|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2007 : 06:04:55 [Permalink]
|
| In the article "The Current State of Solar Modeling" by J. Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. in Science 272 no. 5266 (May, 1996), 1286-92, there seems to be no mention of any controversy regarding the make-up of the sun. At least, there wasn't any eleven years ago. There's no mention in the bibliography of rival models, even if they were rejected years earlier. One would think that an article with over 30 authors from universities across the planet would have been aware of such things. Alas. I'll have to do more searching... |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 08:50:04 [Permalink]
|
Like with Intelligent Design, the controversy is overstated. Obviously, there is work that needs to be done to correctly model the Sun's corona. But few - if any - solar scientists are proposing "electric Sun" models, and none appear to be seriously considering "iron shell" models. Michael has attempted the IDists' "teach the controversy" strategy before (and he's doing it again now), but apparently doesn't realize why it hasn't worked: it is devoid of science; nothing but a political gambit. And Michael's "iron Sun" idea doesn't have the backing of the religious fundamentalists required to actually be a considerable political force, and so it flounders with him and a handful of others.
(Please also note Michael's reliance upon the "scriptures" of Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven, despite the fact that he himself cannot apply what they've written to actual data from the actual Sun.)
Of course, we've drawn the parallels between Michael's posts here and creationism before, and he just uses the opportunities to, even more like the creationists, use the opportunity to claim that persecution means that his critics have nothing. But that, of course, misses the point, and is nothing more than another attempt by Michael to distract away from the shortcomings of his arguments. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 14:38:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I said:
If scientist explain the heating of the solar corona, with out resorting to sparks shooting off of the iron surface of the sun, would you admit that the amended solar model may be right?
Michael said:
The current solar theories will simply be "amended" to include some acceptance of the role of current flow in coronal loop activity.
Does that mean you won't answer the question?
I guess Michael you did not get my analogy about the lightening bug. Let's try again, you said basically gamma rays are detected from the sun and we have detected gamma rays from electrical discharges so this is evidence of an electrical sun.
No, it is not. We also detect gamma rays from fusion, fission, particle accelerators, decay of Co60 and hundreds of other sources why should we pick electricity as the source.
Gee, it looks like electricity to me, is not an acceptable answer - sorry.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 15:47:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Like with Intelligent Design, the controversy is overstated. Obviously, there is work that needs to be done to correctly model the Sun's corona. But few - if any - solar scientists are proposing "electric Sun" models, and none appear to be seriously considering "iron shell" models.
Well this was my point. It's hard to talk about scientists "picking" one model over another if the other model (iron suns; electric whatevers) haven't even made it into the debate. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 16:28:59 [Permalink]
|
Given this exchange...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Well, now that we know that the old theories failed [. . .]
Originally posted by me...
Of course the old theories haven't failed.
Michael Mozina...
Yes, they did. They never worked in the first place.
me...
Prove it. Show how the current best-explanation theory, the standard solar model, is now being rejected by the scientific community.
Michael Mozina...
Didn't you even bother reading what I wrote?
me...
I said prove that the old theories have failed, that they never worked in the first place.
... and Michael's reluctance to readdress the issue, it seems fairly obvious this is another unevidenced claim he's pulled out of his ass. But, since he's demonstrated a serious inability to properly comprehend much of what he reads, in the spirit of giving him the benefit of the doubt, let's say I try again.
Yes, Michael, I read what you wrote. Didn't you even bother reading what I wrote? I asked you to prove your claim, that the old theories have failed, that they never worked in the first place. I asked you to show how the standard solar model is now being rejected by the scientific community. Otherwise we'll take it that you simply can't support it, you were wrong, or you lied. So what'll it be? Can you prove it, were you wrong, or did you lie?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 20:46:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well this was my point. It's hard to talk about scientists "picking" one model over another if the other model (iron suns; electric whatevers) haven't even made it into the debate.
Right, I was just trying to compare Michael's manufactured, illusionary "controversy" to one of the best-known manufactured, illusionary controversies around.
