|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/02/2006 : 06:27:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
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.
As a company employed computer scientist, I can say that Mr. Mozina has studied mathematics, logic, and structured systems. That he is self employed probably leans more towards a Masters than a Bachelors degree. PhDs in Computer Science are very rare.
As part of my undergraduate work, I learned Touring machines, structured systems analysis and design, Calculus, basic logic, statistics, and structured programming in a number of different languages such as FORTRAN 77. Since I went to a liberal arts college, I was also exposed to biology and the history of science.
The study of computer science is unrelated to the modeling of the sun. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 08:34:43 [Permalink]
|
Thank you Valiant. I realize that Computer science is unrelated to modeling the sun, I was interested if he had any science background. He seems to be unaware of any of the basics of physics or science in general. As a Chemical Engineer, I am not scientist or a physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but I was exposed to 3 semesters of physics. I would have thought that Computer Science would have more emphasis on physics.
I guess that shows my ignorance on the subject.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 10:42:46 [Permalink]
|
| Given the diversity of computer science, whether or not Mozina can be considered a scientist in any way through his training depends entirely upon what that training was. I would think that creating and selling child care management software would take about as much working science as my own software job, which entails almost no science at all (except for the occassional bizarre failure which requires a subset of the hypothesis formation and testing portions of the scientific method). If Mozina would explain how he applies scientific principles on a regular basis to his Office Center software suite, we might be able to agree with him that he is a "self employed computer scientist," but it's patently obvious that he's only interested in the sciences of physics, chemistry and especially helioseismology as far as he can (ab)use them to support his unscientific solid-surface conjectures. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 12:51:01 [Permalink]
|
Im an expert on Christian Science!
I say that the center of the sun is where all of the held in farts come out, the density/friction at the center ignites this flattulence, oh and God makes all the data seem to be not organic methane. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 14:49:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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.
You mean like you are dodging and completely failing to acknowledge Manuel's evidence of mass separation? Really Geemack, you are the very last person on earth who should be complaining about dodging difficult questions. We've gone through 3 full threads now, and 3 pages of another, and not ONCE have you dealt honestly with the isotope analysis. You've provided ZIP in the way of refuting evidence, and ZIP in the way of a scientific refute of this evidence. In 47+ pages, you can't seem to honestly deal with this one single issue, yet you're going to give me a hard time? Give me a break!
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:00:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
That is utterly false. I brought up this issue because it's a key piece of evidence that Kosovichev's density numbers are normalized to a "theoretic" value, it is not measured directly. His assumption is based on a gas model theory that suggests the sun's photosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium, but this assumption has not been proven true, particularly in light of the isotope analysis that suggests mass separation. Since the photosphere has at least one more layer on top of it, in a mass separated model, this layer cannot be predominantly hydrogen, though hydrogen does "run through" all the layers since the hydrogen is released in the arc and rises to the surface.
quote:
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.
That is also false. Kosovichev himself was extrememely reluctant to deal with this issue as well. The whole model in that paper is question is "normalized" to theoretical value that involves a mostly hydrogen/helium photosphere. Since that has not been established, and there is evidence of mass separation, that assumption looks rather dubious. The affect in this case is that Kosovichev could have easily began with a "lighter than reality" number for the surface of the photosphere, and all results from there on down are incorrect as it relates to actual density. The implication here in a mass separated model is that this material is most likely a heavier element than is theorized in non mass separated models, and the sound transition between the transitional layer and the layer above it may be indicative of a change from thicker plasma to a true solid.
You are trying to use Kosovichev's work to PROVE that the sun's photosphere is what gas model theory suggests. It's therefore up to you to show me some evidence that it is. I do not see any such evidence in the paper from Kosovichev, since it began with the "assumption" that the sun is not mass separated, and this layer is mostly hydrogen in helium. That has not been proven in the first place! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:08:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
As a company employed computer scientist, I can say that Mr. Mozina has studied mathematics, logic, and structured systems.
That is correct. I'm not going to lend this appeal to authority argument any credibility by getting into a detailed analysis of my "qualifications".
quote:
As part of my undergraduate work, I learned Touring machines, structured systems analysis and design, Calculus, basic logic, statistics, and structured programming in a number of different languages such as FORTRAN 77. Since I went to a liberal arts college, I was also exposed to biology and the history of science.
Yes, me too, including three semesters of calculus and several classes in physics as well.
quote:
The study of computer science is unrelated to the modeling of the sun.
That is not true. My studies in college included a healthy dose of math, including calculus, several classes in physics and 25 plus years of study BEYOND college. I've studied solar satellite images now for almost 15 years and that "does" relate directly to modeling the sun.
