|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2006 : 17:58:43
|
|
Continues the discussion from this thread. Amazing…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 18:10:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
GeeMack, are we on for that bet I proposed? Your comments are utterly pointless, pure insult, and they are just plain boring at this point. I thought my proposal for us simply not participating on the same boards was a fair and reasonable proposition. How about we agree to that right now so I don't have to deal with your nonsense for any longer than I have to?
I can't imagine why you'd bet the farm then back off to a six pack of beer and a desire to silence those who see how stupid you are and who are willing to say it. Well, except you know you can't win because you don't have the balls or the brains to actually prove your silly claim.
You don't want me around because I won't play your childish game and indulge your stupid fantasy. But no matter where you go there will always be people aware enough to realize you don't know what you're talking about. And some of those people will be blunt enough to call you on it. After all, not one person here has accepted a single item you've presented as "evidence". Nobody. And others may be more diplomatic about it, but I'm clearly not the only one who thinks you're an idiot.
You bet the farm, big mouth. You ought to be willing to lose it. Prove the Sun has a solid surface and win that Nobel Prize in Physics. As long as you can't prove it, and you haven't even yet begun to, the whole world knows you're full of shit, a deluded crackpot, a complete failure.
Remember, if the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. I'd buy you a six pack of beer if you could...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. Good luck, chump. 
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 18:29:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I can't imagine why you'd bet the farm then back off to a six pack of beer and a desire to silence those who see how stupid you are and who are willing to say it. Well, except you know you can't win because you don't have the balls or the brains to actually prove your silly claim.
As always, you took a simple form of expression and twisted it to suit yourself and your rediculace ad hominem attack. By your logic Dr. Birkeland died a deluded idiot and a complete crackpot, nevermind those Birkeland currents that have already been documented 30 or 40 years after his death. If that's your idea of a duluded crackpot, count me in.
GeeMack, I don't want you around, because you simply have nothing constructive or useful to add. Others may disagree with me, but they tend to be much more polite than you because they don't have the ego problem that you do. They don't need an ego fix at other people's expense like you do. Your childish BS and bullying tactics don't fool me for one minute. You're nothing but a two bit punk with a bad attitude. The only chump is the guy you see when you look in the mirror, and science will demonstrate that over time, regardless of whether I ever do so to your personal satisfaction. Get a life!
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 18:56:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
As always, you took a simple form of expression and twisted it to suit yourself and your rediculace ad hominem attack. By your logic Dr. Birkeland died a deluded idiot and a complete crackpot, nevermind those Birkeland currents that have already been documented 30 or 40 years after his death. If that's your idea of a duluded crackpot, count me in.
Oh you're counted in the deluded crackpot category. That you can be sure of. quote:
GeeMack, I don't want you around, because you simply have nothing constructive or useful to add.
I already explained running difference images, clearly and concisely. I explained the objective and capabilities of the STEREO satellite project and how it isn't going to help you prove your silly fantasy. Those things are very constructive. You're just too stupid to understand it, Michael.quote:
Others may disagree with me, but they tend to be much more polite than you because they don't have the ego problem that you do. They don't need an ego fix at other people's expense like you do.
So get over it. Everyone disagrees with you. Everyone else thinks you're a crackpot, too. I'm just not as diplomatic. But I'm not the one who made a completely unprovable claim. I'm not the one who has an ego investment in this project. That would be you. And so far you've made yourself out to be an utter failure.quote:
Your childish BS and bullying tactics don't fool me for one minute. You're nothing but a two bit punk with a bad attitude. The only chump is the guy you see when you look in the mirror, and science will demonstrate that over time, regardless of whether I ever do so to your personal satisfaction. Get a life!
Too bad you don't actually have a shred of proof that the Sun has a solid surface. Too bad you'd rather jabber and jaw instead of actually doing the work necessary to prove your silly claim. You're lazy. You don't want to prove your claim. You just want to talk. If you had what it takes to prove it, you'd set about that task. So far you've got nothing. Obviously you haven't worked hard enough at it yet, eh?
Remember, if the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. So instead of running your flappy trap, if you truly believe what you've claimed, why don't you address some of these most basic concerns...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. Or maybe we can just accept that you can't do it?
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 19:20:23 [Permalink]
|
Mozina said:
quote:
As always, you took a simple form of expression and twisted it to suit yourself and your rediculace ad hominem attack.
I feel compelled to point out that argumentum ad hominem is when somebody says to you "You are wrong because you are a total moron".
That isn't what is occuring here. You are being told that you are wrong, and because you refuse to come to terms with it you are being called names.
If you are going to accuse somebody of a logical fallacy, the least you can do is be correct about it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 02/22/2006 19:21:12 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 19:51:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
If you are going to accuse somebody of a logical fallacy, the least you can do is be correct about it.
Michael also thinks any evocation of the consensus expert opinion is an "appeal to authority." It's clear he has no idea what actually constitutes a logical fallacy, but he knows a few of their names enough to toss them out every once in awhile.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:06:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Mozina said:
That isn't what is occuring here. You are being told that you are wrong, and because you refuse to come to terms with it you are being called names.
