronomy" alright. Burn the heretics! |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 14:25:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 13:59:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It's a shame, too. The subject could be much more interesting if he had any more to offer than just noise.
What is a "shame" is that people like you hurl mud and false statements rather than tackle the data that is presented, and rather than deal with the issues "sientifically". The isotope analysis is not NOISE. The images are not "noise". They are OBSERVATION, and that is what science is all about.
Now as long as you simply IGNORE the data, I can't MAKE you wake up. On the other hand, Birkeland's work does enjoy strong support in the field of nuclear chemistry and in the field of satellite image analysis. It also has heliosiesmic support as well.
The difference between us is like night and day. I didn't shy away from tackling the papers Dave asked me to look at. In fact I showed evidence from one of them to support my case, and I showed the EXACT NATURE of the the error that was made in the density paper. I did my job. I took the data that was handed to me, and I went through it carefully. I isolated the exact nature of my concern, and the exact reason why I disagreed with ONE aspect of Kosovichev's work. I didn't try to dismiss his other work. I didn't try to ingore it either. I dealt with it directly.
You on the other hand haven't even lifted a finger to deal with the isotope analysis, or to attempt to isolate the problem with the isotope analsys. You also never offered a comprehensive explanation for even the very first image on my website. Instead you ignore the isotope analysis altogether, offer no legitimate explanation for even the first Lockheed RD image, and you have the nerve to act like I didn't have enough to offer you. Hoy Vey!
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 14:22:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That speed change at 4800km could be a solid, which would also cause an increase in the speed of the sound waves. This posibility of a solid layer under the photosophere was not considered in the density paper by Kosovichev.
So if 0.995R is about 3500 km, and you're making reference to a sound speed change that occurs at 4800 km, closer to 0.993R, are you moving your guess about where your alleged solid layer starts? Don't you have any concern for accuracy? Or is this just another example where you completely ignore real science and real calculations? Oh, I get it, dark matter is messing you up again.
And what about some specific answers to the 20 or so issues listed in this posting? Can we take it that you're simply going to ignore them and acknowledge that your entire premise is just a flight of fancy? Or are you going to address these critical concerns in some rationally scientific way?quote:
What is a "shame" is that people like you hurl mud and false statements rather than tackle the data that is presented, and rather than deal with the issues "sientifically". The isotope analysis is not NOISE. The images are not "noise". They are OBSERVATION, and that is what science is all about.
Your constant temper tantrums aren't getting you any closer to the massive amounts of work you need to do. For your guess to have any more substance than a fart in the wind, you'll need to apply a little real science and real math to the dozens of unanswered questions still hanging over you. But you probably won't. (I predict you'll throw another tantrum.)quote:
You on the other hand haven't even lifted a finger to deal with the isotope analysis, or to attempt to isolate the problem with the isotope analsys. You also never offered a comprehensive explanation for even the very first image on my website. Instead you ignore the isotope analysis altogether, offer no legitimate explanation for even the first Lockheed RD image, and you have the nerve to act like I didn't have enough to offer you.
And one more time, because you obviously are just too stupid to get this from the first several dozen times it's been mentioned: We have no responsibility to prove or disprove your silly guess. It's your silly guess. It's up to you to prove it. You haven't even come remotely close to doing that. And until you get a tiny little grip on what real science is all about it seems pretty unlikely that you will.
You can't support your guess with anything more than an unsupported opinion of a stack of perty pi'tures, a lot of babbling, and quite a bit of foot stomping. Looks like you're pretty close to being done here. 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 14:27:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
So if 0.995R is about 3500 km, and you're making reference to a sound speed change that occurs at 4800 km, closer to 0.993R, are you moving your guess about where your alleged solid layer starts?
