|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2006 : 15:33:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I would also suggest that electromagnetic fields drive inflation in a predominantly iron universe.
(emphasis mine)
Would that be this universe, by chance?
When you say "predominantly", do you mean by atomic frequency, by mass, or by degree of correlation with some other theory?
I made a couple of (admittedly quick and dirty) searches and haven't found much discussion of this particular theory, perhaps it's a new area of research. If so, it sounds pretty exciting, I imagine that this must have some pretty paradigm shaking consequences for a lot of cosmology and physics in general.
Do you know of any peer-reviewed works on this "predominantly iron universe"?
Yes, the last 30 years of Dr. Manuel's work has been peer reviewed a number of times, most recently in papers we published together in the Journal of Fusion Energy.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 15:36:28 [Permalink]
|
| Duplicate Post. Sorry about that. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/15/2006 15:37:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 17:33:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You might begin with this paper John.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/manuel.pdf
It doesn't seem to say much about the predominantly iron universe Michael. It does mention your belief in an iron rich sun. Are we to conclude from that that all stars are predominantly iron, and therefore the universe is predominantly iron?
I have no problem with people citing their own work, but are there others on the field who have come to similar conclusions, or would you say your own work is ground-breaking in this regard?
I particularly enjoyed this:
quote:
(A)"These satellite images of the Sun provide visual scientific evidence that falsifies the popular belief that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of H and He, like the solar atmosphere [17,18].(B) Recent helioseismology data have now confirmed stratification at a relatively shallow depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005Ro) [19].
(The bolded A and B are mine)
As if B somehow proves A. And this, from the acknowledgements:
quote:
NASA and Lockheed Martin's TRACE satellite team made the image of rigid structures beneath the fluid photosphere and the movie of a solar flare coming from that region (Figure 2)
As if the people who designed, launched and operate these satellites actually believe these images show what you believe they do. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 17:44:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, in fairness Dave, you did in fact say several times that you weren't defending the gas model theory. Then again, in thread after thread you defended the "party line" position every step of the way, including stating that heliosiesmology data demonstrated the accuracy of the gas model within a 2% margin if I recall.
Lies on top of lies. I never defended any politicization of science, and I never defended anything about helioseismology. I asked you, many times, to provide evidence for your assertion that helioseismologists assumed a density value, and you failed to provide any such evidence.quote:
quote:
How does my explanation of anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?
The RD images exlcude gas model theory, that's how.
You seem to be under the impression that the standard solar model is "all other models." It is not, especially since there are several different versions of the "standard" solar model to begin with.quote:
You seem to be trying to minimize the significance and the importance of the current theory being falsified by direct observation.
The RD images only falsify the gas models if you deny what the RD images show. For example, I measured the differential solar rotation in the SOHO RD movie you've got, and you utterly failed to address that point.quote:
It's time to start looking for better answers, answers that jive with direct observation.
That doesn't make your model correct.quote:
Gas model theory does not jive with the direct observations, therfore it is eliminated. That is a "big deal", despite your cavalier attitude about it. Whether or not Birkeland's model is accure may remain in question, but the RD images eliminate the gas model from contention and that is no small issue as it relates to astronomy.
None of that makes your model correct. You don't seem to understand that first you've got to show that your model is correct, and then show that it is better than all the other models.quote:
quote:
How does my explanation of anything provide evidence in favor of your model to the exclusion of all other models?
I'm trying to exclude a model Dave.
Which is completely backwards from what you need to do to support your model.quote:
I'm trying to show you evidence that demonstrates that the currently accepted model is false and should be excluded from further consideration. You refuse to acknowledge this point and you wish me instead to eliminate *all* possible alternatives without naming them. Which alternatives are you actually concerned about that also explain these RD images? I can't eliminate something if I don't know what it is!
Science doesn't function by eliminating alternatives, it functions through positive evidence and the testing of theories against observation. You need to make the case that your theory is the best of all possible theories with the knowledge we have right now in order for your theory to be accepted. Since the number of possible alternative theories is infinite, you'd just be wasting your time to try to eliminate even one of them, which is why I have no need to "name" any of them.quote:
I showed you direct evidence that excluded a model.
And that doesn't provide any support for your model at all.quote:
Not only was it "a" model, it's "the" model that is currently taught in every college on the planet. If that isn't "significant" from your perspective, I'd love to know what exactly you find "interesting".
No, it isn't significant because your facts don't live up to your hype. You excluded a strawman of the existing theory, and so have only exlcuded "the" theory in your own mind.quote:
I can only exclude existing and viable models Dave. I can't exclude models if no competing models exist that also adequately explain the data.
Science doesn't work by excluding models.quote:
If there are no competitive models to the Birkeland solar model, then the Birkeland solar model wins the research money by default.
Oh, this is about money, then, and not about being correct?quote:
I provided you with evidence to exclude the single most important solar model, and the only other solar model offered for consideration. I can't do any more than that Dave.