No, because I refuse to agree with the most vocal, the most vocal feel compelled to call me names. It's a pointless excersize and it has nothing to do with science. If you wish to prove me wrong, do so through science. Sticks and stones and childish games are not going to cut it.
quote:
If you are going to accuse somebody of a logical fallacy, the least you can do is be correct about it.
You're splitting hairs and making rationalizations to excuse piss poor behavior IMO. The whole of GeeMacks arguement has been nothing more than an ad homimen mud slinging barf fest. Most of the rest of the folks have at least been reasonble considering the current mindset in astronomy. I don't hold any anomosity towards anyone else, I just see little point in pointless ad hominems.
I'm not "obligated" to agree with anyone here based upon some sort of "consensus" among this group. If I wanted to debate this in less hostile surroundings, I'm sure I could have picked a "nicer" forum. I didn't want a lot of coddling, and I didn't expect anyone to simply "agree" with me in a week or a month. I certainly never expected to *ever* be in a majority in this forum.
I'm more than happy to listen to valid critism based on *science*, but the ego games are getting really, really, really boring. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 21:06:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:09:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael also thinks any evocation of the consensus expert opinion is an "appeal to authority."
It certainly *can* be that if you present no scientific explanation of even the first image on my website. You can't say "your wrong because nobody agrees with you". No duh. We all know that Birkeland's model is the minority position, but being in the minority position isn't evidence of being wrong.
You'll need some scientific evidence and some scientific explanations of your own to go with your appeals to authority, otherwise it's just an appeal to authority.
quote:
It's clear he has no idea what actually constitutes a logical fallacy, but he knows a few of their names enough to toss them out every once in awhile.
I certainly know enough about debate and science to recognize an ad hominem from a logical scientific arguement. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:15:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm more than happy to listen to valid critism based on *science*, but the ego games are getting really, really, really boring.
No, Michael, that's a lie. You are wholly unable to listen to valid critism based on science. You pretend it isn't valid, or that some assumption skews the science, or certain ill-defined factors aren't being accounted for...or any number of excuses you hide behind. When asked for a density, you claim its impossible to determine absolute density. When we clarify that we only mean relative density, you claim its impossible to know the density of an unknown substance. When a formula for finding the density of an unknown material is provided to you, you claim that it's impossible to know the relative density of an unknown substance at a specific depth. And on and on it goes like this.
All of these threads are an exercise in you avoiding valid scientific criticism. You never address anything. At this point, your cowardice is either a result of willful ignorance or pathological denial, but there is little point in continuing. Geemack is 100% correct. You have been exposed as nothing more than a crackpot.
|
"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 02/22/2006 21:23:13 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:31:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
You are wholly unable to listen to valid critism based on science. You pretend it isn't valid, or that some assumption skews the science, or certain ill-defined factors aren't being accounted for...or any number of excuses you hide behind.
First of all the *only* "valid criticism" from a scientific point of view that I have heard to date is based upon the "measurements" of "relative" density, that don't seem to jive with a heavy sun.
That is the only legitimate objection I've heard to a Birkeland model. Period. I've noted however that based on the bubble inside the water analogy, and based on the evidence of Birkeland currents that could affect our sense of absolute density, this one issue alone cannot be the absolute and deciding issue as it relates to solar models.
The rest of what I've heard amounts to zip in the way of a scienfic rebuttal or a scientific explanation of either the isotope analysis or the satellite images.
quote:
When asked about for a density, you claim its impossible to determine absolute density.
Actually I claimed it is impossible to determine "absolute density" based on a purely heliocentric/"gravity only" sense of reality, when we already have evidence that more than gravity is involved in solar formation, and we already know our universe continues to accelerate and that has never been accounted for in such simplistic notions of density.
quote:
When we clarify that we only mean relative density, you claim its impossible to know the density of an unknown substance.
When we tried to use these simplistic math formulas to calculate the density and temperature of Jupiters atmosophere, we missed on both counts. It's more dense and warmer than expected. Why? If these calculations do not accurely predict Jupiter's atmosphere, why in the world would I assume they accurately predict the density of the penumbral filaments when no one has even stated what they are made of in terms of materials, or explained anything about the structure of a sunspot, or the umbra, or anything of the sort?
quote:
When a formula for finding the density of an unknown material is provided to you, you claim that it's impossible to know the relative density of an unknown substance at a specific depth. And on and on it goes like this.
You didn't provide me a valid formula to compute the density of an unknown gas a million miles away that you can't touch! That's what I said. I also handed you the evidence that these blind math formulas don't work as advertized. You seem to have skipped that aspect entirely. Why? If it doesn't work on Jupiter, why would I "assume" it works for the sun?
quote:
All of these threads are an exercise in you avoiding valid scientific criticism.
Damn little in the way of "valid scientific criticism" has actually been offered.
quote:
You never address anything.