And to expand upon that even more, Michael has Dembski down pat, with his demands for an absurd level of detail out of the standard model while denying that he should be required to match it for his own theory. Michael also seems to like going to the quote mines, as well as twisting his critics' words into absurd caricatures of their intended meaning. He thinks his theory should be granted "equal time" in college classes. He finds definitions to be rather tedious and changes them at will for his own purposes. And, filling this thread, he thinks that what he's got is "obvious."
Just like the creationists, Michael is busy doing science backwards. He's starting with his conclusion, and then trying to fit the data to it. Evidence that doesn't fit, like the real nature of Birkeland's simulations, or the magnitude of Kosovichev's density stratifications, is either ignored or beaten into submission (along with common sense). His own evidence is tautological, based upon poor assumptions, or intensely subjective. His publications appear in third-rate journals whose editors lack expertise in the subject matter.
And finally, Michael claims that the data which will validate his position is just around the corner, but - of course - it won't come from any experiment designed to test his theory. The Intelligent Design crew has this sort of thing down to an art form now, in which every biology paper that contains certain key words (like 'design' or 'computation') is taken as pro-ID work. Michael just picks out solar researchers' disappointment in the current theories instead. Just like the creationists, he bizarrely claims that anything which fails to support current solar theory supports his own theory (the creationist version is "evolution can't explain this thing here, therefore Goddidit"), despite the fact that he already agreed that both could be wrong. |
- 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 - 03/31/2007 : 23:01:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Just like the creationists, Michael is busy doing science backwards. He's starting with his conclusion, and then trying to fit the data to it.
Excellent summary, Dave. Much better than the broad comparisons I listed. As you say, once you start thinking about the similarities between Michael and IDers, they become fairly obvious.
The only thing I can't really figure is motive. We all know why creationists lie, not only because they consider it a religious duty but also because it pays well. But what's Michael's angle? The only thing I can figure is good old fashion crazy, mixed in with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex.
|
"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 03/31/2007 23:03:01 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 23:52:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The only thing I can't really figure is motive. We all know why creationists lie, not only because they consider it a religious duty but also because it pays well. But what's Michael's angle? The only thing I can figure is good old fashion crazy, mixed in with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex.
I've got a guess (I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis, because I can't test it)... Given Michael's statements about his love of science, coupled with his near-complete misunderstanding of the actual process of science and his obvious disdain for the realities of science, I suspect that he wanted to be a scientist, but his computer "science" degree let him down and the fact that he now makes a living by selling child daycare office-management software has made him intensely bitter about science in general. What better way to make a name for himself than to spew venom all over that which he loves but which eluded him?
Or maybe he just got grades lower than he'd expected in all the hard-science electives he needed to take while working towards that comp. sci. degree, and he dreams of being able to go back to his alma mater and throw a press release from NASA titled "Mozina is correct" in his Astronomy 101 professor's face.
As I said, I don't think we'll ever know the real reason. The fact that he thinks a Bachelor's degree in computer science means that he is a scientist suggests some things along the lines of the above scenarios without having to resort to just plain-old crazy and delusional, though. And bitterness oozes from his posts when he talks about what actual scientists do, especially regarding funding (which he's quick to try to disavow when called on it). If he hadn't already published, I might have predicted the same sort of spiteful "I'll burn all my notes when I turn 60" nonsense that we got from the flying-cars guy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 06:22:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've got a guess (I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis, because I can't test it)... Given Michael's statements about his love of science, coupled with his near-complete misunderstanding of the actual process of science and his obvious disdain for the realities of science, I suspect that he wanted to be a scientist, but his computer "science" degree let him down and the fact that he now makes a living by selling child daycare office-management software has made him intensely bitter about science in general.
The fact that he thinks a Bachelor's degree in computer science means that he is a scientist suggests some things along the lines of the above scenarios without having to resort to just plain-old crazy and delusional, though.
