Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Astronomy
 Surface of the Sun (part 12)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2006 :  07:11:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
According to contemporary theory, redshift is due to the expanding tensor fields of expansion (expanding matter), not scalar inflation fields.

I do not know what "contemporary theory" you are talking about, but it certainly not the BB theory. You have been given many, many links to the BB theory and you still have learned nothing and continue to make bonehead statements like the bolded statement.

This is over and above the point that Cune made about your obvious lack of understand of the difference between expansion and inflation.



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2006 :  14:43:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
No it isn't. I can't understand why you can't see this. There are certain mathematical formula for how the universe is supposed to behave. Working through them, you find that an object X should exist in abundance.


That is probably just fine *as long as* we know for a fact that object x exists in reality. If we don't know that object x even *can* exist in "reality", we can't *assume* it "should" do anything, or exist in any quantity, regardless of how the math might work out. If we do some calculation involving photons, and we know and agree that photons exist, sure, our logic works. If we do some "calculation" invloving elves, we can't then use that "math" showing nearly zero elves exist to demonstrate the existence of firebreathing dragons.

Guth did not know for a fact that monopoles even exist, or can exist, let alone have any clue what "quantity" they *might* exist at given any particular scenario. If a grand unified field theory had already been agreed to, your arguement might have a leg to stand on. Since no such consensus has been reached even today, it's a little far fetched to claim that "monopoles" "should" exist at all, let alone exist in any particular quantities. Guth quite literally applied his 'math' to something with as much evidence as an "elf" based on faith in *some guys* idea about a grand unified field thoery.


Cune, think about this skeptically for a moment. If I came to you with a "theory" about a unevidenced particle I dreamed up that was based on *my* concept of a what a grand unified field theory *might* look like, would consider my ideas to constitute "evidence" of any sort for the particle in question? If I then used this particle in question to build another concept about the existence of another kind of *special* type of tensor or scalar field, would you buy that logic too? That is literally what you're asking me to do here.

quote:
However, in reality object X doesn't exist. Why? All Guth did was to propose that through manipulation of certain aspects of the math, you could explain why object X doesn't exist.


That would be fine as long as we all agreed that object x exists at all, or can exist at all, or would exist at all in *any* circumstance. Since that has never happened, Guth has built himself an interesting house of cards around his own "faith" in one guys paper about a particle that *might* exist in some kind of nebulous (and unagreed upon) grand unified theory.

quote:
Clearly there were problems with Guth's attempts to manipulate the math, but it's clear that he was onto something.


The only thing Guth seemed to be onto was a "snipe hunt" that was based upon a hunch he had in some guys take on what a grand unified field theory *might* look like, and particles it *might* contain. I'm afraid that the skeptic in me will definitely need to see a bit more evidence for A) monopoles, and B) inflaton fields. In 25 years of dedicated research, no such evidence has emerged to support the existence of either A) *or* B), let alone both A) *and* B).

quote:
Manipulating one part of the math resolved why object X didn't appear!


But Cune, you can't apply math to elves and dragons and claim that this math formula constitutes valid evidence of why fire breathing dragons don't exist. That's quite literally the only appropriate analogy here. Neither the existence of elves (monopoles) has been confirmed, nor the existence of a fire breathing dragons has been confirmed. No amount of "futzing" with the math is going to change these cold hard facts.

quote:
Now, at this point all you can do is complain that the original math that proposed object X was wrong.


But I'm not questioning the math Cune. I'm questioning the logic behind claiming that elves and firebreathing dragons exist or would exist under *any* circumstances. The math is not the problem. The problem is where that mathematician took the variable "elves" (monopoles) and "FireBreathingDragons" (inflation fields) and inserted these variables it into these formulas. I have no doubt that that their the math showing (near) zero elves in today's universe is correct, I just have no evidence that either elves or dragons ever existed. The math isn't the problem, it's the bubble gum *concept* of elves (monopoles) and FireBreathingDragons (near constant density scalar fields with increasing volume) that is the problem here. The problem isn't in the math, the problem lies with the *concept* being presented in the math. Neither of these concepts have been verified. It's therefore just as logical to claim that magical conscious fire breathing dragons caused these mystical inflaton fields. Why not just add one more unevidenced concept into the mix too? I mean what the hell, if two unevidenced ideas are good for one math formula, three should be "better", right?

quote:
And perhaps it is. However, since you haven't actually worked through the math (or seen it, for that matter) you have no real idea.


From my perspective, you're asking me to work through the math of the elves and FireBreathingDragons. First you have to demonstrate to me that either of these things exist, *then* I may have the desire to "work through" something with you.

quote:
Moreover, since most of the entire cosmological community doesn't seem to have a problem with it, we can assume that the math that called for object X was sound.


That ultimately is an appeal to popularity fallacy. I don't care if people want to believe in inflaton fields or elves, it's all the same from my perspective. I see no evidence to support the existence of elves, and I see no evidence to support the existence of inflaton fields. They are therefore "equal" from my skeptical point of view.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/27/2006 14:45:02
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2006 :  14:49:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Now, going back to the 1989 photospheric abundance numbers (since Dr. Manuel doesn't seem interested in more up-to-date values), Michael (et al) claims that once corrected, they show that the most-abundant elements are "Fe, O, Ni, Si, and S" (latest paper, page 13 of PDF). This conclusion is entirely dependent upon the exponent within the "factor of fractionation," which (see previous posts) Dr. Manuel claims is f = (H/L)4.56. It's that 4.56 value - which I believe he calls n - that I'm talking about. Change n, and the "most abundant" elements change.

