|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:07:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, you're talking about your model, because your model is in conflict with Kosovichev's observations.
We're drifting off topic now Dave. I said to you that Kosovichev "assumed" a gas model density at the surface of the photosphere. You asked me to "prove it". To 'prove it' I asked you to explain to me how Kosovichev determined the material at the surface of the photosphere. Instead of answering this question directly, you've danced around it. The reason you are dancing around this issue is because that density number was "assumed" based on the "belief" that this layer is made of predominantly hydrogen and helium, based on spectral analysis that does not even CONSIDER a mass separated model. If however Manuel's data is accurate and the sun is mass separated by atomic weight, then these assumptions are false, and this delineation in plasma layers is based on a change of elements. If that is true, then whatever element makes up the penumbral filaments, it cannot be hydrogen since the chromosophere sits on top of this layer. |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:11:50 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps we can keep a running account of all the direct questions asked of Michael that he either dodges completely, fails to acknowledge, or simply refuses to answer.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
Your model has something called the "penumbral filament layer" (this is amply demonstrated by Googling the term and finding only you using it). In your model, what is that layer made of, how thick is it, and at what altitude does it reside?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm not really talking now about my model, I was asking you how Dr. Kosovichev determined what this photosphere surface is made of.
According to me it's neon about 700KM thick. I have no idea how Kosovichev arrived at the "materials" involved, or how he chose these materials. You asked me how I know that Dr. Kosovichev assumed gas model theory over a mass separated model. That issue directly relates to the MATERIAL that Kosovichev believes the photosphere to be made of.
Almost an outright refusal to answer the question, but it does contain the unevidenced guess about a portion of the question, "According to me it's neon about 700KM thick." Michael goes on to ask a lot of questions instead of providing any evidence to support his guess.quote:
You've never heard of penumbral filaments? You can't find any information on the umbra and penumbra? These are known parts of the photosphere. What are they made of according to Kosovichev, and how does he know this?
Questions, questions, questions, but no answers to anything here.quote:
How would it behave any differently if it's predominantly neon plasma rather than hydrogen/helium? How did Kosovichev determine that it bahaved "like hydrogen" in the first place? What exactly makes him sure that the sun is not mass separated as Birkeland suggested and Manuel suggested? If it's mass separated, how would Dr. Kosovichev know what that material is even made of?
More questions. No answers to anything.quote:
Because according to Kosovichev's data, that area should be considerable hotter and brighter than anything above or below it, and it's presumable surrounded by whispy material.
You have to love those technical scientific descriptions like "considerable", "hotter", "brighter", and "presumable". Nothing but vague guesses here.  quote:
I don't think that layer is "hot" as Kosovichev believes but DENSE because it's a surface of solids. I also don't subscribe to the notion that black body radiation has much to do with the visible light we see. I think most of the visible light comes from the neon layer and that neon is pushed out of the way by the rising silicon in sunspot activity. I therefore wouldn't expect it to "light up" at all in my model.
Here is a guess about the temperature of the surface, but without showing the balls to actually name a range of numbers. Also included is another unevidenced assertion that there is a surface of "solids". No ability has been shown to describe what he means by "solids". At least we do know he no longer believes the sun actually has a solid surface. Or does he? Even Michael Mozina doesn't know for sure!
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:13:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Since we discussed this very issue on the Bad Astronomy website, that is hardly surprising to me. The fact I was banned from that bad astronomy forum for not barking on command demonstrates that the forum is appropriately named. It certainly operates more like a religious website rather than a science forum. True skeptics don't need to burn their heretics at the virtual stake. If they disagreed with me, why not just stop participating in the threads? Some folks are just big time control freaks. Other folks are more into freedom and allow for dissenting opinions among their ranks. No one on this forum has in any way attempted to censor me. Why should that forum need to ban someone they disagree with?
Maybe because you don't have a clue? Maybe because you can't give a direct answer to a direct question to save your life? Maybe because in several months of your babbling over there you weren't able to provide any more evidence of a solid surface sun that you've been able to provide here in two months? A total, by the way, of none. Awwww, you poor little persecuted baby.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:15:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can be taken seriously, and I have been taken seriously by many people. I get supportive emails every week, including one today from a 9th grade teacher that presented my material as an alternative solar theory to his class and had some general questions. Some folks are not as closed minded as you seem to be.
