|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2006 : 22:16:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Michael, I have a science degree(*), but I don't call myself a scientist. I use scientific principles all the time, but 98% of what I do is engineering. You make it sound like calling someone an engineer instead of a scientist is somehow demeaning. It's not a hierarchy. I don't feel inferior to scientists, and I doubt most scientist feel superior to engineers. (Of course there will be individuals in both camps who do feel this way, but that's beside the point). Personally I think we'd be stuffed without either group.
I don't think Michael's problem is hierarchical, John, I think it's simply a failure to understand the definitions of words.
In the "Big Bang" threads, Michael tried to pass off the idea that evolutionary biology is a branch of physics because organisms are necessarily bound by physical laws. In this discussion, he seems to be trying to pass off the idea that engineers are scientists because engineers make use of "scientific principles" (as you called 'em).
Of course, following along that line of "logic," the 17-year-old clerk at my local one-hour-photo shop is a "scientist" because she makes use of the gizmos provided by optics and materials engineers, technologists and scientists. In other words, if something is high-tech or "sciency," Michael seems to be assuming that anyone working on it is necessarily a scientist.
(It occured to me for a moment that Michael might think that anyone with "PhD" after his/her name is a scientist, but then I realized that even Michael must be aware of, for example, PhDs in English or history.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 10:57:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't think Michael's problem is hierarchical, John, I think it's simply a failure to understand the definitions of words.
Actually Dave, I don't have any problem at all. I don't have any sort of internal need to slap mutually exclusive labels on human beings based on a few pieces of paper on hanging on their wall.
This is a vanity problem within you as far as I can tell. I have no personal need to strip the term "scientist" from every "computer science" degree as you do. I have no personal need to believe that an "engineer" cannot also be a "scientist". If Andy Grove doesn't count as a "computer scientist" in your book, then you and I *definitely* don't view "science" in the same way.
I have no reason to believe that a "label" defines a man or woman in some mutually exclusive way, or that specializing in some specific field gives someone an automatic pass as being an "authority" or "scientist" in that field. These seem like *gross* oversimplifications from my persepctive. They seem to be driven by an internal need to "exclude" people and ideas based on a personal defintion of a label. College and Universities obviously have no problem claiming that they have educated their students in the field of "computer science", but evidently you believe they practice some kind of false adverstizing.
As far as I can tell this whole line of reasoning is simply vanity run amuck. IMO, It is merely a self defense mechanism you use to "exclude" people from your personal club.
quote:
In the "Big Bang" threads, Michael tried to pass off the idea that evolutionary biology is a branch of physics because organisms are necessarily bound by physical laws.
Whereas you tried to pass off unevidenced scalar field/particle as "science" rather than "faith", and you believe it is "science" to believe in unevidenced, and unfalsifyable metaphysical magical expanding tensor fields that are evidently very picky about when and where they expand. It is impossible to observe either of these fields in a lab, so they are utterly unfalsifyable in the first place.
If that's what you believe "science" is all about, and Andy Grove isn't a "scientist", then I want nothing to do with what you call "science". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/02/2006 11:02:50 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 11:20:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Michael, I have a science degree(*), but I don't call myself a scientist.
Well John, that may be how you internalize it yourself, but IMO, you've been one of the best "scientists" I've met on the web. You are curious, patient, intelligent, educated on a broad range of topics, and you are highly logical in your approach. These are the most important scientific "values" IMO, and the rest of this debate is really about semantics.
I don't think people fall into clean lines of mutually exclusive terms. While I might respect Dave a bit more for his "scientific knowledge" (even by my own defintion), I respect your overall "attitude" more than I respect his. Which of you then is a better overall "scientist" by my definition? I really couldn't say. You and Dr. Mabuse have a less agressive, more "kick back" attitude than Dave, but you are every bit as much "scientists" as Dave is IMO. You are all "scientists" even if none of you have pieces of paper on your wall that make you a "scientist", and none of you call themselves a "scientist". Again, this all a matter of semantics IMO anyway. None of these "labels" will ever define "truth".