Below, you'll find a chart of those changes as n is varied from 1.0 to about 130 (above which, my software suffers from a math overflow condition):

Table A[code]-----------------------------------------------------
! ! Most-Abundant Elements !
! Range of N ! (Reading left to right) !
-----------------------------------------------------
! 1.000 - 1.330 ! H He O C Fe Ne N Si Mg S !
! 1.331 - 1.660 ! H He O Fe C Ne N Si Mg S !
! 1.661 - 1.677 ! H He O Fe C Ne Si N Mg S !
! 1.678 - 2.007 ! He H O Fe C Ne Si N Mg S !
! 2.008 - 2.118 ! He H O Fe C Ne Si Mg N S !
! 2.119 - 2.315 ! He H O Fe Ne C Si Mg N S !
! 2.316 - 2.339 ! He H Fe O Ne C Si Mg N S !
! 2.340 - 2.476 ! He H Fe O Ne C Si Mg S N !
! 2.477 - 2.549 ! He Fe H O Ne C Si Mg S N !
! 2.550 - 2.744 ! He Fe O H Ne C Si Mg S N !
! 2.745 - 2.896 ! He Fe O H Ne Si C Mg S N !
! 2.897 - 2.915 ! Fe He O H Ne Si C Mg S N !
! 2.916 - 2.961 ! Fe He O H Ne Si C Mg S Ni !
! 2.962 - 3.005 ! Fe He O H Ne Si C S Mg Ni !
! 3.006 - 3.074 ! Fe He O Ne H Si C S Mg Ni !
! 3.075 - 3.169 ! Fe He O Ne Si H C S Mg Ni !
! 3.170 - 3.182 ! Fe He O Ne Si H S C Mg Ni !
! 3.183 - 3.187 ! Fe He O Ne Si S H C Mg Ni !
! 3.188 - 3.202 ! Fe He O Ne Si S C H Mg Ni !
! 3.203 - 3.255 ! Fe He O Ne Si S C Mg H Ni !
! 3.256 - 3.260 ! Fe He O Ne Si S Mg C H Ni !
! 3.261 - 3.375 ! Fe He O Ne Si S Mg C Ni H !
! 3.376 - 3.395 ! Fe He O Ne Si S Mg Ni C H !
! 3.396 - 3.421 ! Fe He O Ne Si S Mg Ni C Ar !
! 3.422 - 3.470 ! Fe O He Ne Si S Mg Ni C Ar !
! 3.471 - 3.695 ! Fe O He Ne Si S Ni Mg C Ar !
! 3.696 - 3.716 ! Fe O He Si Ne S Ni Mg C Ar !
! 3.717 - 3.824 ! Fe O He Si Ne Ni S Mg C Ar !
! 3.825 - 3.979 ! Fe O He Si Ne Ni S Mg Ar C !
! 3.980 - 4.070 ! Fe O He Si Ni Ne S Mg Ar C !
! 4.071 - 4.081 ! Fe O Si He Ni Ne S Mg Ar C !
! 4.082 - 4.110 ! Fe O Si Ni He Ne S Mg Ar C !
! 4.111 - 4.148 ! Fe O Ni Si He Ne S Mg Ar C !
! 4.149 - 4.185 ! Fe O Ni Si Ne He S Mg Ar C !
! 4.186 - 4.207 ! Fe O Ni Si Ne S He Mg Ar C !
! 4.208 - 4.311 ! Fe O Ni Si Ne S He Mg Ar Ca !
! 4.312 - 4.382 ! Fe O Ni Si S Ne He Mg Ar Ca !
! 4.383 - 4.430 ! Fe O Ni Si S Ne Mg He Ar Ca !
! 4.431 - 4.597 ! Fe O Ni Si S Ne Mg Ar He Ca !
! 4.598 - 4.630 ! Fe O Ni Si S Ne Ar Mg He Ca !
! 4.631 - 4.775 ! Fe O Ni Si S Ne Ar Mg Ca He !
! 4.776 - 4.791 ! Fe O Ni Si S Ne Ar Mg Ca Cr !
! 4.792 - 5.082 ! Fe Ni O Si S Ne Ar Mg Ca Cr !
! 5.083 - 5.499 ! Fe Ni O Si S Ar Ne Mg Ca Cr !
! 5.500 - 5.678 ! Fe Ni O Si S Ar Ne Ca Mg Cr !
! 5.679 - 5.688 ! Fe Ni Si O S Ar Ne Ca Mg Cr !
! 5.689 - 5.713 ! Fe Ni Si O S Ar Ne Ca Cr Mg !
! 5.714 - 5.746 ! Fe Ni Si S O Ar Ne Ca Cr Mg !
! 5.747 - 5.831 ! Fe Ni Si S O Ar Ca Ne Cr Mg !
! 5.832 - 5.862 ! Fe Ni Si S O Ar Ca Cr Ne Mg !
! 5.863 - 5.955 ! Fe Ni S Si O Ar Ca Cr Ne Mg !
! 5.956 - 6.055 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Ca Cr Ne Mg !
! 6.056 - 6.080 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Cr Ca Ne Mg !
! 6.081 - 6.127 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Cr Ca Ne Mn !
! 6.128 - 6.135 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Cr Ca Ne Pb !
! 6.136 - 6.145 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Cr Ca Pb Ne !
! 6.146 - 6.298 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Cr Ca Pb Mn !
! 6.299 - 6.344 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Cr Pb Ca Mn !
! 6.345 - 6.355 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar O Pb Cr Ca Mn !
! 6.356 - 6.368 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar Pb O Cr Ca Mn !
! 6.369 - 6.391 ! Fe Ni S Si Ar Pb Cr O Ca Mn !
! 6.392 - 6.458 ! Fe Ni S Ar Si Pb Cr O Ca Mn !
! 6.459 - 6.531 ! Fe Ni S Ar Si Pb Cr Ca O Mn !
! 6.532 - 6.544 ! Fe Ni S Ar Si Pb Cr Ca O Pt !
! 6.545 - 6.565 ! Fe Ni S Ar Pb Si Cr Ca O Pt !
! 6.566 - 6.578 ! Fe Ni S Ar Pb Si Cr Ca Pt O !
! 6.579 - 6.593 ! Fe Ni S Pb Ar Si Cr Ca Pt O !
! 6.594 - 6.601 ! Fe Ni Pb S Ar Si Cr Ca Pt O !
! 6.602 - 6.628 ! Fe Ni Pb S Ar Si Cr Ca Pt Mn !