I am not closed minded, your model is absurd. You are not a scientist, you do not even (clearly) have a science background. The only people who agree with your model are on the fringe; Dr. Manuel is grossly at odds with the rest of the scientific community - that is being overly fair to the good doctor. The 9th grade science teacher (I have to assume it is just someone messing with you) if he is really teaching your model, should be fired for even mentioning it as plausible. At this point your model is nothing more than pseudo-science and carries about as much weight as ID.
Pardon me for being blunt.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:20:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
We're drifting off topic now Dave. I said to you that Kosovichev "assumed" a gas model density at the surface of the photosphere. You asked me to "prove it". To 'prove it' I asked you to explain to me how Kosovichev determined the material at the surface of the photosphere.
To prove it you need to give an answer, provide evidence. Your asking a question will never constitute proof of anything. But you have this silly notion that other people are responsible for proving your claim. Wrong again Michael.quote:
Instead of answering this question directly, you've danced around it.
You're in the habit of refusing to answer questions, directly or otherwise. It's not anyone else's job to prove your theory. If you could prove it you would. But you can't.quote:
The reason you are dancing around this issue is because that density number was "assumed" based on the "belief" that this layer is made of predominantly hydrogen and helium, based on spectral analysis that does not even CONSIDER a mass separated model.
You haven't offered any alternatives that you can support with any evidence. Guesses don't count.quote:
If however Manuel's data is accurate and the sun is mass separated by atomic weight, then these assumptions are false, and this delineation in plasma layers is based on a change of elements. If that is true, then whatever element makes up the penumbral filaments, it cannot be hydrogen since the chromosophere sits on top of this layer.
Show where Dr. Manuel's data states that the surface of the sun is solid.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:29:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur...
I am not closed minded, your model is absurd. You are not a scientist, you do not even (clearly) have a science background. The only people who agree with your model are on the fringe; Dr. Manuel is grossly at odds with the rest of the scientific community - that is being overly fair to the good doctor. The 9th grade science teacher (I have to assume it is just someone messing with you) if he is really teaching your model, should be fired for even mentioning it as plausible. At this point your model is nothing more than pseudo-science and carries about as much weight as ID.
Hold on there just one second, furshur! There does seem to be a bit of a following for Michael's wildass conjecture. Please see these scientific articles...quote:
Creatures of the Solar World...
The sun has a solid surface, and is not just a giant fiery bag of gas.
This theory is put forth by Michael Mozina of Mt. Shasta, CA at his The Surface of the Sun site, as described in my Webs for World Progress blog.
[...]
The creatures, called heliovores, or "sun eaters", that thrive in this light planet you insist on calling the "sun", these astonishing fellows don't mind the millions of degrees heat. Hearing that, aren't you now ashamed at how you crave air conditioning and ice cream on hot summer days?
Sun Eaters don't actually chew up the sun itself, the radiant core of it. Instead, they give the impression of gobbling the sun's outer solid shell, as they gnaw on the edges of the sun's iron oxide crust. Yet, it's not even necessarily the iron they're after. It's what slithers and writhes upon it.
Or this one...quote:
World Top Secret: Our Earth Is Hollow!...
Confirming my conclusion that the Sun has a solid surface is the scientific work of Michael Mozina. Check out his website at The Surface of the Sun. The evidence he presents is incontrovertible. This surely means that the Sun is hollow because it could not be solid all the way through. It does not have enough mass for that. My calculations are that if the Sun is hollow with a shell thickness 10% of its diameter, it would have a shell density of 2.86, which is the density of glass with a few impurities. The scriptures indicate that the Sun is a giant crystal ball. Perhaps, soon science will confirm that the Sun is also hollow, with polar openings and a solid core that rotates at a different rate than it's shell thus producing the observed strong electro-magnetic field that the Sun has.
Now there's some support you've obviously neglected. And that second article actually kicks the shit out of anything Michael has had to say on the matter. They at least know what the density of the surface is. Michael certainly doesn't.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:29:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Since we discussed this very issue on the Bad Astronomy website, that is hardly surprising to me. The fact I was banned from that bad astronomy forum for not barking on command demonstrates that the forum is appropriately named.
You were probably (conjecture on my part) banned because you are so freaking annoying. You are as hard to pin down as a slug in a salt bath. All we ever hear is: I think, maybe, it could be, look at this MPG and I believe.
The ONLY number you ever quote, and you do so over and over and over is (drum roll) 0.995R.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:30:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I am not closed minded, your model is absurd.
But not everyone agrees with you. So what makes you right and other scientists wrong?
quote:
You are not a scientist,
Actually, I'm a self employed computer scientist.
quote:
you do not even (clearly) have a science background.
