|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 08/19/2006 : 18:12:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Tell me also how "charge repulsion" would work from a "neutron core" which is, by definition, chargeless?
The crust is mostly made of iron atoms stripped of all electrons.
There are two fundamental problems with this explanation:
1) If the crust-iron is stripped of all electrons, then it wouldn't be a solid crust. Metals, no, all solids stay solid depending on the interactions of valence-electrons between the atoms. If there are no electrons, then there cannot be solids.
2) Charge repulsion does not work against the inside of a Faraday's Cage, because the electric potential inside such a cage is constant (as in homogeneous, there are no potential differences inside on which to work). That's why it's relatively safe to sit in a car during a lightning-storm.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 18:37:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Tell me how it would work.
It would work like any solid arch Dave. Surely you've seen a hollow ball with tough outer shell before.
quote:
And Michael chose to be silent. I wonder why.
Because I was under the impression that you and I were trying to stay focused on the electricity aspect of our discussion. If we aren't going to stay focused on the electricity aspects of coronal loops, frankly I'd rather return to the running difference images, since that is where the observational evidence of the surface begins.
To *understand* running difference (or running average) images however, you first have to understand the light source of the original two image, therefore we need to be discussing the nature of the electrical loops first, since they are the light source of these images. It is the changing light source that allows light to be reflected at various intensities from the surface features.
Before we can really discuss RD images, we must understand the nature of the light source, since it is impossible to explain the surface feature seen in these images without first understanding the light source. It's critical to understand how the light source and the image processing technique combined, can illuminate the surface features.
You can't get anywhere in satellite image analysis however until you grasp the light source.
quote:
Yes, an EM field large enough to uniformly support a "shell" of mostly iron ought to be detectable, since it'd have to be much larger than the 4,000 Gauss fields we regularly see in coronal loops.
Why *must* this field manifest itself as a "larger" field at the surface now? It seems to me that you constantly *insist* that we *oversimplify* the crust debate to a single issue, when in fact it may be, and probably is due to a combination of factors.
quote:
It says, "At the top of the crust, the nuclei are mostly iron 56 and lighter elements..." It doesn't say the crust is mostly iron. It doesn't say what the ratio of iron nuclei to lighter nuclei is, but it does say that taken together (that's what "and" means), iron and lighter nuclei predominate at the top of the crust, with larger nuclei appearing as one goes deeper.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/03apr_neutronstars.htm
Notice the comment about "iron rich crust" Dave. Here a paper on the subject if you like.
Paper
Most folks believe since neutron stars come from the collapse of a mostly iron remnant, that the curst is predominantly iron and nickel. I'm not making this stuff up Dave, check it out for yourself. This link talks about the thickness of this crust and points out it's mostly iron and nickel crust.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4248
quote:
Why would moving plasma arranged in layers be electrically charged?
Because the neutron star is magnetic and it's spinning.
quote:
Oh, good grief, you can't even read your own reference. How would a neutron star, trapped inside a lightweight (comparatively) shell, lose any mass at all?
It wouldn't necessarily be loosing weight with an iron shell around it Dave. The sun is loosing weight however in form of hydrogen.
quote:
With a surface gravity over ten billion times that of Earth's, why doesn't it gain mass over time?
Because it's "shedding" hydrogen atoms hand over fist.
quote:
Note also that your reference discusses the minimum mass of cold, static neutron stars, and clearly demonstrates that spinning neutron stars (and hot ones) must be larger than cold, static ones.
Yes, it does.
quote:
Since the measured value of the Sun's magnetic field is about one Gauss outside of sunspots, the prediction which naturally follows from your hypothesis is wrong by a factor of 1,000.
I love how you try to work out these magnetic field strengths *without* regard to any of the actual materials from the core to the surface, or interactions with the the outside universe any way, shape or form. Man do you like to oversimply everything or what?
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/19/2006 19:02:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 18:42:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, unless Michael has a reference which shows that the iron in a neutron star's crust makes up a significant percentage of its total mass. I don't think he's got any such reference, though, especially since the one he tried to pass off doesn't support his contentions regarding the iron content of a neutron star's crust.