! 6.629 - 6.707 ! Fe Ni Pb S Ar Si Cr Pt Ca Mn !
! 6.708 - 6.741 ! Fe Ni Pb Ar S Si Cr Pt Ca Mn !
! 6.742 - 6.821 ! Fe Ni Pb Ar S Si Pt Cr Ca Mn !
! 6.822 - 6.892 ! Fe Ni Pb Ar S Pt Si Cr Ca Mn !
! 6.893 - 6.918 ! Fe Ni Pb Ar Pt S Si Cr Ca Mn !
! 6.919 - 6.992 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar S Si Cr Ca Mn !
! 6.993 - 7.013 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar S Cr Si Ca Mn !
! 7.014 - 7.207 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar S Cr Si Mn Ca !
! 7.208 - 7.256 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar S Cr Si Mn Os !
! 7.257 - 7.295 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar S Cr Si Os Mn !
! 7.296 - 7.303 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar S Cr Os Si Mn !
! 7.304 - 7.366 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar Cr S Os Si Mn !
! 7.367 - 7.395 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar Cr S Os Mn Si !
! 7.396 - 7.402 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar Cr S Os Mn Ir !
! 7.403 - 7.410 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar Cr Os S Mn Ir !
! 7.411 - 7.438 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar Cr Os S Ir Mn !
! 7.439 - 7.501 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Ar Os Cr S Ir Mn !
! 7.502 - 7.508 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ar Cr S Ir Mn !
! 7.509 - 7.584 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ar Cr Ir S Mn !
! 7.585 - 7.622 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ar Ir Cr S Mn !
! 7.623 - 7.737 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ir Ar Cr S Mn !
! 7.738 - 7.810 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ir Ar Cr Mn S !
! 7.811 - 7.822 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ir Cr Ar Mn S !
! 7.823 - 7.858 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ir Cr Ar Mn Tl !
! 7.859 - 7.904 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ir Cr Ar Tl Mn !
! 7.905 - 7.933 ! Fe Ni Pb Pt Os Ir Cr Ar Tl Au !
! 7.934 - 7.975 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Cr Ar Tl Au !
! 7.976 - 8.006 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Cr Tl Ar Au !
! 8.007 - 8.015 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Tl Cr Ar Au !
! 8.016 - 8.055 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Tl Cr Au Ar !
! 8.056 - 8.223 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Tl Au Cr Ar !
! 8.224 - 8.308 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Tl Au Cr W !
! 8.309 - 8.351 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Tl Au W Cr !
! 8.352 - 8.450 ! Fe Pb Ni Pt Os Ir Tl Au W Ba !
! 8.451 - 8.909 ! Fe Pb Pt Ni Os Ir Tl Au W Ba !
! 8.910 - 9.233 ! Fe Pb Pt Ni Os Ir Tl Au W Th !
! 9.234 - 9.384 ! Fe Pb Pt Os Ni Ir Tl Au W Th !
! 9.385 - 9.756 ! Fe Pb Pt Os Ir Ni Tl Au W Th !
! 9.757 - 9.834 ! Fe Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Ni Au W Th !
! 9.835 - 9.867 ! Fe Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Ni Au Th W !
! 9.868 - 10.181 ! Fe Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Au Ni Th W !
! 10.182 - 10.212 ! Fe Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Au Th Ni W !
! 10.213 - 10.251 ! Pb Fe Pt Os Ir Tl Au Th Ni W !
! 10.252 - 10.833 ! Pb Fe Pt Os Ir Tl Au Th W Ni !
! 10.834 - 10.835 ! Pb Pt Fe Os Ir Tl Au Th W Ni !
! 10.836 - 11.394 ! Pb Pt Fe Os Ir Tl Au Th W Yb !
! 11.395 - 11.623 ! Pb Pt Fe Os Ir Tl Au Th W U !
! 11.624 - 11.760 ! Pb Pt Os Fe Ir Tl Au Th W U !
! 11.761 - 12.012 ! Pb Pt Os Ir Fe Tl Au Th W U !
! 12.013 - 12.191 ! Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Fe Au Th W U !
! 12.192 - 12.230 ! Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Au Fe Th W U !
! 12.231 - 12.531 ! Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Au Th Fe W U !
! 12.532 - 12.697 ! Pb Pt Os Ir Tl Th Au Fe W U !
! 12.698 -