No. I'm assuming that a calcium plasma layer sits between the silicon umbra and the surface. I'm assuming the calcium plasma has a higher density than the silicon, so much of the downward movment of the umbra would end where the calcium layer begins. The sound waves may not increase significally until the sounds traverse the calcium layer and hit the actual surface itself. You'll find the calcium layer of my model sits between the silicon and the surface:
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/NewModel.JPG
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 14:29:56 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 14:50:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm assuming that a calcium plasma layer sits between the silicon umbra and the surface. I'm assuming the calcium plasma has a higher density than the silicon, so much of the downward movment of the umbra would end where the calcium layer begins. The sound waves may not increase significally until the sounds traverse the calcium layer and hit the actual surface itself.
You're just assuming? So where's the science? What sort of calculations can you present here that would indicate the particular differentials in the speed of sound waves as they travel through calcium plasma as opposed to traveling through some mystery substance that's 51% iron with the density less than helium? Where are the tables, charts, references showing the acoustical properties of these various materials? And if a calcium plasma layer starts at 0.995R but your actual solid surface doesn't start until 0.993R, why have you been babbling all this time about a solid surface that starts at 0.995R?
Unless you can support this with some legitimate math and physics, we'll take it as another completely unsubstantiated guess and accept it as more evidence that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
And when are you going to get around to addressing these 20 or so issues?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 14:52:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You can't support your guess with anything more than an unsupported opinion of a stack of perty pi'tures, a lot of babbling, and quite a bit of foot stomping. Looks like you're pretty close to being done here.
What a load of bull. If you completely ignore and won't deal with the isotope analysis, that does not mean I didn't support my position. You won't offer a comprehensive explanation of even the very first image on my website, even though I have shown you how it is consistent with Birkeland's model. I can't MAKE you embrace reality. I can only put the data in your face and HOPE you see it, and HOPE you deal with it and HOPE you don't get grumpy again and start hurling more baseless insults and accusations. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 14:58:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What a load of bull. If you completely ignore and won't deal with the isotope analysis, that does not mean I didn't support my position. You won't offer a comprehensive explanation of even the very first image on my website, even though I have shown you how it is consistent with Birkeland's model. I can't MAKE you embrace reality. I can only put the data in your face and HOPE you see it, and HOPE you deal with it and HOPE you don't get grumpy again and start hurling more baseless insults and accusations.
Michael, even if we simply grant you the isotope analysis, the amount of problems with the remainder of your model make it untenable. Therefore, there is no need to keep harping on that point.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 15:05:54 [Permalink]
|
For a better first-order estimate of the effects we feel of nearly 100% of the universe's mass, we should divide the sky up into about 41,253 square degrees. Now, since each of these chunks of sky are far larger out at the edge of the visible universe than they are at, say, 100 AU, the center of gravity for each chunk is about 71% of the distance to the visible "edge." Thus, 1/41,253rd of the universe's total mass (dark whatever included) pulling on our entire solar system causes an acceleration of approximately 11.24 femtometers/s2.
Of course, as has been pointed out, each square degree's pulling is canceled out by an equal and opposite pull, so the net acceleration is zero. But, each of the chunks pulls outward on the Sun, still. The mass of the universe makes the Sun look larger than it really is. By how much? Well, since the acceleration caused by the universe's mass is about 25 quadrillionths of the acceleration due to gravity of the Sun at the Sun's surface, then I'd have to say that the Sun is about 28 nanometers larger than it would be if it existed without the rest of the universe.
That means its "real" volume is about 12 quadrillionths of a percent smaller than we see it now, so its average density is 12 quadrillionths of a percent higher than we currently measure it. Thus, instead of the Sun having an average density of 1.41 g/cm3, it actually has a density of 1.41000000000000017 g/cm3.
Ooops. Forgot about dark energy. Now, there's a vast amount of dark energy outside the Sun which pushes in on it and makes it smaller, but let's ignore all that, and just focus on the dark energy inside the Sun. Per the best guesstimates available, it also makes the Sun appear larger than it actually is. Dark energy within the Sun acts like a negative gravity from 13.88 kg of mass. That's about 1 part in 1.433×1029 when compared to the Sun's total mass, making the Sun's density actually 1.4100000000000001700000000000098 g/cm3.