Based upon theory *and* recent measurements, a neutron star's crust is relatively thin compared to it's total radius. When I'm referring to the elemental composition and makeup of the sun, and the elemental abundance figures specifically, I'm talking about the sun's *total* compostion in terms of actual elements *beside* the neutron core itself. The neutron core isn't quantifyable in terms of "which elements" it might represent, but the iron and nickel present in the crust of the neutron star is still iron and nickel, albeit they are packed a lot more tightly. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/19/2006 19:57:58 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 18:55:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Michael your analogies are patently superficial. That is, just like the ill-informed Big Bang scientists will explain expansion (that trite little subject) using a balloon, they don't really expect the balloon (or the little magic marker dots drawn on them) to actually prove anything. Yet, time and again, you offer weak superficial analogies not as a way to explain something, but as proof of its validity.
But they use the analogy none the less, while there is exactly *zero* evidence of inflaton particles or fields. Most folks however still put faith in the notion none the lese. Go figure.
quote:
For instance, what's the ratio in density between the air and the water "shell"? How does that compare to the density of iron in reltion to the stuff inside it?
I think first we need to understand how everyting is arranged *inside* the shell. Is it thick dense shell, or a relatively thin shell suspended by pressure and possibly charge repulsion?
quote:
In the air bubble "explanation" does the water "shell" equate to half the total mass of the bubble itself? Can you show this?
I wasn't trying to demonstate anything other than what is possible when you start talking about spheres that form in space. In this case, the most dense material is on the outside, not the inside. I have no idea if this applies to the sun, but I have reasons to suspect it probably does, at least to some degree.
quote:
What about the pressure ir air, etc., around the "shell"? How does that compare to the pressure around the iron crust of the sun? How does the sun's massive gravity play into the dynamics of its iron shell versus the gravity of the air bubble and how it plays into the dynamics of its water shell?
Great and relevant questions to be sure, but how we measure the "pressure" of the universe around us, including neutrinos with mass, dark energy, EM fields, etc?
quote:
For that analogy to have any validity, you'd have to at least show me that the two systems share anything but superficial similarities. My guess is they don't.
Actually, I think you're probably right about that, in that I would presume that a neutron star sits in the center the sun and rotates every five minutes, and it rotates once every 22 years relative to the shell'ss spin axis. The better analogy is probably something like a glass plasma sphere.
quote:
How can you posit a radical new make-up for the sun and not be concerned that the density and mass of the sun cannot change? You're taking a really dense element and saying it's now the dominant element in the sun, and you're taking two of the lightest elements and saying they only make up a small part of the sun, and yet you're also saying (because the physical world demands it) that the overall density is the same.
I don't get it.
I think the problem you're having trying to understand my model is you are expecting the interior to be composed of *dense* heavy plasma, whereas I would assume that temperature will play a significant role, as will charge repulsion.
You would look at the glass sphere "shell" of a plasma ball, and weight the plasma ball, and "rightfully" claim the ball cannot be made of "solid glass". It may be however that the glass in the plasma ball represents more than 50% of the weight of the total glass plasma ball. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/19/2006 18:57:19 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 19:03:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Michael your analogies are patently superficial. That is, just like the ill-informed Big Bang scientists will explain expansion (that trite little subject) using a balloon, they don't really expect the balloon (or the little magic marker dots drawn on them) to actually prove anything. Yet, time and again, you offer weak superficial analogies not as a way to explain something, but as proof of its validity.
But they use the analogy none the less, while there is exactly *zero* evidence of inflaton particles or fields. Most folks however still put faith in the notion none the lese. Go figure.
There's evidence for inflation Michael, but discussing the Big Bang is for later.
In any case, I actually think that I'm getting your model, Michael, and that you aren't understanding my objections-- my fault that I can't explain what's in my head, to be sure.
But to clarify-- perhaps you could draw out (on the computer or by hand) a rough sketch of your model in 2- of 3-D and insert the image here so I can see if it matches up with what I'm thinking? That might help. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 19:30:10 [Permalink]
|
Actually Cune, that glass plasma ball you're looking at is a very good way to visualize it. Envision that plasma ball is filled with concentric layers of plasma on the inside. The center of the plasma ball is the core, and it's rotating once every 5 minutes. The spinning magnetic fields of the core react with the plasma and the shell, and electricity begins to flow in and through the plasma. That electricity flow inside the shell manifests itself at the surface in giant arcs, and the sun begins to interact with the universe itself, via the solar sheath. The loops are driven by the current flow.