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2006 :  15:55:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
It's all well and good to have doubts about a scientific idea, Michael. You should just know something about it before you go critiquing it.
Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2006 :  17:30:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message
OK, I'm going to reply to a few choice bits and pieces I've been copying to a text file as I've perused the thread lately. I still read everything, but don't feel my comments are required/achieving much all that often. I'll return to the image analysis later, perhaps when the new data is in, or perhaps before.

Following are bits that particularly annoyed me, or I thought might contribute to the discussion as a whole if addressed.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

From my perspective, you're asking me to work through the math of the elves and FireBreathingDragons. First you have to demonstrate to me that either of these things exist, *then* I may have the desire to "work through" something with you.

That just isn't how science works, Michael. Sometimes empirical evidence is the direct inspiration for development/refinement of a theory, and sometimes not. You have been provided with many examples where theories have been developed which suggested phenomena/paritcles etc which were not yet known to exist, and for which no methodology existed for testing/verification. This will likely always be the case. This does not preclude a theory from being correct. More importantly however, it does not stop a theory from being useful.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

Birkeland was an "iron-sun" thinker too. He actually created lab simulations and tested everything that I've proposed, over 100 years ago.

You must know this is false. You're use of "everything that I've proposed" is at best deluded wishful thinking, at worst, outright dishonesty. As has been pointed out to you in the past, nowhere did Birkeland present any sort of coherent model for the sun. If you want to re-define what constitues a scientific model, go right ahead, but I would suggest you first demonstrate that you understand what is generally understood to constitute a scientific model within the scientific community. I would like to see any professional scientist look at Birkelands work and come to the conclusion that he has presented a solar model.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
At times, this process is a bit like trying to discuss solar physics at a frat party.

That's almost exacly what it's like, but not only in the way you think. I had a great physics lecturer at University who once gave a discourse on "cocktail physicists". He was essentially describing his amusement at those (mostly undergrad students) who loved to talk about complex/sexy physics issues like black holes and quantum mechanics when they had no real understanding of the underlying science and methodology requireed to do so.

I'm not suggesting you know nothing about science Michael, but you make a lot of judgements and assumptions about things where you have demonstrated a lack of sufficient knowledge to do so.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

Astronomy today ... It's also based on the belief that plasmas do not mass separate to any great degree, inspite of ...

This ony really annoys me. Show me a physics theory which is explicitly "based on" something not happening. Solar (in fact, any physics) theories address issues if they are relevant to the scope of the theory proposed. It is pointless (and indeed impossible) to list all the things assumed to not be occurring in order for a theory to be valid.

You often trot out a line something like this "Gas model theory is predicated on the idea that plasmas dont mass separate blah blah blah". Bollocks. Mass separation isn't as special as you make it out to be. Show me in any conventional solar model the assumption that plasmas do not mass separate. I'm not talking about conclusions, I'm talking about presumptions. There's a huge difference when talking about scientific theory.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

Well, I agree actually, but my comment was really in reference to furshur's earlier statements about only *me* understanding the RD images. That is not true. I'm not the only one that "understands" them from my perspective, and I'm not the only person who "interprets" them as I do, despite furshur's comments to the contrary.

This is mostly for my own interest, but my question here is:
Do you believe there is anyone who understands RD images who has not interpreted them as you have?

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

Everytime a change is made to the model, the "new" model is presented to the class, giving it an air of credibility because its important "predictions" now "match" all the direct observations. If one is not exposed to the history behind this bait and switch routine, one might easily get the impression that the "new and improved" version "passes with flying colors".

Do you expect to be held permanently accountable for every error you've made in developing your alleged model? Should we make sure that every time someone else joins these discussions, they are made explicitly aware of every mistake you've made in the past? Again, that's just not how science works Michael. It's not about "covering up" past mistakes, it's about progressing beyond them. They're still there for those interested in then history of science.

Your whole attitude to getting "alternative" theories taught in the classroom is just plain absurd. Science itself isn't done by popularity. However, there is a shortage of both time and expertise in the classroom, so the content presented to students has to be filtered in some way. The chosen method is somewhat akin to popularity, but it's the popularity of theories as judged by the bulk of those actually practicing science.

Almost anything can be discussed in physics classes. The cirriculum however cannot be adjusted so quickly, and is modified to reflect current scientific concensus. Is that perfect? No. But there is no other pragmatic method. If every "alternative" theory with a relative handful of proponents had to be given "equal time" students wouldn't learn much of anything. There simply isn't enough time. If you've got an actual solution to the problem, present it, otherwise you have to admit that granting time to your alternative theory also requires granting time to all of the others. I would estimate that this would at least double the size of the current cirriculum (probably much more), what do you suggest is dropped?