(The following is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Brutal, Dave, brutal.
I have Master's in Comp Sci and I consider myself to be a jen-u-wine scientist.
Ok, Ok, that's not true. My Master's doesn't hold a candle to the hard sciences. I laugh when i hear stuffed suits, like my brother, loudly boast of their "Master's"--I know full well they mean an MBA. No offense to any MBAs here, but c'mon guys. An MBA is just a weak attempt to add some cache to a field (business) that up until recently, was a fallback to those couldn't "cut it" in the hard sciences.
I don't want to veer this off topic...
Michael, I have read virtually every thread of your's here. I have read your website. I read all the other links you have posted here....I could go on and on. Also, I have not said one word here debating you. I have been merely an interested bystander. Others have been far more eloquent than I could be.
The next thing I say will be negative. You can choose to ignore me, or dismiss me. Or say that I am part of "herd mentality" here...(which is an interesting hand-wave dismissal on opinions you don't like).
But frankly, you haven't proved one thing to me. That should be important to you. I am an interested by stander with next-to-no knowledge on solar physics. I think that you should be able to offer some compelling evidence to back your "extraordinary claim".
So far you have offered none.
Arguing on an Internet forum won't accomplish what you are seeking. You have asked innumerable times to supply evidence. Everytime, you have instead pointed out flaws (according to you) in the current solar model. Also, you have repeated this "impossible" quote countless times---which, as far as I can tell, was uttered from *one* researcher, *one* time, perhaps reflexively, without thought.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to research solar physics in detail. Thus, I rely on the experts (I know where you will go with that line---don't bother). If none (I repeat NOT ONE!!) support an Iron sun hypothesis, why should I because of the ramblings of one anonymous poster on an Internet forum?
In short, Michael, "s*it or get off the pot".
On a side note, I have been reading Stephen Baxter's "Ring". Coincidentally, he has a character whose an AI who's living inside our Sun for millions of years. Baxter takes the opportunity to detail some of the inner workings of the Sun. What he says makes a heck of a lot more sense than an incomprehensibly massive iron ball shooting sparks.
Sorry, Michael, just my $0.02.
Edited to fix minor spelling errors. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
| Edited by - Fripp on 04/01/2007 06:25:53 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 14:39:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
H. Humbert said:
The only thing I can figure is good old fashion crazy, mixed in with delusions of grandeur and a persecution complex.
I think delusions of grandeur is his cup of tea. In Michael's mind he is famous, he has been published with a real scientist (poor Dr. Manuel). He is on the verge of being more famous than, god or something, once the scientific community realizes he is right. He has stated this is his claim to fame. He frequently states he will be proven right. Fame I beleive is his goal.
I recently read of a survey where the goal of 60% of the people between 18 and 30 was to be famous. Didn't matter what for, it was just to be famous. It is really weird how this country (USA) reveres fame for fames sake.
Michael is a legend in his own mind and that just fine.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 17:34:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The current solar theories will simply be "amended" to include some acceptance of the role of current flow in coronal loop activity. Nobody is going to immediately leap from the standard model to my model overnight.
Is there an actual model to jump to? Sure, you have some ideas about some very specific sub sets of the operation of the sun, but I've not seen anything approaching an actual scientific model of the sun.
Can you demonstrate the quantitative predictive ability of your model. That would at least be a start.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's far more likely that a "hydrogen/electric" half breed model will emerge for awhile.
Considering the number of things the current model is extremely useful for, can you suggest why it should be thrown out for something which cannot replace it in any useful way?
If you have useful contributions which can be used to revise/replace parts of the current models, then it will happen. You have to present your ideas in a way that is non-subjective, understandable and applicable by scientists.
Hand waving statements about "background currents flowing through the universe" aren't useful, even if they turn out to be true, by some particular interpretation. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 04/01/2007 17:37:36 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 18:41:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is there an actual model to jump to? Sure, you have some ideas about some very specific sub sets of the operation of the sun, but I've not seen anything approaching an actual scientific model of the sun.