As the core spins, it also slowly rotates relative to the outer shell's spin axis. Over a 22 year timeline, the inner magnetic core completes one revolution. The suns inner magnetic alighnment has an impact on the magnetic alignment of the surface crust particularly in the lower regions of the crust. As the magnetic field rotates, the magnetic north pole rotates perpendicular to the spin axis, pointing slightly into the southern hemisphere. At this point the alignment patterns in the veins of the crust in the southern hemisphere are now aligned in the opposite direction of the current flow patterns. This is when all hell breaks loose and the sun enters a more "active" phase. This alignments manifests itself in dynamic exhanges of electrical current between various areas on the surfaces, both in the northern and southern hemisphere, and even across the nothern and southern hemispheres. Once the magnetic axis is pointed parallel to the sun's spin axis, everything goes quiet.
Imagine a spinning sphere inside a concentric layers of plasma, with a thin crust, not unlike that glass plasma ball, and that is pretty much what I think it looks like on the inside. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/19/2006 19:42:15 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 20:10:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually Cune, that glass plasma ball you're looking at is a very good way to visualize it. Envision that plasma ball is filled with concentric layers of plasma on the inside. The center of the plasma ball is the core, and it's rotating once every 5 minutes. The spinning magnetic fields of the core react with the plasma and the shell, and electricity begins to flow in and through the plasma. That electricity flow inside the shell manifests itself at the surface in giant arcs, and the sun begins to interact with the universe itself, via the solar sheath. The loops are driven by the current flow.
As the core spins, it also slowly rotates relative to the outer shell's spin axis. Over a 22 year timeline, the inner magnetic core completes one revolution. The suns inner magnetic alighnment has an impact on the magnetic alignment of the surface crust particularly in the lower regions of the crust. As the magnetic field rotates, the magnetic north pole rotates perpendicular to the spin axis, pointing slightly into the southern hemisphere. At this point the alignment patterns in the veins of the crust in the southern hemisphere are now aligned in the opposite direction of the current flow patterns. This is when all hell breaks loose and the sun enters a more "active" phase. This alignments manifests itself in dynamic exhanges of electrical current between various areas on the surfaces, both in the northern and southern hemisphere, and even across the nothern and southern hemispheres. Once the magnetic axis is pointed parallel to the sun's spin axis, everything goes quiet.
Imagine a spinning sphere inside a concentric layers of plasma, with a thin crust, not unlike that glass plasma ball, and that is pretty much what I think it looks like on the inside.
Specifics, Michael. All you do is throw out vague ideas and link to CNN articles to try and demonostrate the validity of your claims. How thick is the shell? What about the "layers" of plasma? (And whay are they layered?) It's all frustrating, and suggests that besides some idle day-dreaming and lots of looking at images, you have nothing concrete to say about your model.
At some point, you argued that schools should at least entertain your idea of a solid surface, but why would they? You're short on specifics and long on cut-and-pastes of un-related pictures and articles.
And before you reply, if you even think about linking yet another NASA picture or article, don't. Because I'm sick of it. If you can't offer something of your own-- some math, some drawings or whatever-- to address any of the questions that have been put out there, then it's not worth it. We've reached the end of the cut-and-paste phase. If you have nothing original and new to offer, then I'm not sure it's worth contining the discussion. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 20:34:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posrted by Dave W.
Tell me how it would work.
It would work like any solid arch Dave. Surely you've seen a hollow ball with tough outer shell before.
Well, that's not how the water bubble is working, since the water isn't solid, nor is it "tough." Answer the question I asked: does any solid have a surface tension?quote:
quote:
And Michael chose to be silent. I wonder why.
Because I was under the impression that you and I were trying to stay focused on the electricity aspect of our discussion.
No, I'm waiting for your full write-up on that subject.quote:
If we aren't going to stay focused on the electricity aspects of coronal loops, frankly I'd rather return to the running difference images, since that is where the observational evidence of the surface begins.
You can choose to do whatever it is you want to, Michael. You know what I'm waiting for.quote:
To *understand* running difference (or running average) images however, you first have to understand the light source of the original two image, therefore we need to be discussing the nature of the electrical loops first, since they are the light source of these images.
Then stop wasting time here, and write up your evidence that the loops are electrical.quote:
It is the changing light source that allows light to be reflected at various intensities from the surface features.
That's your hypothesis, why won't you prove it?quote:
Before we can really discuss RD images, we must understand the nature of the light source, since it is impossible to explain the surface feature seen in these images without first understanding the light source. It's critical to understand how the light source and the image processing technique combined, can illuminate the surface features.
Why do you keep repeating your hypotheses, without providing supporting evidence?quote:
You can't get anywhere in satellite image analysis however until you grasp the light source.