Yes, you can provide positive evidence that your model is correct. So far, you haven't been able to compete with the null hypothesis of "we don't know." In fact, you thrive upon it when you're backed into the corner of actually explaining the physics of your model.quote:
It does Dave. It shows you how the Birkeland model is superior to the only other model on the table. I've excluded the current model, and I've explained how the data is explained in a Birkeland solar model.
Okay, then please again explain why a star the mass of the Sun will have a radius of about 696,000 km using your model. That is, after all, one of the thin |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 17:54:23 [Permalink]
|
Ah, Crazy Mike is back spouting his nonsense again. I was almost beginning to miss him.
Almost.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 18:20:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Admittedly mostly for historical reasons (apologies to those who've never stumbled into a "Surface of the Sun" thread), but it made me smile;
I'd never seen that one. Thanks. |
- 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 - 06/15/2006 : 20:49:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
MM said:
Sorry, but I'm not violating any laws of physics in my theories
Eh?
How about the sun having a solid iron surface at 6,000C? That I believe violates some laws.
How about a shell of this iron in equilibrium around a neutron star? Don't know of any physical laws that would allow that.
How about energy from neutron to neutron repulsion? That is a new madeup law.
Then there is your theory about photons having mass. That pretty muchly violates relativity.
With all of the psuedo-science crap you have spouted, I think I would be hard pressed to find a physical law that your theories HAVEN'T violated.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 21:03:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
How about the sun having a solid iron surface at 6,000C? That I believe violates some laws.
Plus, the sun floats over the Earth because it's made of gas. If it was really made of iron, it would be so heavy that it would fall and crush us all.
So Michael's "theory" fails even common sense.
|
"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 - 06/15/2006 : 21:17:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
How about the sun having a solid iron surface at 6,000C? That I believe violates some laws.
Yes, that probably would. Luckily I never suggested any such thing.
quote:
How about a shell of this iron in equilibrium around a neutron star? Don't know of any physical laws that would allow that.
You've never heard of magnetic fields and pressurized plasma?
quote:
How about energy from neutron to neutron repulsion? That is a new madeup law.
No. It's not a law, it's technically a theory with some observational support. It violates know known laws of physics.
quote:
Then there is your theory about photons having mass. That pretty muchly violates relativity.
They certainly do have "relativistic mass" and carry momentum from one place to another, not that has anything at all to do with the solar theory I've presented.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
quote:
With all of the psuedo-science crap you have spouted, I think I would be hard pressed to find a physical law that your theories HAVEN'T violated.
Oh boloney. The only psuedo-science I've seen here is the way you twist my statements right and left to suit yourself in the moment. When did I ever claim that the surface was 6000K? You just made that up so you could knock down strawmen of your own design. Talk about pseudo-science. You won't even both understanding the model I've actually presented. Instead you're more interested in "scoring points" over imagary and made up claims. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 21:21:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
How about the sun having a solid iron surface at 6,000C? That I believe violates some laws.
Plus, the sun floats over the Earth because it's made of gas. If it was really made of iron, it would be so heavy that it would fall and crush us all.
So Michael's "theory" fails even common sense.
Maybe, but then things in space don't always arrange themselves based strictly on gravitational forces:
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
Since water is heavier than air, common sense suggests that the water shell should "crush" that air bubble inside too. Your point? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 21:35:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
It doesn't seem to say much about the predominantly iron universe Michael. It does mention your belief in an iron rich sun. Are we to conclude from that that all stars are predominantly iron, and therefore the universe is predominantly iron?
Yes. Even neutron stars have predominantly iron crusts.
quote:
I have no problem with people citing their own work, but are there others on the field who have come to similar conclusions, or would you say your own work is ground-breaking in this regard?
I'd say Birkeland beat me to the idea by 100 years, and while his research may have been "groundbreaking", my work is somewhat more "ordinary". Dr. Manuel's work in the other hand is rather ground-breaking from a chemistry perspective.
Actually Dr. Manuel came to many of the same conclusions I did, only 30 years earlier, so yes, other scientists like Dr. Manuel and Hilton Ratcliffe have also come to similar conclusions.
quote:
I particularly enjoyed this:
quote:
(A)"These satellite images of the Sun provide visual scientific evidence that falsifies the popular belief that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of H and He, like the solar atmosphere [17,18].(B) Recent helioseismology data have now confirmed stratification at a relatively shallow depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005Ro) [19].
(The bolded A and B are mine)
As if B somehow proves A. And this, from the acknowledgements:
Actually, B (heliosiesmology data) does "support" A (satellite data).
quote:
As if the people who designed, launched and operate these satellites actually believe these images show what you believe they do.
I didn't make that claim, you read that part in yourself. I can see why you might object to that paragraph, but it is the truth as I see it, regardless of whether some them or all of them disagree with our interpetation. FYI, over the past year I've actually recieved some very supportive emails from some current and former employees of NASA. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/15/2006 21:42:02 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 21:44:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Ah, Crazy Mike is back spouting his nonsense again. I was almost beginning to miss him.
Almost.
Ah, the old standby of character assassination. I was almost starting to miss the childish nonsense.....almost.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 22:19:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Your point?
That I've stopped taking you seriously awhile ago.
|
"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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