John's just this guy, you know.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2006 :  19:21:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Look, guys, I've discovered, over the past week or so, that it's a lot more fun and a lot more productive to just stick to the science, which largely depends on ignoring Michael. You can, instead, very easily take the various bases for Michael's theory, and tear it to shreds by showing that the premises are wrong, incorrectly calculated, or lacking in evidenciary basis. Michael doesn't understand the work that's been done before him, but using which he now co-authors papers. He can't argue against it.

For example, I pointed out the fact that there is no verification whatsoever of Dr. Manuel's (and Michael's) claims that a non-fusing Sun could be powered by this new, never-before-seen energy that Dr. Manuel has been bafflegabbing on about for years now. Nobody has ever had an atomic nucleus made of nothing but 56 neutrons (for example), or otherwise Dr. Manuel wouldn't have had to extrapolate its energy from the "cradle of nuclides." There's no way to know whether the "mass parabolas" are still parabolas beyond the known isotopes, Dr. Manuel just assumes that they are, even though that sort of nuclear matter has never been evidenced anywhere (the interior of a neutron star is held together more by gravity, not by normal nuclear forces, but Dr. Manuel wants to conflate the two).

Michael's response, when I stated the above in fewer words, was - and I quote - "huh?" My criticism showed that Michael's own model of the Sun matches his definition of "mythical metaphysics," but he didn't get it. He's made himself immune to understanding criticism. He doesn't even see the irony between his diatribes against magnetic monopoles and his squealing about solar models that aren't mass fractionated enough for his tastes (note that he cannot describe how much fractionization must happen for him to accept a model as possibly correct, because he doesn't understand the math).

So, I believe that if you actually stick to the real science of what Michael is proposing, it will effectively shut him out of the discussion entirely. I predict that he won't have any substantive criticisms of any of the posts I've made lately, even long after his "sabbatical" (which doesn't seem to have started yet).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2006 :  22:51:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....

So, I believe that if you actually stick to the real science of what Michael is proposing, it will effectively shut him out of the discussion entirely. I predict that he won't have any substantive criticisms of any of the posts I've made lately, even long after his "sabbatical" (which doesn't seem to have started yet).
Oh, bummer. I was rather hoping (certainly not expecting of course, but hoping) that after a whole month since Michael's declaration of intent to "shine" with an explanation of the running difference images, he'd finally get around to saying something, anything substantive and possibly quantitative about them.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....

No, Michael, this is your chance to make your theory shine.
It is in fact a breath of fresh air to be finally be talking about the images I *wish* to talk about, I'll certainly grant you that. I'll be more than happy to "shine" for you on this topic Dave.
But no shining yet, hell, not even a little glimmer.

I'm still waiting for him to explain how running difference images even could show a surface a few thousand kilometers below the photosphere, when the original images used to create the running difference output are of 171 light from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. So far we've only gotten his feeble attempts to bail out on his burden of proof. He whined that nobody explained how we know the 171 light in the original images comes from far above the photosphere. Of course it was explained, simply and clearly, more than a few times.

I'm still waiting for him to explain how he determines which particular areas are solid and which just look like light and shadow due to the optical illusion effect described by Dr. Hurlburt. So far there is no known method for Michael coming to his conclusion, so there is currently no possible way for anyone else to independently reach the same determination. This makes his interpretation unique among all the billions of people on Earth.

I'm still waiting for him to create his own running difference images, as so many times he has claimed the ability to do, and nearly as many times Dave has asked him to go ahead and do it. But of course there's been no response yet to that request. Maybe we could post a couple of sequential satellite images of the Earth showing some particular area covered with clouds. Then Michael could make a running difference image and tell us what city or state he sees in the output once he's cleared away the clouds. Imagine how easy that would be. After all, clouds are only a few kilometers thick, then another few kilometers of virtual transparency to the Earth's surface. Should be a piece of cake compared to seeing through the few thousand kilometers of opaque photosphere on the Sun!

And I'm actually still waiting for him to find even one single professional astrophysicist who agrees with his interpretation, to agree that there might even possibly be something solid showing in those images. He claims the people at LMSAL who interpret satellite imagery are incompetent, but maybe he can get one of his heroes, one of the people who design the equipment, to agree that the equipment even can gather data from a few thousand kilometers below the photosphere. Now that would be something, wouldn't it?

Oh, well, I guess we'll have to wait now, but probably not forever. Undoubtedly Michael will eventually get back to the issue of running difference images, since after all, his entire fantasy is so strongly based on his faith in his incorrect interpretation of them.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  15:02:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
It occured to me that table A in my prior post should have started with n=0.0, at which value the "fractionation factor" is equal to one for all elements. In other words, it represents the Sun as if the photosphere abundances were true throughout the "bulk Sun" (which we know isn't true, either). But here is the beginning of the table again:

Table A (partial)
-----------------------------------------------------
!                   !    Most-Abundant Elements     !
!     Range of N    !    (Reading left to right)    !
-----------------------------------------------------
!   0.000 -   0.448 ! H  He O  C  Ne N  Fe Mg Si S  !
!   0.449 -   0.631 ! H  He O  C  Ne N  Fe Si Mg S  !
!   0.632 -   0.939 ! H  He O  C  Ne Fe N  Si Mg S  !
!   0.940 -   1.330 ! H  He O  C  Fe Ne N  Si Mg S  !
!   1.331 -   1.660 ! H  He O  Fe C  Ne N  Si Mg S  !
!   1.661 -   1.677 ! H  He O  Fe C  Ne Si N  Mg S  !
!   1.678 -   2.007 ! He H  O  Fe C  Ne Si N  Mg S  !
!   2.008 -   2.118 ! He H  O  Fe C  Ne Si Mg N  S  !
-----------------------------------------------------
And then on as before...