Again, I'm getting tired of pointing out that this is really not my model at all, but the model of Kristian Birkeland. It is supported by the work of Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel. All these individuals were scientists, and all of them believe that this mass separated model is a superior model to contemporary gas model theory. This is not about me, or a single individual. It is a debate about the nature of reality and what exists in reality. It's about science and observation and how these observatoins jive with competing theories. I'm not important. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/04/2006 15:11:38 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:23:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Given the diversity of computer science, whether or not Mozina can be considered a scientist in any way through his training depends entirely upon what that training was. I would think that creating and selling child care management software would take about as much working science as my own software job, which entails almost no science at all (except for the occassional bizarre failure which requires a subset of the hypothesis formation and testing portions of the scientific method).
This is such nonsense! Over the past 25 years of programming, I've written programs to do a wide variety of commercial applications, in a number of different computer languages, including assembly language, C, C++, Pascal, Fortan, Dbase, and most recently C#. I've written real time games, accounting programs, loan mortgage analysis, and a variety of custom applications on CPM, Unix, Dos, and Windows platforms. This whole arguement a pure appeal to authority falacy in the first place.
Get on with your refute of Manuel's work, and Birkeland's work and leave me the heck out of this conversation. I have as much right to interpret satellite images as any "scientist" on the planet, and I'll bet I have more experience at satellite image analysis that you do. I can prove that too since you cannot and will not explain that RD image from Lockheed in a way that makes scientific sense.
I've been gone for a few days while I hooked up the phones and the network system in my new office. I expected a lot more from you in terms of a scientific refute than I got from you. This is not a scientific disproof of Manuels' work. This is not a scientific disproof of Birkeland's work. This is not a scientific refute of Bruce's work. This is pure appeal to authority fallacy, plain and simple. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/04/2006 15:27:09 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:26:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You mean like you are dodging and completely failing to acknowledge Manuel's evidence of mass separation? Really Geemack, you are the very last person on earth who should be complaining about dodging difficult questions. We've gone through 3 full threads now, and 3 pages of another, and not ONCE have you dealt honestly with the isotope analysis. You've provided ZIP in the way of refuting evidence, and ZIP in the way of a scientific refute of this evidence. In 47+ pages, you can't seem to honestly deal with this one single issue, yet you're going to give me a hard time? Give me a break!
Oh, by the way, since you clearly can't tell the difference between just more useless mouthing off and providing evidence, that was just more of your useless mouthing off.
I'm actually beginning to think you are mentally retarded. You haven't provided a single iota of evidence to show that the sun has a solid surface. You can't answer a direct question if your life depended on it. I don't have to answer any questions here. You do. And you haven't. It's not my job, nor is it anyone else's but your own, to prove your wild ass fantasy.
Nobody has to refute your guess. You have to prove your guess. And you haven't. In 47+ pages of your blustering and hollering and a lot of your whining, moaning, bitching, and complaining, you haven't been able to support your guess. Now, I've asked several direct, clearly stated, and relevant questions. If you can't answer them, your "theory" is nothing but a pile of silly strung together words.
Now, give us some answers, or we can only reasonably assume that you don't have them.
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.
And since you claim that Dr. Manuel supports your wild conjecture, provide direct quotes from his material where he states clearly that he also believes the sun has a solid surface. Give relevant links to specific references, and provide pages numbers, please.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:33:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That is utterly false. I brought up this issue because it's a key piece of evidence that Kosovichev's density numbers are normalized to a "theoretic" value, it is not measured directly. His assumption is based on a gas model theory that suggests the sun's photosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium, but this assumption has not been proven true, particularly in light of the isotope analysis that suggests mass separation. Since the photosphere has at least one more layer on top of it, in a mass separated model, this layer cannot be predominantly hydrogen, though hydrogen does "run through" all the layers since the hydrogen is released in the arc and rises to the surface.
That's not evidence.quote:
That is also false. Kosovichev himself was extrememely reluctant to deal with this issue as well. The whole model in that paper is question is "normalized" to theoretical value that involves a mostly hydrogen/helium photosphere. Since that has not been established, and there is evidence of mass separation, that assumption looks rather dubious. The affect in this case is that Kosovichev could have easily began with a "lighter than reality" number for the surface of the photosphere, and all results from there on down are incorrect as it relates to actual density. The implication here in a mass separated model is that this material is most likely a heavier element than is theorized in non mass separated models, and the sound transition between the transitional layer and the layer above it may be indicative of a change from thicker plasma to a true solid.
Not a single word of evidence in there.quote:
You are trying to use Kosovichev's work to PROVE that the sun's photosphere is what gas model theory suggests. It's therefore up to you to show me some evidence that it is. I do not see any such evidence in the paper from Kosovichev, since it began with the "assumption" that the sun is not mass separated, and this layer is mostly hydrogen in helium. That has not been proven in the first place!