That is a totally false statement.
quote:
The only people who agree with your model are on the fringe;
So you get to characterize folks who agree with me as "fringe", and that isn't an appeal to popularity falacy in any way either eh?
quote:
Dr. Manuel is grossly at odds with the rest of the scientific community - that is being overly fair to the good doctor.
No. Actually he's not at odds with other nuclear chemists, just astrophysicts that are certain the sun isn't mass separated, but never get around to explaining how they know this.
quote:
The 9th grade science teacher (I have to assume it is just someone messing with you) if he is really teaching your model, should be fired for even mentioning it as plausible. At this point your model is nothing more than pseudo-science and carries about as much weight as ID.
So you read not only my mind, but the mind of everyone who's ever emailed me?
quote:
Pardon me for being blunt.
It's not the blunt part that bothers me, it's the fact you personalize the conversation in the first place. Dr. Kristian Birkeland WAS a respected solar physicist. This is HIS model, not mine. It's not about me and it's never been about me. You'll have to get past that part sooner or later. Birkeland's model requires mass separation and Manuel has observed evidence that the sun is mass separated. If you wish to sway me, you'll need to do so "scientifically". Saying "he's fringe" isn't a scientific refute. Birkeland wasn't FRINGE in his day, and his idea is not FRINGE now. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:35:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Since we discussed this very issue on the Bad Astronomy website, that is hardly surprising to me. The fact I was banned from that bad astronomy forum for not barking on command demonstrates that the forum is appropriately named.
You were probably (conjecture on my part) banned because you are so freaking annoying. You are as hard to pin down as a slug in a salt bath. All we ever hear is: I think, maybe, it could be, look at this MPG and I believe.
The ONLY number you ever quote, and you do so over and over and over is (drum roll) 0.995R.
I even did some math on Black Body radiation for those folks and it was promptly ignored just like ever other piece of evidence I presented. Specifics and math was never the problem. I'm not hard to pin down. I'm specific about the things that I can be specific about, but I'm not really good at determining light penetration through plasma, especially since we can't even agree to what kind of plasma it is and how dense it might be. For failing to address that question I was banned. Gee, how "scientific", expecially after I admitted publically that I didnt' know the answer and was in a learning mode.
Like I said, if someone disagrees with me, I can't see why they can't just live and let live and participate in a different discussion. Their need to have full "control", and be unquestioned was the reason I was banned. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/01/2006 15:36:33 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:36:22 [Permalink]
|
Holy crap GeeMack thanks for setting me straight.
I see now that many others in the scientific community are referencing Micheal's work.
I don't know about you but those sun eaters give me the creeps. I bet they live in the fractures on the suns surface.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:37:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
It's not the blunt part that bothers me, it's the fact you personalize the conversation in the first place. Dr. Kristian Birkeland WAS a respected solar physicist. This is HIS model, not mine.
Please provide the reference to the specific comments by Birkeland where he stated that he believed the sun has a solid surface. Include the relevant quotes, the reference sources, and the page numbers.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:44:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, I'm a self employed computer scientist.
Does that mean that you graduated with a phd in computer science from a university, or does that mean that you are self employed in the computer field.
I am not attacking you. I am sure you are smarter than I am. But there is no freaking way you have been to college in a scientific field. You would not say things like a plasma made of silicon atoms is an insulator.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:46:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I'm not hard to pin down.
Bullshit.
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...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%. Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
And, since you claim that you're only supporting Birkeland's conjecture, show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the sun. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 19:58:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I said to you that Kosovichev "assumed" a gas model density at the surface of the photosphere. You asked me to "prove it". To 'prove it' I asked you to explain to me how Kosovichev determined the material at the surface of the photosphere. Instead of answering this question directly, you've danced around it.
No, I've answered this question directly at least twice already. The fact is, you don't understand the answer because you're completely uninterested in the science of helioseismology, except where you can twist its results to serve your needs, and spew lame "questions" about it where it doesn't.
The fact of the matter is that whether I - personally - can or cannot explain Kosovichev's methods to your personal satisfaction is completely irrelevant to whether or not those methods assumed anything. I asked you for quotes from Dr. Kosovichev's work which proved your version of his assumtpions, anyway. Since I first asked that, you've failed to provide a single quote from anything Kosovichev has ever written. It is not me who is "dancing around," not answering questions, Michael.quote:
The reason you are dancing around this issue is because that density number was "assumed" based on the "belief" that this layer is made of predominantly hydrogen and helium, based on spectral analysis that does not even CONSIDER a mass separated model.