Even if nobody offered another model to consider, the mainstream would still be left with trying to explain a million degree coronal loop against a 6000K background. That's never been explained properly because the mainstream refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity as it relates to solar atmospheric phenomenon.
quote:
Can you demonstrate the quantitative predictive ability of your model. That would at least be a start.
One of the most obvious is expectations of my theory is that we would expect to see emission patterns around the sun that are consistent with emissions patterns seen in electrical discharges:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html
Indeed we see gamma rays and x-rays coming from *some* areas of the solar atmosphere. The gamma rays in particular tend to be concentrated in and around coronal loop activity. Coronal loop activity emits high energy x-rays just like we would expect from a sustained high energy electrical discharge. We would expect to see coronal loops "fall to the surface" once the electrical current is cut.
quote:
Considering the number of things the current model is extremely useful for, can you suggest why it should be thrown out for something which cannot replace it in any useful way?
Yes. The current model is "useful" for calculating things like total energy output, but then if current flow from the universe provides even part of the total energy of a sun, the old model is wrong. The old model also fails to account for the temperatures of the corona, the running difference images, or the chemistry findings by Manuel, or the helioseismology findings of a "subsurface stratification layer" sitting smack in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone.
quote:
If you have useful contributions which can be used to revise/replace parts of the current models, then it will happen.
The electrical discharge aspect of my theory will be demonstrated this year. Who knows how long it might take for astronomers to let go of a hydrogen sun model? I don't really know. I'm in it for the long term however.
quote:
You have to present your ideas in a way that is non-subjective, understandable and applicable by scientists.
Every theory is "subjective". I can "objectively" note that electrical discharges emit x-rays and gamma-rays and so I should expect them to be found in solar atmospheric discharges if my theory is correct. I can't prevent you however from "subjectively" chalking it all up to gamma emitting firefly.
quote:
Hand waving statements about "background currents flowing through the universe" aren't useful, even if they turn out to be true, by some particular interpretation.
There is no handwaving involved in my theory. It's all based on direct observation, the model was lab simulated 100 years ago, and Alfven provided all the math you could even hope for. I can only lead you to the water..... |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 19:05:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
But frankly, you haven't proved one thing to me. That should be important to you.
Well, it's important to me, but only so important to me. I've debated "intelligent design" folks too, and I've learned you don't typically change people's minds during these conversations. About the best you can do is provide some things for people to think about. I appreciate your reading time however, and that is *very* important to me. Whether or not you agree with me at this point in time, I know that you have at least been exposed to these idea which would probably not have happened if I had never debated them in cyberspace.
My primary goal in debating these ideas publicly was more for personal education purposes than it was to convince people I was right. That is especially true of this particular forum.
Your opinions do matter to me however, and I think a venue that isn't as childish as this one has been at times would be a lot more conducive to reaching people than trying to do so here. In that sense I appreciate your feedback, and I'll probably try presenting these ideas in a less hostile forums like Livescience forums, and the Asterisk forum. Were it not for Dave and John and Dr. Mabuse, there wouldn't have been much here to keep me interested. As it is, I appreciated the opportunity to speak my mind freely, and I have appreciated the skeptical feedback.
quote:
I am an interested by stander with next-to-no knowledge on solar physics. I think that you should be able to offer some compelling evidence to back your "extraordinary claim".
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html
That *should* be "compelling", but only if you have an open mind. If you don't, I'm sure you could blow it all off as bug farts of you like.
quote:
So far you have offered none.
This is ultimately a very "subjective" choice on your part. You can choose to ignore those gamma rays that Rhessi images, but that won't make them go away. I learned a long time ago, that I can only present evidence. I also learned that people can and do ignore evidence when they want to.
quote:
Arguing on an Internet forum won't accomplish what you are seeking.
