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 2
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  17:00:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Oops, I made a mistake. The error was in your favour versus the point I was making. Sloppy work, but that's what happen when the time is 2am.


Hey, we're all human, and the mistake was in my favor after all. :)

quote:
But no one has identified currents in the outer skirts of the solar system, which should be there and easily recognizable once they hit the heliopause: there is more matter there to interact with than say a few AUs from the sun perpendicular to the planetary orbits.


I'm not sure I agree with you on this point. Close to the sun we do have plasma, and that plasma can (and does) stream off the surface toward space, but there is ample mass to carry the current. Once we reach a certain distance that mass "thins out" or spreads out and we are less likely to "see" the current flow, and there is less mass, not more mass.

I'm thinking maybe we are talking about completely different orders of magnitude here as it relates to energy exchange between the sun and the heliosphere. I'm suggesting the discharge to the heliosphere is rather "spread out", and the discharge continues as the streamers go further into space. I would not expect to see as much activity at the furthest points away from the sun, quite the contrary.

quote:
Electrical currents and magnetic fields of the magnitude required to affect the sun must be so strong that it would easily ionize hydrogen and helium "out there". If a current a hundred(?) parsecs away in the Orion constellation is visible, then detecting one at 100 AUs would surely be a piece of cake?


Again, I'm not suggesting that these currents are *presently* on order of scale that we see in the Orion constellation. I'm simply suggesting that these currents are "out there" in space, and our sun seems to act like a cathode in space according to Birkeland. I think he was exactly right, both about the way currents flow in space, and about how the sun is put together. I see evidence of current flowing from an iron terella in space. :)
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  17:21:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The amount of downloading doesn't mean in any way that the people at Lockheed took the material seriously.


The fact they wouldn't answer any questions about a specific image is not evidence that didn't take me seriously either! Some folks here are quite a trip. It's evidently "scientific" to hurl baseless insutls and accusations at me, but the moment I point out some statistical facts, it must be *MY* interpretation that is wrong and baseless. What a trip you folks are at times.

I treat creationists theories and gas model theories with contempt for exactly the same reason. Both camps ignore isotope analysis. It's that simple. Show me one flaw in Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemical work and then talk to me about creationists. Until then it's an irony overload to even mention creationists from my point of view. You are peas in a pod as far as I can tell.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/18/2006 17:22:24
Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  17:39:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...

The fact they wouldn't answer any questions about a specific image is not evidence that didn't take me seriously either! Some folks here are quite a trip. It's evidently "scientific" to hurl baseless insutls and accusations at me, but the moment I point out some statistical facts, it must be *MY* interpretation that is wrong and baseless. What a trip you folks are at times.
You are correct. The fact that they didn't, or wouldn't answer your questions about a specific image is not evidence that they didn't take you seriously, nor is it evidence that they did. There's no baseless insult here. It's criticism of you dragging your wild speculation into the issue. In all this time you've been here maybe you haven't noticed, but the deal here, on this forum full of skeptics, is if you make a claim, you back it up.

If you have some evidence that the Lockheed people were doing all that downloading because they took you seriously, lay it on us. I simply proposed a possibility that was equally as valid as yours, given your lack of evidence. If you have evidence that their lack of communication with you about a certain image is because they agree, or disagree, with your interpretation of that image, lay it on us. If you can't, then any guess anyone pulls out of thin air regarding their reasoning is equally as valid as you pulling your guess out of your ass.

No evidence, no accepting the claim. If you have a claim that you can't back with evidence, shut your flappy trap. Get back on subject. Stop bringing in the unrelated or unsupportable issues. Insulted? Learn how to present your case in an evidenced, focused way with evidenced claims. If you can learn to do that you won't be subject to the criticism that comes your way from appearing so incompetent in that regard.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9688 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  19:25:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
No all of you who read this thread are (amateur)astronomers, hobby physicists etc.
For your benefit, who aren't up to speed on the sun, and especially the photosphere, here is Wikipedia:
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosphere
The Sun's photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules, firestorms each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter with hot rising gas in the center and cooler gases falling in the narrow spaces between them. Each granule has a lifespan of only about 8 minutes, resulting in a continually shifting "boiling" pattern. Amid the typical granules are super-granules up to 30,000 kilometers in diameter with lifespans of up to 24 hours. It is unknown whether these features are typical of other stars.
This is the "standard gas model".

It's interesting to see the sizes of the convection cells. They are 1000km in diameter, and in the doppler image movie debated by Dave and Mozina, the pixel size is approximately 700km. This means that each pixel should theoretically flicker wildly for two reasons: 1) they are short-lived, and by the time the next image is taken, the average convection flow might have changed within that pixel. 2) even the smallest offset in the photo may shift the center of a pixel from an upward stream to a downward stream, completely reversing the flow.