No, you're just wrong here. You've got no evidence to support your assertion that any of the helioseismology results are based upon any particular assumption or belief, or that any helioseismologist failed to consider any other model. You were asked several times to support these claims with quotes, and you have failed. You're just making this crap up as you go along.quote:
If however Manuel's data is accurate and the sun is mass separated by atomic weight, then these assumptions are false, and this delineation in plasma layers is based on a change of elements.
Then why do the helioseismology results look just like they would if the Sun were mostly hydrogen?quote:
If that is true, then whatever element makes up the penumbral filaments, it cannot be hydrogen since the chromosophere sits on top of this layer.
You're contradicting yourself (and Manuel and Kamat). Allow me to quote from page 12 of "Isotopes Tell Sun's Origin and Operation":quote:
...lightweight isotopes and elements [75] are abundant in the photosphere because the Sun selectively moves lightweight elements and the lighter isotopes of each element to the solar surface. [Emphasis in original]
So, prior to June, 2005, you agreed that the photosphere is mostly hydrogen, but now you say that it cannot be mostly hydrogen because the chromosphere sits on top of it. Of course, I will assume that what you've actually done is redefine the word "photosphere" to mean something other than it does in the standard mo |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 22:27:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you get to characterize folks who agree with me as "fringe", and that isn't an appeal to popularity falacy in any way either eh?
No. Actually he's not at odds with other nuclear chemists, just astrophysicts that are certain the sun isn't mass separated, but never get around to explaining how they know this.
Yes, I think your ideas are fringe ideas - that is, pseudo science and hand waving. Dr. Manuel is at odds with astrophysicists, physicist, chemists, you name it.
Lets look at your theory and the repercusions. Lets start at the center - the center of the sun to be exact.
You and Dr. Manuel think that a neutron star or a pulsar is in the center of the sun. A 'fringe' idea, more like a lunatic fringe idea. But why is it a fringe idea...
1. The smallest possible mass of a neutron star is 1.4 solar masses. Do you see the problem here?
2. Anything in the vicinity of the neutron star would be pulled into it by its gravity. Such as gas or a shell of some sort.
3. Neutron stars have magnetic fields at least 100s of times stronger than the sun.
Your answer to #1 is that the mass of the sun cannot be measured because of dark matter or dark energy, or because some sort of acceleration in the Z-axis. So to have any hope of making your theory of a neutron star being at the center of the sun viable you must come up with a theory to explain away something as easily measurable as the mass and size of the sun.
You also indicated that dark matter may be photons. Pretty ironic that light is actually dark matter/energy. I believe you said, on a physics site, that light is probably the missing dark matter because it has mass, which you deduced because it has momentum. This is news to physics which still foolishly beleive that photons have no rest mass. Your theory has the profound effect of changing both special and general relativity. You then theorized that a photon is actually a pair of charged particles orbiting each other. This has many amazing repercussions:
1. Leptons are no longer one of the basic building blocks of matter. Lets say 2 leptons (an electron and a positron) anihilate each other - when this happens 2 gamas are produced. According to you there are now 4 particles (lets call the Mozons), 2 for each gama ray. You have just advanced the field of physics beyond what most phisicists thought was the end of the line for fundemental particles. You also said maybe it is not 2 particles but a Boseman-Einstein condesate - lets not even go there.
2. 2 partilces or B-E condensate traveling at the speed of light means that the particles or the condensate would trace out a sinusoidal path - in other words the particles would at sometime travel faster than the speed of light. Again your theories have shown Einstein to be wrong.
Your answer to #2 is that the shell of whatever is not drawn into the neutron star because of the pressure from the out flow of the neutron star. But again there is no theory to explain an out flow so you must make one up; such as the neutron to neutron repulsion theory. No evidence, no experimentation no data at all to suppose that there is any such repulsions.
For #3 you have just ignored that the magnetic field of the sun is nowhere near what the magnetic field strengh of a neutron star would be.
Just scratchng the surface of your theories, so to speak, shows just how weak they are. You have to invent new theories to support your original theories because they are counter observations and experimentation. Your theories fly in the face of real theories with years and years of supporting experimentation and evidence. Your theories are counter to the pillars of science and physics such as special and general relativity and quantum physics. This is why you and Dr. Manuel and the several others are fringe. Your theories are nothing but bull shit heaped on bull shit.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