Well, you're not helping anyone "grasp the light source" by talking about how we have to understand it.quote:
quote:
Yes, an EM field large enough to uniformly support a "shell" of mostly iron ought to be detectable, since it'd have to be much larger than the 4,000 Gauss fields we regularly see in coronal loops.
Why *must* this field manifest itself as a "larger" field at the surface now?
Because even 4,000 Gauss won't support your surface against the crushing gravitational forces.quote:
It seems to me that you constantly *insist* that we *oversimplify* the crust debate to a single issue, when in fact it may be, and probably is due to a combination of factors.
Then state it as a combination of factors, tell us what those factors are, and describe the interplay between them and whatever phenomenon is under discussion. You're "I'll state this, and if objections are raised, I'll add that" mode of operation is old and tired.quote:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/03apr_neutronstars.htm
Notice the comment about "iron rich crust" Dave.
This is what I'm talking about. One reference says one thing, and you're called on the fact that it does not support your statements, so you present something you've never offered before in support. I wouldn't have wasted time arguing with you, Michael, if you'd presented the above reference (or the others) to support your claim the first damn time.quote:
quote:
Why would moving plasma arranged in layers be electrically charged?
Because the neutron star is magnetic and it's spinning.
You're the one who thinks "frozen" magnetic fields are a laugh riot, Michael. Why would the plasma as a whole be electrically charged with magnetic fields sweeping through them every five minutes? It's not like electrons can't move that fast, following the magnetic field and maintaining the null net charge which should exist in a long-lived plasma.quote:
quote:
Oh, good grief, you can't even read your own reference. How would a neutron star, trapped inside a lightweight (comparatively) shell, lose any mass at all?
It wouldn't necessarily be loosing weight with an iron shell around it Dave. The sun is loosing weight however in form of hydrogen.
What does the Sun's mass loss have to do with your claim that the neutron star inside it has lost mass? What did it lose mass to? Why would a neutron star with a shell around it be only half the mass of the Sun? How does the shell form? What known physical processes occur |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 20:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
But to clarify-- perhaps you could draw out (on the computer or by hand) a rough sketch of your model in 2- of 3-D and insert the image here so I can see if it matches up with what I'm thinking? That might help.
Here's the best image from Michael that I've seen. I don't know if it is the best he's got, as the site's a little difficult to navigate. I also have no idea if "layers" mean all layers or just "atmospheric layers" or "layers not affected by Z axis accelleration", as I didn't think even Michael believed all the layers are mass separated, just those above his surface, but maybe that's what this means.
The one above is cached at one of my sites, for reference in case Michael wants to change (correct?) his, the original image is here. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 08/19/2006 20:46:28 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 21:54:47 [Permalink]
|
Actually that "model" primarily describes the "external" plasma layer arrangements. All the internal and external plasma layers are mass separated though there is some amount of "mixing" in every layer.
The "core" in the middle of that diagram is neutron star, and there is also an inner arrangement of plasma layers as well. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 22:15:38 [Permalink]
|
FYI Cune, I think it's rather unfair for you to step into this conversation after many threads and many months of discussions and act like I've been less than specific or forthcoming with diagrams and explanations for a solar model that is still "evolving" as I learn and grow. Since first creating that image that John posted, I've been able to assign depths to every plasma layer in the solar atmosphere. I've also come a long way toward feeling "comfortable" describing the inside of this solar model, which is something I've personally been struggling with for a very long time now. In fact my views about the interior of the sun have changed quite a bit since I first put up my website, and I do intend to update the site soon to reflect my change of heart about the nature of the core.
This has been one major learning experience from my perspective, and yet I've been willing to discuss the things I can observe and can measure and can feel confortable about. That isn't to suggest that all the details of this model are covered yet, or that all the math is done, or that all the "issues" have been dealt with.
I'm actually amazed that you find my use of links to news articles and scientitic papers as "sickening". I'm not sure what exactly you're expecting from me frankly. Have you even read any of the papers I've got posted on Arxiv?
You also need to realize that until April of 2005, I too was under the impression that the sun was made of mostly hydrogen plasma just like I was told in school. It took many years of effort to construct gas model solar theories. It wil take many man years of effort to fully round out a Birkeland solar model as well. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 22:23:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, that's not how the water bubble is working, since the water isn't solid, nor is it "tough." Answer the question I asked: does any solid have a surface tension?
How would you suggest we describe "surface tension" of solids? I can certainly hand you links to surface tension of molten iron.
quote:
No, I'm waiting for your full write-up on that subject.