That's not evidence, either, unless you consider the evidence that you just can't get it through your thick skull that it's your job to prove your guess. It's nobody else's job to prove your guess.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:34:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Thank you Valiant. I realize that Computer science is unrelated to modeling the sun, I was interested if he had any science background. He seems to be unaware of any of the basics of physics or science in general. As a Chemical Engineer, I am not scientist or a physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but I was exposed to 3 semesters of physics. I would have thought that Computer Science would have more emphasis on physics.
I guess that shows my ignorance on the subject.
My analysis of satellite imagery for the past 15 years certainly *is* directly related to solar modeling. Since you are a chemical engineer, how about showing us where the Dr. of nuclear chemistry made his error. So far I see nothing about your college education that suggests you are any more qualified at solar physics than I am, and I've not heard you take a stab at Dr. Manuel's work. That would seem to be right up your alley in fact. Where's his error? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:36:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It's nobody else's job to prove your guess.[/b]
I didn't ask you to prove my guess. I asked you to take the isotope analysis evidence and deal with it in integrity. If you won't do that, I can't make you embrace reality. It is not up to me to personally make you deal with the evidence presented in an intellectually honest manner. If you won't act like a grown up and deal with the science, don't expect me to take you very seriously. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:39:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That is correct. I'm not going to lend this appeal to authority argument any credibility by getting into a detailed analysis of my "qualifications".
No evidence there.quote:
Yes, me too, including three semesters of calculus and several classes in physics as well.
More mouthing off by Mozina, but nothing in the way of evidence there.quote:
That is not true. My studies in college included a healthy dose of math, including calculus, several classes in physics and 25 plus years of study BEYOND college. I've studied solar satellite images now for almost 15 years and that "does" relate directly to modeling the sun.
No evidence there. Also remember, he's provided no evidence that he even has the ability to develop a solar model.quote:
Again, I'm getting tired of pointing out that this is really not my model at all, but the model of Kristian Birkeland. It is supported by the work of Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel. All these individuals were scientists, and all of them believe that this mass separated model is a superior model to contemporary gas model theory. This is not about me, or a single individual. It is a debate about the nature of reality and what exists in reality. It's about science and observation and how these observatoins jive with competing theories. I'm not important.
No evidence of a solid surface sun there. And, even after having been asked directly several times to demonstrate that Birkeland indeed postulated a solid iron surface sun, Michael again suggests it is Birkeland's conjecture he is presenting, but hasn't been willing or able to show that to be true, either.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:44:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I'm actually beginning to think you are mentally retarded.
I am actually quite certain that you are emotionally and scientifically retarded. You cannot and will not let this issue be discussed scientifically. Instead you keep personalizing the conversation in ways that are clearly based on logical fallacy. I've taken debate classes in high school and college, and this stuff is bush league ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You keep attacking the messenger because it's easier than dealing with the isotope analysis. Who do you think you're really fooling GeeMack? Do you think that no one else has noticed how frequently you've dodged that scientific data that I offered you?
This isn't even my model in the first place. Get over it. Get over me. Get on with the science. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/04/2006 15:56:40 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:48:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
This is such nonsense! Over the past 25 years of programming, I've written programs to do a wide variety of commercial applications, in a number of different computer languages, including assembly language, C, C++, Pascal, Fortan, Dbase, and most recently C#. I've written real time games, accounting programs, loan mortgage analysis, and a variety of custom applications on CPM, Unix, Dos, and Windows platforms. This whole arguement a pure appeal to authority falacy in the first place.
Lots of whining and complaining there, but not a speck of evidence.quote:
Get on with your refute of Manuel's work, and Birkeland's work and leave me the heck out of this conversation. I have as much right to interpret satellite images as any "scientist" on the planet, and I'll bet I have more experience at satellite image analysis that you do. I can prove that too since you cannot and will not explain that RD image from Lockheed in a way that makes scientific sense.
Again Michael displays his complete ignorance of the fact that it is his job to support his wild guess. He again tries to shift the burden of responsibility over to other people.quote:
I've been gone for a few days while I hooked up the phones and the network system in my new office. I expected a lot more from you in terms of a scientific refute than I got from you. This is not a scientific disproof of Manuels' work. This is not a scientific disproof of Birkeland's work. This is not a scientific refute of Bruce's work. This is pure appeal to authority fallacy, plain and simple.
I can't imagine why you'd come back here and mouth off like you have Michael, without bringing in a single drop of proof that the sun has a solid surface. Well, unless it's due to some kind of fundamental lack of ability to understand this simple concept: It's your conjecture. It's your job to prove it. The fact that you believe it is other people's responsibility to prove it only serves to show that you don't have what it takes to do so.
Now stop being so lazy, and do the work necessary to prove the sun has a solid surface. Or shut the hell up about it. 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