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/02/2006 11:32:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 11:37:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, I feel quite comfortable having GeeMack speak for me on these issues. If I don't agree with something he says, I'll let him (and you) know. Until then, you can assume that his "we" includes at least himself and me.
Fine Dave. Everytime your "boy blunder" calls me an idiot or moron, or attacks me personally, I will assume you've treated me that same way, unless you personally state otherwise publicly.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/02/2006 11:39:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 15:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is a vanity problem within you as far as I can tell.
In that case, you don't know Dave_W very well.quote:
I have no personal need to strip the term "scientist" from every "computer science" degree as you do.
What part of "false dichotomy" and misrepresentation do you not understand? (Hey, that was a good example of a false dichotomy, by the way)
Dave never stated nor did he imply that engineers cannot be scientists. He only said that just because you are an engineer, and studied "science" as in computer-science does not make you a scientist.
A computer programmer who is researching new methods and setups of neural nodes, and the behaviour of such, could be called a scientist. Like people from the University where I studied briefly (yes, I studied "computer science" there).
Writing programs like Excel, or even software to make Fast Fourier Transform analysis on audio does not make you a scientist.quote:
I have no personal need to believe that an "engineer" cannot also be a "scientist".
Neither does Dave, that's why he never suggested that an engineer cannot be a scientist.
I'm an engineer, but I have no compelling need for calling myself a scientist. Mostly because none of the stuff I do would classify as science. Though the scientific method is aiding me in my work as a problem-solver.
quote:
I have no reason to believe that a "label" defines a man or woman in some mutually exclusive way,
Who ever said anything about mutually exclusive?quote:
or that specializing in some specific field gives someone an automatic pass as being an "authority" or "scientist" in that field. These seem like *gross* oversimplifications from my persepctive.
The only oversimplifications I see here are your interpretations of what Dave wrote.
Anyway...
These rantings only serves to distract from your stated mission here: To get a critical analysis of your Solid Surface Model.
However, I also have to acknowledge (as Dave pointed out) that if we're not speaking the same language, then we won't get anywhere. And unfortunately we don't seem to.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 19:58:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually Dave, I don't have any problem at all. I don't have any sort of internal need to slap mutually exclusive labels on human beings based on a few pieces of paper on hanging on their wall.
Good to hear it. Where's that theory of architecture I asked you to show me?quote:
This is a vanity problem within you as far as I can tell.
What do I have to be vain about in this discussion? I'm no scientist, and out of respect for engineers, I don't call myself an engineer, either.quote:
I have no personal need to strip the term "scientist" from every "computer science" degree as you do.
When did I ever profess such a "need," Michael? Seems to me that the problem is that you want to call every programmer a scientist, which would strip the word "scientist" of its meaning. Just like you tried to do with the word "photosphere" in your failed attempt to rescue your theory.quote:
I have no personal need to believe that an "engineer" cannot also be a "scientist".
Neither do I. The point I was making, which you can't refute, is that engineering disciplines don't even have "theories" in the same sense that the sciences do. Mathematics even more so, but that was such a lame statement on your part that you won't even try to defend it - you know you made a bone-headed mistake there, and are just hoping that everyone forgets it.quote:
If Andy Grove doesn't count as a "computer scientist" in your book, then you and I *definitely* don't view "science" in the same way.
Your own source calls him a businessman and points out his degree in chemical engineering. I have no evidence that Andy Grove has ever done any science during his life. He got his PhD in 1963, and by 1967 was already in a management position. His last three books have been about business strategies. His one and only science degree is honorary.quote:
I have no reason to believe that a "label" defines a man or woman in some mutually exclusive way, or that specializing in some specific field gives someone an automatic pass as being an "authority" or "scientist" in that field.
I agree. Did you think that I'd said otherwise?quote:
These seem like *gross* oversimplifications from my persepctive.
Good thing I didn't make them, then.quote:
They seem to be driven by an internal need to "exclude" people and ideas based on a personal defintion of a label.
By whom?quote:
College and Universities obviously have no problem claiming that they have educated their students in the field of "computer science", but evidently you believe they practice some kind of false adverstizing.