And I just realized something else about the whole curve-fitting issue.

While Dr. Manuel may have used isotopes with mass numbers ranging from 3 to 136 for finding his "simple exponential function" (see "Solar Abundance..." once again), but the dependent variable isn't H or L, but is actually the ratio of the two. The data he used for finding his f=x4.56 function (where x=H/L) is highly constrained:

Table G
-----------------------------------
!   H/L  ! Isotope Ratio !   f    !
-----------------------------------
! 0.7500 !   He-3/He-4   ! 0.3357 !
! 0.9474 !  Ar-36/Ar-38  ! 0.8475 !
! 0.9512 !  Kr-78/Kr-82  ! 0.5745 !
! 0.9538 ! Xe-124/Xe-130 ! 1.7000 !
! 0.9692 ! Xe-126/Xe-130 ! 1.3282 !
! 0.9756 !  Kr-80/Kr-82  ! 0.9856 !
! 0.9846 ! Xe-128/Xe-130 ! 1.1453 !
! 0.9923 ! Xe-129/Xe-130 ! 1.0828 !
! 1.0077 ! Xe-131/Xe-130 ! 1.0826 !
! 1.0122 !  Kr-83/Kr-82  ! 1.1747 !
! 1.0154 ! Xe-132/Xe-130 ! 1.0624 !
! 1.0244 !  Kr-84/Kr-82  ! 1.1274 !
! 1.0308 ! Xe-134/Xe-130 ! 1.6615 !
! 1.0462 ! Xe-136/Xe-130 ! 2.1837 !
! 1.0488 !  Kr-86/Kr-82  ! 1.3317 !
! 1.0500 !  Ne-21/Ne-20  ! 1.4186 !
! 1.1000 !  Ne-22/Ne-20  ! 1.5443 !
-----------------------------------
So from this range of ratios less than 0.36 wide, Dr. Manuel expects that the curve will hold true for ratios of 4.0 (He/H) and higher? This is just another example (like the "mass parabolas") of an extrapolation from a small set of data into uncharted territory, the results of which have not - and likely cannot (it's hard to scoop up bits of the interior of the Sun) - be directly verified.

Taking the above data and running it through ZunZun's function finder can reveal quite a bit. With just a single coeffcient, f=1.2413(H/L)2 is the best non-trigometric fit, and with two coefficients, f=1.220(H/L)3.8018 is the closest thing it finds to Dr. Manuel's function (but that's the 51st on the list of good matches). I was hoping to get the results for five coeffiencts before needing to give up this computer, but ZunZun is still chugging away. Oh, well. Maybe tomorrow.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  16:53:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Look, guys, I've discovered, over the past week or so, that it's a lot more fun and a lot more productive to just stick to the science,


After all these months you finally "discovered" that it would be a good idea to focus on the science?

quote:
which largely depends on ignoring Michael.


And yet you decide to complete your sentence with a personal "put down"? Talk about hypocrisy Dave. Nice job sticking to the science there.

quote:
You can, instead, very easily take the various bases for Michael's theory, and tear it to shreds by showing that the premises are wrong, incorrectly calculated, or lacking in evidenciary basis.


That would in fact be the "appropriate" thing to do, and the thing I've asked you to do from the start.

quote:
Michael doesn't understand the work that's been done before him, but using which he now co-authors papers. He can't argue against it.


But then of course you decided to take the low road instead, and go for the personal attack a *second* time in the same paragraph after suggesting you're going to stick to "science".

Ya, Dave, obviously you've turned over a new leaf alright. I think on that sour note, I'll start my sabatical now.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  17:51:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
Michael, that post wasn't written for your benefit, but for the other posters. Dave encourage others like GeeMack, Furshur, JohnOAS, and the rest to focus on the science, and not your shortcomings.

This may result in an increase of signal-to-noise ratio, if you stopped taking everything so personally.

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.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  20:01:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

That would in fact be the "appropriate" thing to do, and the thing I've asked you to do from the start.
And it's all I've really been interested in doing, but trying to clear up your confusion about your own theory (and others) just gets in the way of sticking to the science, and ultimately leads to you making ridiculous pronouncements which show that you don't know the science, and so you force things to be personal. Trying to talk to you about the science does nothing but waste time, since you refuse to try to understand it. Better to just stick to the science, and pretend you're on your little "sabbatical" whether you are or not.

I'll get back to the curve-fitting tomorrow, I promise.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  04:51:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
I find your pleas to be a bit weak, Michael. True-- you have said on more than one occasion that you do want to stick to the science. But it's clear that you aren't actually following through. At least, not as far as the Big Bang (and inlfation, in particular) is concerned. You don't understand what inflation is or what the latest theories say about it. Indeed, your total knowledge of it seems to be based on skimming a wikipedia article and quotes cited on this forum.