Actually, your quite wrong about that, mainly because I think you misunderstand my motives. I needed a really good skeptical critique of my work, and I needed a chance to debate the ideas openly so that I could learn and so that I could grow in my knowledge and to learn what things to focus on. In that sense, it's been a tremendous success. If you only measured success by the number of converts to the cause, I might understand your point of view. I however never attempted these conversation with that as a primary goal. It would be nice mind you, but that was never a primary motive on my part in the first place.
quote:
You have asked innumerable times to supply evidence. Everytime, you have instead pointed out flaws (according to you) in the current solar model.
No, that is not true. I pointed you personally to that Rhessi data showing gamma emissions from discharges on earth. Will you accept that Rhessi sees gamma emissions from discharges on the earth *and* the sun? If not, why not? What the alternative? What is your "interpretation" of those gamma rays coming from the sun? How is your opinion any less subjective than mine?
quote:
Also, you have repeated this "impossible" quote countless times---which, as far as I can tell, was uttered from *one* researcher, *one* time, perhaps reflexively, without thought.
Well, I hear that. Then again, if you listed to what he described as being "impossible", it is directly related to the notion of magnetic reconnection vs. an electrical discharge theory. In magnetic reconnect theory (something Alfven showed was bogus over 25 years ago), magnetic field "cross" and exchange energy in some "mysterious" and "unexplained" fashion. The magnetic field however cannot simply "collapse" since magnetic fields are supposedly supplying all the energy. In Alfven's/Bruce's explanation of this activity, this "collapse" is a direct result of the termination of the current flowing through the loop. Once the current flow stops, the magnetic field collapses and comes crashing back to the surface. The reasons behind his statements are also important. They cut to the chase of the debate IMO.
quote:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to research solar physics in detail. Thus, I rely on the experts (I know where you will go with that line---don't bother). If none (I repeat NOT ONE!!) support an Iron sun hypothesis, why should I because of the ramblings of one anonymous poster on an Internet forum?
Yet those Rhessi images from Earth *and* the sun show gamma rays coming from the atmosphere. We know what causes them here on earth. If you've got evidence that can be created another way in light plasma, I'm all ears.
quote:
In short, Michael, "s*it or get off the pot".
The "rude" factor around here is pathetic IMO. The Rhessi images of the sun and the earth show gamma rays from the atmosphere of each body. That not is not shit, that is scientific evidence. You can certainly treat it like shit, but that is your choice, not mine, and you do so at your own peril.
Thanks for the input by the way.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 19:16:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The only thing I can't really figure is motive.
How about because I believes I'm right, or can't you even conceive of that idea?
quote:
....I suspect that he wanted to be a scientist, but his computer "science" degree let him down and the fact that he now makes a living by selling child daycare office-management software has made him intensely bitter about science in general. What better way to make a name for himself than to spew venom all over that which he loves but which eluded him?
Thank's for your analysis Sigmond Fraud. Aren't you a programmer by trade too Dave? Projecting perhaps?
quote:
Or maybe he just got grades lower than he'd expected in all the hard-science electives he needed to take while working towards that comp. sci. degree, and he dreams of being able to go back to his alma mater and throw a press release from NASA titled "Mozina is correct" in his Astronomy 101 professor's face.
Pure ad hominem. Proud of yourself Dave? The fact you have the nerve to lecture me about science when you so heavily rely on the use of ad hominem speaks volumes Dave. You're definitely projecting. FYI, I liked the science classes I took in college, and who the hell would bother holding onto a grudge for 20 years?
quote:
As I said, I don't think we'll ever know the real reason.
You personally probably never will, that's for sure.
The rest of your input here Dave hardly warrants a reply. You repeatedly resort to childish personal attacks, and you constantly misrepresent every statement I make. You make up your own strawman arguments and you burn them in effigy and claim victory. I really hope one day you come around, but I definitely won't hold my breath. You're damn near hopeless.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/01/2007 19:18:29 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 19:17:43 [Permalink]
|
| Gah, double post. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/01/2007 19:18:09 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