Actual computer scientists seem to agree.
I had a buddy who, before he started taking classes for his MIS degree at George Mason, pondered "I don't know why they think MIS should be grouped under 'Computer Science.' I'm not going to learn any science for this degree at all." Apparently, the administrators of the school felt that "Computer Science" was the best category in which to place all the "Information Systems" degrees. Go figure.quote:
As far as I can tell this whole line of reasoning is simply vanity run amuck. IMO, It is merely a self defense mechanism you use to "exclude" people from your personal club.
What club is that, Michael? I have nothing to gain, personally, by correctly stating that most engineers are not scientists. You're the one who's got something to lose here (and you've already lost it, you're just too stubborn to realize it).quote:
quote:
In the "Big Bang" threads, Michael tried to pass off the idea that evolutionary biology is a branch of physics because organisms are necessarily bound by physical laws.
Whereas you tried to pass off unevidenced scalar field/particle as "science" rather than "faith"...
No, Michael, I correctly stated that evidence is being gathered, and so far it points to the inflation idea being correct in some form. What is "faith" (and blind faith at that) is your claim that inflation is wholly unevidenced.
Hey, nice turnaround you tried to pull there: don't bother defending your own nonsense, just go on the attack with more nonsense.quote:
...and you believe it is "science" to believe in unevidenced, and unfalsifyable metaphysical magical expanding tensor fields that are evidently very picky about when and where they expand.
No, Michael, that was all explained to you, and you rejected the explanations for no other reason than that the explanations conflicted with your being correct.quote:
It is impossible to observe either of these fields in a lab, so they are utterly unfalsifyable in the first place.
Yeah, tell that to the people whose lives depend upon GPS systems being corrected using the Theory of General Relativity.  quote:
If that's what you believe "science" is all about...
I don't. It's just another stupid strawman you've built, and you're try |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 07:57:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Prove it Geemack. You keep prattling on about the location of these emssions without so much as a shred of evidence to support your case. It's pure huffing and puffing at this point Geemack. You've provided zip in the way to support your claim. Put some evidence on the table and *then* tell me again where the location of these emssions begin, and why you think *all* the light we see in these images can only come from far above the photosphere.
[. . .]
Evidently you can't actually demonstrate your claim that *all* these emissions originate from above the photosphere. You haven't got a clue what heats these loops to these temperatures at these locations. You make claims and you refuse to demonstrate they are true, and then you try to shift the burden of proof back to me. I offered you images and explanations to demonstrate my case. You didn't offer me anything to support your claim. Zero points for you.
I stated that 171Å images taken from the limb of the Sun clearly show the light we see in images of this wavelength comes from far above the photosphere, a point which I've explained thoroughly already, and one which you intentionally ignore. We've even looked at several such images at various times during this discussion. So regarding your comment that I've provided zip to support my contention, obviously that is not true, which makes you a liar, Michael.
Your concern about "what heats these loops to these temperatures at these locations" is completely irrelevant to the location of the 171Å light in the original TRACE images.
Oh, and I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof onto you because it already is on you. This entire thread, all 2300+ posting are about your lunatic fantasy that the Sun has a solid surface and about you laying out the evidence to prove it. And as far as that task goes you've demonstrated only one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're a dismal failure.
And about your offering images to demonstrate your case? Since we were discussing the 171Å original images used to make your "Lockheed gold" image/video, it seemed you were suggesting your blue and yellow Photoshop doodling shows that light coming from below the photosphere. But when asked to be specific as to how we might determine that from your image, you admitted you don't have any idea what depths within the solar atmosphere are represented by any particular portion of the image...
quote:
Beats the hell out of me. Your squares amount to "tubes" as far as I can tell, extending from the surface and going all the way through the solar atmosphere.
By your own acknowledgment, the images you offer fail to demonstrate your case.