Oh, hell, round it up to 1.41000000000000018 g/cm3.
There, Michael, in the spirit of bending over backwards for you, I've made a density calculation of the Sun which takes into account all of the mass in the universe, and the dark energy within the Sun. It works in your favor, but obviously, not by much (as everyone has been telling you). |
- 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 - 01/26/2006 : 15:06:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You're just assuming?
It's more of an educated guess based on a variety of information.
quote:
So where's the science?
Part of the "science" is found in Dr. Manuel's work, that pesky isotope data that suggests the sun mass separates the plasma in its atmosphere. Part of it is found in SERTS data which show calcium ion emssions, and of course there are satellite images of the calcium layer. Part of the science is found in the heliosiesmology data that shows the various changes in plasma flows and sound speed changes at particular depths.
quote:
What sort of calculations can you present here that would indicate the particular differentials in the speed of sound waves as they travel through calcium plasma as opposed to traveling through some mystery substance that's 51% iron with the density less than helium?
Why should I do anything for you personally when you won't even LOOK AT the data I've already handed to you on a silver platter?
Where's your isotope analsys? Where's your analsys of Manuel's work that isolates the CAUSE of the misinterpration?
Note that I did the "science" part. I took the papers that Dave handed me and I went through them. I found evidence in one of them to support my case and I found evidence in one paper that an assumption was made that skewed the results. I found the specific issue that concerned me. I didn't try to discount Kosovichev's whole body of work mind you, in fact I find it to VERY impressive on many levels. I respect Dr. Kosovichev a great deal and while I have an 'issue' with a SINGLE ASSUMPTION that was made, I put a great deal of faith in the mass flow information he distilled from the technique he's used over the years.
You on the other hand took the LAZY way out. You didn't take a look at Manuel's work and point out the flaw you took exeption to. You didn't provide any isotope analsys of your own to support your case. In effect you simply IGNORED what you don't wish to deal with, and you HOPE I won't notice. I noticed. I won't lift another finger on your personal behalf until I see some response from you regarding Manuel's life's work. You essentially IGNORED 30 years of research by a professor of Nuclear Chemistry from the University of Missouri at Rolla. If I had ingored the data from UCLA and Stanford, you'd be all over my case about it. On the other hand, you'll intentionally dodge every question put to you about the data from the University of Missiour or the University of Maryland. You seem to be very selective about which Universities you'll consider, and which one's you'll choose to ignore altogether.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 15:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, even if we simply grant you the isotope analysis,
How exactly does one "grant me" "reality"? The isotope analysis simply exists. It's there. Shall we simply ignore it because it isn't consistent with your faith in gas model theory?
quote:
the amount of problems with the remainder of your model
What problems exist in BIRKELAND's model in your opinion, and how do you substanciate this claim?
quote:
make it untenable.
Ok, so be MORE specific now, and be very precise as to which data makes it "untenable" as opposed to say "questionable"?
quote:
Therefore, there is no need to keep harping on that point.
So essentially you agree the earth isn't really 6K years old (you'll give me the isotope analsys), but your faith in creationism remains strong? I'm sorry, I don't get it. If the isotope analysis is accurate, the Birkeland's model is accurate, and everything I've presented needs to be considered in light of this KNOWN accuracy involving chemistry from Manuel and the theories and lab work by Birkeland that have been "proven".
It is illogical IMO to "give me" the isotope analysis that suggests the sun is mostly iron and mass separates it's plasma, and then turn around and claim that Birkeland's model is "untenable". That doesn't add up. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 16:15:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Why should I do anything for you personally when you won't even LOOK AT the data I've already handed to you on a silver platter?
Apparently you're stupid and lazy. You're too stupid to understand that it's your job to support your fantasy [first]. And you're too lazy to do your job.quote:
Where's your isotope analsys? Where's your analsys of Manuel's work that isolates the CAUSE of the misinterpration?