False. I address as much as I actually *can* address in an honest and open manner. I've also pointed out where my expertize ends, and I've pointed out that ignorance on my part is not evidence that Birkeland's model is false.
quote:
At this point, your cowardice is either a result of willful ignorance or pathological denial, but there is little point in continuing. Geemack is 100% correct. You have been exposed as nothing more than a crackpot.
That is pure, undadulterated BS and pure unadulterated ad hominem. Birkeland was also considered a "crackpot" in his time. So what? He was absolutely right about the presense of electric currents in space, and he was right on the money in terms of accurate solar models. I don't really care what you think of me, and if I was a coward, I'd have left here a long time ago. You can stick that whole paragraph where the sun don't shine. :) I'm still here putting up with all the BS, only because I believe in it. You are welcome to disagree with me scientifically, but your personal insults are pointless and rather predictable at this point. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:48:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
GeeMack:Comprehensive explanations for your ridiculous misinterpretations of the running difference images have been provided several times by several people in this discussion and in similar discussions on other forums around the internet.
Pfft. Point one out that was even the least bit attentive to detail. Better yet, you pick one you personally would like to defend and lets see how well it holds up to any scrutiny. Somehow I doubt that you will actually "risk" anything and take a stand here, but hey, you never know, you might actually stick your neck out one day and surprise me. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 21:52:10 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:50:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You're splitting hairs and making rationalizations to excuse piss poor behavior IMO. The whole of GeeMacks arguement has been nothing more than an ad homimen mud slinging barf fest. Most of the rest of the folks have at least been reasonble considering the current mindset in astronomy. I don't hold any anomosity towards anyone else, I just see little point in pointless ad hominems.
You're lying again. I (and several others) have clearly detailed the process and purpose of running difference images. Then you clearly and purposefully ignored that information and continued to claim those images show structure. They do not. After all the concise explanations of the images, the fact that you still think they support your nutty fantasy only goes to show one (or both) of two things. One, you consciously refuse to acknowledge the facts about running difference images. Or two, you're too stupid to understand the simple, clear, multiple explanations. Everyone here has explained, in detail, that very first image on your web site. When you claim nobody has, you're lying. It's not an ad hominem comment. It's an evidenced fact.quote:
It certainly *can* be that if you present no scientific explanation of even the first image on my website. You can't say "your wrong because nobody agrees with you". No duh. We all know that Birkeland's model is the minority position, but being in the minority position isn't evidence of being wrong.
Again, the first image on your web site has been explained dozens of times. The fact that you refuse to accept the explanations does not mean it hasn't been explained. It only means you aren't willing to, or aren't able to understand plain English. You're wrong because you don't, or can't, or won't understand running difference images. And nobody agrees with you because everyone else does understand. Simple as that.
Oh, and since you don't really know Birkeland's model, it only makes you sound all the more ignorant when you continue to drag his good name into your silly fantasy.quote:
You'll need some scientific evidence and some scientific explanations of your own to go with your appeals to authority, otherwise it's just an appeal to authority.
And there you go again expecting other people to provide the scientific explanations. Again, it has been clearly and plainly explained to you dozens of times that it's your claim, therefore it's your responsibility to prove it. The fact that you don't get it, after so many times, shows that for some reason you're unwilling to understand, or alternatively you're just too stupid to understand.
By the way, if the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. So instead of running your flappy trap, if you truly believe what you've claimed, why don't you address some of these most basic concerns...Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. You claim to be able to prove your wild guess about a solid surfaced Sun, but after over 500 postings you haven't started yet. And for some reason you just can't answer some of those most basic concerns.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:55:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I (and several others) have clearly detailed the process and purpose of running difference images. Then you clearly and purposefully ignored that information and continued to claim those images show structure. They do not.
Pure denial on your part. They certainly *do* show structures. You'd have to be blind as a bat to not see them. The key here is they don't move, certainly nothing along the timelines of the structures of the plasma photosphere. Denial on your part isn't impressive. Even a child can see the "structure" in that image. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:59:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Again, the first image on your web site has been explained dozens of times. The fact that you refuse to accept the explanations does not mean it hasn't been explained.
Bull! The only explanations I've been offered have been of the nature "Insert handwave argument here", with zip in the way of explaining the structures, the lighting sources, the light and dark areas, the dust particles, etc. If you want to show us all just how smart you are, stick a serious scientific explanation on the table that addresses these points and we'll discuss them. As it is, you're just blowing smoke and huffing and puffing to pump up your ego.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 22:00:17 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 22:00:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Pfft. Point one out that was even the least bit attentive to detail. Better yet, you pick one you personally would like to defend and lets see how well it holds up to any scrutiny. Somehow I doubt actually "risk" anything and take a stand here, but hey, you never know, you might actually stick your neck out one day and surprise me.
You're a lying piece of shit, Michael. I've explained running difference images in detail. I can't take any responsibility for the fact that you're too stupid to understand. Take a remedial reading course at your local high school then come back and read that posting again. Oh, and JohnOAS gave some pretty detailed explanations, also. He gave examples and even wrote a piece of software to help you understand. Obviously you ignored, or were too stupid to understand his clear and concise postings, too. You can go back and look those up for yourself, dumbshit.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