Zero points for me? Well if I was the one who came into this forum with some cockamamie unprovable notion about the construction of the Sun, that might concern me. But it's your claim, Michael, and as much as you seem to hate the idea, it's nobody else's job to prove it. You continue to spew meaningless, contradictory, often nearly incoherent ramblings which you believe provide evidence, and we continue to explain how that evidence fails, or far more often, why it isn't evidence at all. May I remind you again that not a single person in these forums, with the possible exception of your pal upriver, appears to even remotely accept that the Sun has a solid surface. And Dave has pretty much shown that upriver's comments amount to a combination of rebuttals to your conjecture and his own wild misunderstandings about physics. 
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 09/03/2006 08:05:30 |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 18:30:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
about your lunatic fantasy that the Sun has a solid surface
Sounds like the church talking.
The sun has a solid surface no matter the model.
That anything other than condensed matter produces a BB emission curve, is a wild misunderstanding.
If you can find gas spectrum that has a BB curve that is due to optical thickness, not from stars(has to be lab data) and is not calculated(errors in theory) then I will admit you are right.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 20:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, Michael, that was all explained to you, and you rejected the explanations for no other reason than that the explanations conflicted with your being correct.
No, I rejected your metaphysical scalar and tensor fields because there is no evidence to support these ideas, either as a part of GR, QM or particle physics. They are fields that only exist in one "mythical" creation event.
Not only that, the redshift arguements you seem to put such faith in look to be failing other sorts of background tests.
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/03/2006 20:10:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 20:12:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
Sounds like the church talking.
Ya, Geemack is the self appointed Deacon of sleeze.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 20:14:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What do I have to be vain about in this discussion? I'm no scientist, and out of respect for engineers, I don't call myself an engineer, either.
Ah, my mistake. It's an appeal to authority fallacy then?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 20:15:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
That anything other than condensed matter produces a BB emission curve, is a wild misunderstanding.
Yes, yours.quote:
If you can find gas spectrum that has a BB curve that is due to optical thickness, not from stars(has to be lab data) and is not calculated(errors in theory) then I will admit you are right.
Ah, you just set unscientific and unreasonable restrictions on the "proof," thus ensuring that you'll never have to admit that you're wrong. Okay, you set the standards of evidence, so let's see your support for your hypothesis: where are the laboratory measurements of a "condensed matter" object emitting the same spectrum as the Sun from, say, 100 nm through 10,000 nm? Once you show me that, then I will admit that you're correct about "condensed matter" being able to emit such spectra.
Be sure to include complete references. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 20:21:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What do I have to be vain about in this discussion? I'm no scientist, and out of respect for engineers, I don't call myself an engineer, either.
Ah, my mistake. It's an appeal to authority fallacy then?
No, it's not a fallacy to appeal to the dictionary when showing that you, Michael are using words incorrectly.
Nice of you to offer up that theory of architecture, by the way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 20:32:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, I rejected your metaphysical scalar and tensor fields because there is no evidence to support these ideas, either as a part of GR, QM or particle physics. They are fields that only exist in one "mythical" creation event.
You really have no clue about what you're talking about, Michael, the evidence for which is that Einstein created the tensor field as a part of General Relativity. Every test of Relativity that's been successful demonstrates that GR's tensor field is the correct model to use. That you think it's "mythical" is a symptom of your disdain for actual science.quote:
Not only that, the redshift arguements you seem to put such faith in look to be failing other sorts of background tests.
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html
Wow, that's interesting. Thanks for the news. Can't wait to see how that pans out.
Oh, by the way, it's a real shame that upriver is continuing to undermine your whole theory by demanding lab tests without calculations before something will be considered "true." Shoots the whole concept of STEREO in the foot. It also utterly destroys the helioseismology data. RD images and your own A+B=C, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 20:37:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
No, Michael, that was all explained to you, and you rejected the explanations for no other reason than that the explanations conflicted with your being correct.
No, I rejected your metaphysical scalar and tensor fields because there is no evidence to support these ideas, either as a part of GR, QM or particle physics. They are fields that only exist in one "mythical" creation event.
Not only that, the redshift arguements you seem to put such faith in look to be failing other sorts of background tests.
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html
Right-- sort of like rejecting the idea of an iron sun as it calls for metaphysical notions of density and gravity! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