Nobody has any obligation to do any analysis of your idiotic wild guess at all, zero, none. It's your fantasy. It's your responsibility to prove it [second]. You haven't. With what you've done so far, you can't. And apparently you won't.quote:
You on the other hand took the LAZY way out. You didn't take a look at Manuel's work and point out the flaw you took exeption to. You didn't provide any isotope analsys of your own to support your case. [...] On the other hand, you'll intentionally dodge every question put to you about the data from the University of Missiour or the University of Maryland.
One more time [third], because of your obvious intellectual deficiency, it is not anyone else's responsibility to support or prove your fantasy in any way. Nobody else has presented a case and nobody else will. It's your case and yours alone. You're the one with the delusion. Every time you suggest that the burden of proof is on other people, every time you suggest that anyone else is defending their position, you only add to the evidence that you're simply incapable of rational thinking at any level. You make yourself look like a fool, an out and out, dyed in the wool idiot.
Now address these 20 issues. If you can't, you're done, failed to support your fantasy, you're a loser.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 16:54:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Apparently you're stupid and lazy. You're too stupid to understand that it's your job to support your fantasy [first].
No, I'm not stupid. I'm not so stupid that I would miss the fact that I already did "support" my position when I handed you the isotope analysis. I'm not so stupid that I would miss the fact that you have repretedly and frequently dodged this issue since the very start. I'm not stupid enough to believe that your repeated use of stupid ad hominems gives you any scientific credibility whatesoever.
Are you *EVER* going to deal with the chemistry, or do you intend to stick with the "stupid" denial and dance routine for another month or two?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/26/2006 16:54:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 17:10:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Now address these 20 issues. If you can't, you're done, failed to support your fantasy, you're a loser.
First of all, the fact you keep resorting to the crutch of ad homenims, and resort to using terms like "loser" and "stupid" shows me how desparate you're whole show has become.
Even if some individual never gets around to answering anymore of your personal list of questions, it has no scientific bearing at all on this issue. The fact you percieve this issue as some sort of ego battle, with winners and losers, only demonstrates to me how "unscientific" and irrational you've become.
The only relevant issue here is scientific accuracy. Since you won't lift a finger to address even ONE of my "science" questions (isotope analysis), what in the WORLD makes you think I personally owe you a response to 20 of your questions? You are so far "out there" at this point, and so far outside of the scientific method, and so fixated on the individual, that you simply don't "get it". Even if one individual (in this case me) could answer every one of your 20 questions, it has no bearing at all on what is "real" and what exists in reality. Reality is explored via science. You won't do the science. You won't touch the isotope analysis the way I delved into the work of Dr. Alexander Kosovichev, someone I respect even if we "interpret" some of the data differently.
You however are quite a piece of work. You won't address the isotope analysis data honestly and with integrity, so the only possible "loser" here is you. Whether you ever pull your head out of the sand and address "reality", remains unknown. At the moment, it seems very clear to me that this has become a very "personal" issue inside you, and your attitude toward me is simply a "knee-jerk" reaction to having your show busted. You're living in denial, and you don't like me pointing that out. Oh well. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 17:26:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So essentially you agree the earth isn't really 6K years old (you'll give me the isotope analsys), but your faith in creationism remains strong? I'm sorry, I don't get it. If the isotope analysis is accurate, the Birkeland's model is accurate, and everything I've presented needs to be considered in light of this KNOWN accuracy involving chemistry from Manuel and the theories and lab work by Birkeland that have been "proven".
The isotope analysis cannot tell us whether or not the sun has a solid surface, which is your main conjecture. And considering we now have a litany of problems with the solid surface model, including but not limited to a "mostly iron" substance having a density less than that of aerogel, there is no reason to assume the solid surface model is even viable at this point, let alone "proven." The iron sun model is fucked and cannot be saved by the results of the isotope anaysis alone. That is what I meant. Do you get it now?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/26/2006 17:28:15 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