Then be patient and stop asking me questions about the surface tension of solids.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/19/2006 22:24:05 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 23:33:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
How would you suggest we describe "surface tension" of solids?
You're the one who suggested that surface tension has something to do with your solid shell, Michael, so how would you suggest that you provide support for that idea?quote:
I can certainly hand you links to surface tension of molten iron.
No, you've handed me a link to an article about the surface tension of molten iron with other elements contaminating it. You also haven't handed me a link to an article about the surface tension of any solid, so the link is entirely irrelevant in the first place.
quote:
quote:
No, I'm waiting for your full write-up on that subject.
Then be patient and stop asking me questions about the surface tension of solids.
I'm surprised that you - someone who found a single personal affront a few weeks ago so devestating that you were willing to give up this entire discussion - would find simple questions so important that you would feel compelled to reply, and thus try to lay the blame for any delay in our discussions on me.
Well, no, I'm not surprised. You've shown yourself to be quite willing to shift the blame for failures of your rhetoric to other people. This "I can't work on what you want while you ask me questions about something else" ludicrous defense is par for the course. |
- 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 - 08/20/2006 : 00:30:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You've handed me a link to an article about the surface tension of molten iron with other elements contaminating it. You also haven't handed me a link to an article about the surface tension of any solid, so the link is entirely irrelevant in the first place.
But maybe Michael believes that molten iron is a solid. Or maybe Michael believes that his "solid" surface is molten iron. You know how he prefers his own secret definitions of words to their scientific usage. It's impossible to tell what Michael is driving at whenever he drops another link into a thread. (Thus Cune's irritation.)
Personally, I think it's merely what it appears to be--purely a diversion on the part of Michael who actually hasn't a fucking clue what the surface is made of, how it's held together, what holds it up, what's inside it, how deforms and reforms itself, how it generates eletricity or how it generates heat. These issues are too "complicated" to understand or explain properly so he must make stuff up on the fly. He just knows that it all works somehow because he sees funny "structures" in pictures that no one at NASA has the time to explain to him, even though he feels he's important enough that they should. They're all too scared of rocking the establishment with his brilliant ideas, you see. (Don't laugh too hard, Michael seems to actually believe this.)
|
"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 08/20/2006 00:36:50 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2006 : 03:29:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Specifics, Michael. All you do is throw out vague ideas and link to CNN articles to try and demonostrate the validity of your claims. How thick is the shell? What about the "layers" of plasma?
I have already identified the thicknesses *and* the arrangement of all the layers that I have been able to identify in the solar atmosphere. I've specified their thickness to the best of my ability, and I've described their position in the atmosphere as well. I explained *why* they are arranged in that particular order, and I provided you a link to a now peer reviewed paper on the subject. According to the heliosiesmology data that I've seen thus far, the surface crust would appear to be very thin, and I also provided you with a "sickening" link to that data as well.
quote:
(And whay are they layered?) It's all frustrating, and suggests that besides some idle day-dreaming and lots of looking at images, you have nothing concrete to say about your model.
What is frustrating to me is posting a peer reviewed paper that will be published in Yad Fiz in a few months, only to have you utterly ignore the fact that I already explained this issue quite carefully and quite methodically. Magnetic fields and large gravity wells separate the plasma, just like these factors separate plasma right here on earth in the lab. If you can't acknowledge at least this much of what I've explained to you, then perhaps you should actually spend more time reading those links you seem to dislike reading. I assure you, I've explained that issue very *thuroughly*.
quote:
At some point, you argued that schools should at least entertain your idea of a solid surface, but why would they? You're short on specifics and long on cut-and-pastes of un-related pictures and articles.
I've carefully explained to you in some of these "links", some of the "minor details" you seem to suggest you are interested in. If however you don't read them, you can't then accuse me of not doing my part.
quote:
And before you reply, if you even think about linking yet another NASA picture or article, don't. Because I'm sick of it. If you can't offer something of your own-- some math, some drawings or whatever-- to address any of the questions that have been put out there, then it's not worth it.
I handed you a long and involved, and now peer reviewed study of the mass separation issue, and evidently it's a link you find "sickening" and haven't even read yet based on your comments. I can't make you read the links I provide, and I can't make you acknowledge the materials I've provided.
quote:
We've reached the end of the cut-and-paste phase. If you have nothing original and new to offer, then I'm not sure it's worth contining the discussion.
What were you wanting from me exactly, particularly if that peer reviewed explanation of mass separation isn't worth your time reading? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/20/2006 05:09:50 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