So I would like to "stick to the science" re inflation. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do so as you aren't participating.

Again, until you can demonstrate that you know what inflation is, it's impossible to have a productive discussion of it-- scientific or otherwise.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  14:34:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
So, we've seen an indication that f=(H/L)4.56 isn't the best of functions for fitting the ratio data from Dr. Manuel's earlier paper. ZunZun.com suggests some other functions might be even better, but the problem I ran into is that ZunZun's method of determining the least amount of error isn't the one I was using, nor is either one very robust. So, I've thrown together a list of functions, and I ran them through a coefficient finder of my own divising which uses the least total squares of normalized errors among our 17 data points to find the best possible match. The results are presented below:

Table H
--------------------------------------------
!       function       !      LTSNE        !
--------------------------------------------
!                      !                   !
! f=(H/L)5.22+0.09     ! 0.829013542019887 !
!                      !                   !
! f=((H/L)+0.02)4.56   ! 0.844018955740433 !
!                      !                   !
! f=(1.02(H/L))4.46    ! 0.844539492573441 !
!                      !                   !
! f=1.09(H/L)4.46      ! 0.844626804320266 !
!                      !                   !
! f=3.17(H/L)-2.06999  ! 0.935924491540436 !
!                      !                   !
! f=(H/L)4.28          ! 0.957998644261906 !
!                      !                   !
! f=(H/L)4.56          ! 0.963753530769812 !
!                      !                   !
! f=(H/L)3.794         ! 0.977660952006816 !
!                      !                   !
! f=3.14(H/L)-2.04999  ! 0.990852689510271 !
!                      !                   !
! f=0.5(H/L)10.0+0.5   ! 1.240798454420019 !
!                      !                   !
! f=10.0(H/L)-0.99999  ! 1.605394522629751 !
!                      !                   !
! f=(H/L)-0.12999      ! 2.502551563149062 !
!                      !                   !
! f=0.89(H/L)          ! 2.689800646780545 !
!                      !                   !
! f=0.41(H/L)0.39+0.39 ! 3.898856775108986 !
!                      !                   !
! f=0.76               ! 4.232819502640354 !
!                      !                   !
! f=6.67-0.12999(H/L)  ! 4.694905016414435 !
!                      !                   !
! f=0.78(H/L)          ! 4.694938599698507 !
!                      !                   !
--------------------------------------------
Once again, f=(H/L)4.56 isn't the best match to the observations, but now neither is f=(H/L)3.794. In fact, among "simple" functions like that, the best is f=(H/L)4.28, which (according to Table D) lies somewhere between the precise solutions for Xe-132 and Ne-22.

But what impresses me more is that the simple addition of a constant improves the results by a good amount. f=((H/L)+0.02)4.56 uses the same exponent as Dr. Manuel, but performs better. But the "hands down" winner is f=(H/L)5.22+0.09, a function which takes advantage of the fact that most of the H/L ratios we have for direct measurements are less than 1.0 (so a higher exponent will result in smaller values, corrected by the 0.09 constant). What does this mean for the overall composition of the Sun? An even higher iron content, of course:

Table I-------------------------------------------------------------
! ! 1989 ! 2004 !
! A N NC ! Abund Corr % ! Abund Corr % !
-------------------------------------------------------------
! 1 H 1 ! 12.00 2.93 0.00% ! 12.00 2.94 0.00% !
! 2 He 4 ! 10.99 5.03 0.18% ! 10.99 5.04 0.28% !
! 3 Li 7 ! 1.16 -3.52 0.00% ! 1.10 -3.57 0.00% !
! 4 Be 9 ! 1.15 -2.96 0.00% ! 1.40 -2.70 0.00% !
! 5 B 11 ! 2.60 -1.06 0.00% ! 2.70 -0.95 0.00% !
! 6 C 12 ! 8.56 5.09 0.21% ! 8.39 4.93 0.22% !
! 7 N 14 ! 8.05 4.93 0.15% ! 7.93 4.82 0.17% !
! 8 O 16 ! 8.93 6.11 2.22% ! 8.69 5.88 1.95% !
! 9 F 19 ! 4.56 2.13 0.00% ! 4.56 2.14 0.00% !
! 10 Ne 20 ! 8.09 5.78 1.03% ! 8.00 5.70 1.27% !
! 11 Na 23 ! 6.33 4.33 0.04% ! 6.33 4.34 0.06% !
! 12 Mg 24 ! 7.58 5.68 0.82% ! 7.54 5.65 1.15% !
! 13 Al 27 ! 6.47 4.84 0.12% ! 6.47 4.85 0.18% !
! 14 Si 28 ! 7.55 6.00 1.71% ! 7.54 6.00 2.56% !
! 15 P 31 ! 5.45 4.13 0.02% ! 5.45 4.14 0.04% !
! 16 S 32 ! 7.21 5.96 1.57% ! 7.33 6.09 3.17% !
! 17 Cl 35 ! 5.50 4.46 0.05% ! 5.50 4.47 0.07% !
! 18 Ar 40 ! 6.56 5.82 1.13% ! 6.40 5.67 1.19% !
! 19 K 39 ! 5.12 4.32 0.04% ! 5.12 4.33 0.05% !
! 20 Ca 40 ! 6.36 5.62 0.71% ! 6.36 5.63 1.09% !
! 21 Sc 45 ! 3.10 2.63 0.00% ! 3.17 2.71 0.00% !
! 22 Ti 48 ! 4.99 4.66 0.08% ! 5.02 4.70 0.13% !
! 23 V 51 ! 4.00 3.81 0.01% ! 4.00 3.82 0.02% !
! 24 Cr 52 ! 5.67 5.52 0.57% ! 5.67 5.53 0.87% !
! 25 Mn 55 ! 5.39 5.37 0.40% ! 5.39 5.38 0.61% !
! 26 Fe 56 ! 7.67 7.69 84.23% ! 7.45 7.48 77.56% !
! 27 Co 59 ! 4.92 5.06 0.20% ! 4.92 5.07 0.30% !
! 28 Ni 58 ! 6.25 6.35 3.85% ! 6.25 6.36 5.88% !
! 29 Cu 63 ! 4.21 4.50 0.05% ! 4.21 4.51 0.08% !
! 30 Zn 64 ! 4.60 4.92 0.14% ! 4.60 4.93 0.22% !
! 31 Ga 69 ! 2.88 3.37 0.00% ! 2.88 3.38 0.01% !
! 32 Ge 74 ! 3.41 4.06 0.02% ! 3.41 4.07 0.03% !
! 33 As 75 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 34 Se 80 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 35 Br 79 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 36 Kr 84 ! ----- ----- ----- ! 3.30 4.25 0.05% !
! 37 Rb 85 ! 2.60 3.57 0.01% ! 2.60 3.58 0.01% !
! 38 Sr 88 ! 2.90 3.95 0.02% ! 2.97 4.03 0.03% !
! 39 Y 89 ! 2.24 3.31 0.00% ! 2.24 3.32 0.01% !
! 40 Zr 90 ! 2.60 3.70 0.01% ! 2.60 3.71 0.01% !
! 41 Nb 93 ! 1.42 2.59 0.00% ! 1.42 2.60 0.00% !
! 42 Mo 98 ! 1.92 3.21 0.00% ! 1.92 3.22 0.00% !
! 43 Tc 98 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 44 Ru 102 ! 1.84 3.22 0.00% ! 1.84 3.23 0.00% !
! 45 Rh 103 ! 1.12 2.52 0.00% ! 1.12 2.53 0.00% !
! 46 Pd 106 ! 1.69 3.16 0.00% ! 1.69 3.17 0.00% !
! 47 Ag 107 ! 0.94 2.43 0.00% ! 0.94 2.44 0.00% !
! 48 Cd 114 ! 1.80 3.43 0.00% ! 1.77 3.41 0.01% !
! 49 In 115 ! 1.66 3.31 0.00% ! 1.66 3.32 0.01% !
! 50 Sn 120 ! 2.00 3.75 0.01% ! 2.00 3.76 0.01% !
! 51 Sb 121 ! 1.00 2.77 0.00% ! 1.00 2.78 0.00% !
! 52 Te 130 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 53 I 127 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 54 Xe 132 ! ----- ----- ----- ! 2.16 4.14 0.03% !
! 55 Cs 133 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 56 Ba 138 ! 2.13 4.20 0.03% ! 2.13 4.21 0.04% !
! 57 La 139 ! 1.22 3.30 0.00% ! 1.17 3.26 0.00% !
! 58 Ce 140 ! 1.55 3.65 0.01% ! 1.58 3.69 0.01% !
! 59 Pr 141 ! 0.71 2.82 0.00% ! 0.71 2.83 0.00% !
! 60 Nd 142 ! 1.50 3.63 0.01% ! 1.50 3.64 0.01% !
! 61 Pm 145 ! ----- ----- ----- ! ----- ----- ----- !
! 62 Sm 152 ! 1.00 3.29 0.00% ! 1.01 3.31 0.01% !
! 63 Eu 153 ! 0.51 2.81 0.00% ! 0.51 2.82 0.00% !
! 64 Gd 158 ! 1.12 3.49 0.01% ! 1.12 3.50 0.01% !
! 65 Tb 159 ! -0.0

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Antigone
New Member

44 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  14:54:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Antigone a Private Message
I wish I could follow all of this. Just when you think you understand something you go into the middle of a debate about it and realize ya have a lot more to learn...

Mortui non dolent
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  16:02:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Antigone

I wish I could follow all of this. Just when you think you understand something you go into the middle of a debate about it and realize ya have a lot more to learn...

Poor Antigone. This really has been an epic discussion. As you can see, it's gone through almost 12 full threads, each thread being 15 pages long. It's been amazing. Dave is a champ for having followed through the whole thing with Michael, though others have joined in from time to time.

I spent a few minutes trying to write out a summary of the debate for you, but it's just too complex for me-- I've not paid attention as much as I would have liked. Moreover, I have myself to blame for the insertion of Big Bang theory into this discussion. I tried to initiate a seperate thread for that discussion, but Michael-- despite his protests-- wasn't game for such a thing.

Anyhow, if you have any questions, do ask. I'm sure you're not the only one wanting a refresher!
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.36 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000