One other interesting detail from Wikipedia: remember the size of the "crater" that Mozina claims as evidence for a solid surface: 30,000km. The edges of a super granule is much wider than an ordinary granule. Hence: the average downward flow exists over a larger area which means that in those places the pixels (several pixels wide) will not flicker in the same manner as for the 'small' granules. In the same manner, the upward flow in the middle of the "crater" the up-flow will be spread over a larger area (but may still contain granules) and the average flicker of the pixels will indicate an average upward motion.

Note also the longer life span of the super granule.

My interpretation of the images is that the "crater" is a super granule.

Waves from different sources in a liquid will superimpose on each other when they collide, but will remain intact after they have met. This is plain and simple wave physics. The tsunami-video may very well be of a wave propagating through a super granule(s) of unusual geometry, and the granules will come out of it unchanged even if they are liquid.

That the "stratification layer" is thicker than the underlying layers can be explained by the underlying layer being hotter. Hence: the density of that layer will be lower. The interface between the two layers could very easily be the bottom of a layer of convection cells.
Remember, the standard gas model says that the core is hottest and that temperature decreases closer to the surface. The model does not claim that the temperature decrease has to be linear, but there may be layers of different density.

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
26022 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  20:31:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Important stuff first...
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

It's these kinds of comments that make my jaw drop. I've provided TONS of scientific evidence here from 4 satellites, the the University of Maryland, the University of Missouri, UCLA, and Stanford.
Those are all scientifically-gathered data, but when you put them together as you have, all the science just drops out from under them. It's not enough to have satellite images, you have to be able to explain precisely how you determined those images come from 3,490 km under the photosphere. You haven't even attempted to do that.
quote:
Your attitude here is utterly unbelievable from my perspective. It's like listening to a creationists deny isotope analysis and science in favor of a faith in something they can't even explain!
And listening to you is exactly like listening to a creationist say, over and over again, "there are huge problems with evolution, here's how God did it, therefore creationism is correct."
quote:
I have offered you scientific explanations.
No, you haven't. I offer possible tests of your "erosion" hypothesis or other stuff, and you tell me they're impossible to test because you don't know how large an effect these things can have. That's science?

You ask me about differential rotation, and refuse to listen when I explain to you that it was measured by the movement of sunspots around the Sun (in 1630 no less). It has nothing to do with the random "dance" of filaments - it only measures the speed at which the photosphere at different latitudes rotates around the spin axis. And you cannot explain why the photosphere at the Sun's equator spins, on average, 8% faster than your alleged 27.3-day rotation rate (which you refuse to explain how you measured), while the photosphere at the poles rotates slower than that. This is science?!?
quote:
You have offered me none of your own.
And I say again, I don't need to. Pretend the SSM doesn't even exist. That's what I'll do from now on, too. We are examining your model.

What is the mechanism whereby the random atomic movement of atoms in the photospheric plasma is transformed into an overall velocity increase of that plasma as compared to your solid shell at the Sun's equator? How is the same mechanism responsible for a velocity decrease (compared to your solid shell) at the poles? Use the physical properties of the plasma's atoms, their temperature and density (etc.), tell me the name(s) of the phsyical process(es) at work, and then use math to tie it all together and derive, from those first principles, the equation for differential solar rotation. Please.
quote:
I however suggest a model that is both logical and feasable.
No, we've never even gotten as far as your conjecture that liquid neon acts as a refrigerant for the shell, cooling it to the point that is can be solid. Nevermind that the shell is separated from the neon by at least a layer of silicon.
quote:
I certainly can explain how coronal loops maintain their shape, unlike the standard gas model by the way. Their shape is directly related to the flow of electricity. They form when the current begins to flow, and they stoop when the current stops. They are maintained by the continued flow of electricity.
That doesn't at all explain how they maintain their 3D shape over the course of days. Electrical arcs certainly don't maintain a shape for very long, unless they're tiny.
quote:
You are acting as though ONE pixel might move ONE or two pixels. It's not like that at all. *ALL* of the pixels are subject to exactly the same kinds of semi-chaotic movements. We can even see the affect of this plasma movement in the dust blowing around in the plasma.
Not even close. Differential solar rotation should show up as all of the pixels at the bottom of a long-timebase video slowly shifting to the left relative to the top-row pixels, if the video was taken from below the equator. All of the pixels, moving in a uniform direction, at different rates. Get it? Differential solar rotation? No, you probably don't get it, and you'll probably live the rest of your life thinking that "differential solar rotation" describes the movement of penumbral filaments (even though those move way to fast to be measured by the DSR equation).
quote:
It's the fact you seem to think differential rotation isn't related to the PROPERTIES OF PLASMA that is the primary problem.
It's the fact that you don't even know what DSR is which is the problem.
quote:
quote:
Since the photosphere moves from left to right, the dust should drift in the opposite direction if it were due to differential rotation.
It's actually driven by the currents that are running through the plasma. The drift tends to be measured at the top of the surface, but never is it 100% uniform as you are trying to suggest here.
Wow, look at that dodge. First you say the dust movement is due to DSR, but when that's shown to be wrong, you say it's due to the currents. Brilliant! I've got to get a job doing this "science" stuff. It looks so easy!
quote:
The whole surface doesn't drift a little left or a little right.
Yes, Michael, that's precisely what they measured in 1630, and it's still going on today. It's an observation that's been verified again and again over the last almost 400 years.
quote:

- 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 - 01/18/2006 :  21:02:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You are correct. The fact that they didn't, or wouldn't answer your questions about a specific image is not evidence that they didn't take you seriously, nor is it evidence that they did. There's no baseless insult here. It's criticism of you dragging your wild speculation into the issue. In all this time you've been here maybe you haven't noticed, but the deal here, on this forum full of skeptics, is if you make a claim, you back it up.


But I've already done that with isotope analysis, heliosiesmology, papers from The University of Maryland, and a boat load of satellite images. One begins to wonder how much is enough around here to get a little interest happening.

quote:
If you have some evidence that the Lockheed people were doing all that downloading because they took you seriously, lay it on us.


They found out about me via Dr. Kosovichev from Stanford. That's about the best information I have unless you or I want to pretend to read minds.

The issue here is that YOUR side of the isle made the allegate. I was you folks pulling alegation out of your backside, not me. I simply responded to the comment.

I have competently provided a lot of evidence here that was pretty much ignored as with the isotope analysis. It's not my fault if you aren't paying attention and won't respond to the isotope issues or the more relevant aspects of this debate. If you won't address that aspect of this evidence, don't expect me to take you any more seriously than I take a creationist who ignores the same kind of isotope analysis as you are ignoring.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/18/2006 21:03:56
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9688 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  21:26:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But I've already done that with isotope analysis, heliosiesmology, papers from The University of Maryland, and a boat load of satellite images.
You have provided tons of data.
The reason we don't accept all the stuff you have provided as evidence, is that we do not agree with your interpretation of that data.


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

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  21:27:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It's interesting to see the sizes of the convection cells. They are 1000km in diameter, and in the doppler image movie debated by Dave and Mozina, the pixel size is approximately 700km. This means that each pixel should theoretically flicker wildly for two reasons: 1) they are short-lived, and by the time the next image is taken, the average convection flow might have changed within that pixel. 2) even the smallest offset in the photo may shift the center of a pixel from an upward stream to a downward stream, completely reversing the flow.


The flicker in that movie comes and goes, but the structure remains CONSTANT. That isn't true of something that comes and goes every 8 minutes.

quote:
My interpretation of the images is that the "crater" is a super granule.


Except this layer sits ABOVE the photosphere according to NASA. Care to explain why I should believe you and ignore NASA?

quote:
Waves from different sources in a liquid will superimpose on each other when they collide, but will remain intact after they have met. This is plain and simple wave physics. The tsunami-video may very well be of a wave propagating through a super granule(s) of unusual geometry, and the granules will come out of it unchanged even if they are liquid.


I'm pretty sure that the area in question is far too large to be related to a single supergranual, and it's angular sides are not in any way moved or changed by the wave. Even a supergranual would show some signs of change from that kind of momentum. Moreover, the wave passes OVER that structure, and the structure isn't moved one bit.

quote:
That the "stratification layer" is thicker than the underlying layers can be explained by the underlying layer being hotter. Hence: the density of that layer will be lower.


And it would necessarily be LESS dense as you suggest, rather than MORE dense if that were the case. Again that poses some very interesting problems in the RD image.

quote:
The interface between the two layers could very easily be the bottom of a layer of convection cells.


Define "bottom layer" for me, and how deep is this bottom layer according to current gas model theory?

quote:
Remember, the standard gas model says that the core is hottest and that temperature decreases closer to the surface. The model does not claim that the temperature decrease has to be linear, but there may be layers of different density.


Sure, and the gas model predicts very specific changes and layers at various depths. Nowhere in contemporary gas model there is there even a *PEEP* about any explanation for that stratified layer at .995, which also seems to have a bottom that varies between .997 and .985. It also changes shape (depth) by tens of kilometers over the course of the solar cycle. All of this suggests 3 dimensional shapes in what what is supposed to be an open convection area in according to gas model theory. We may be able to see the size of supergranuals, but according to gas model theory, they should be VERY deep, certainly deeper than .995R.

Even this explanation only hurts your case as you get to RD images. Now we have moving granuals underneath an unmoving layer. From a physics point of view, you're standing on jello. :)
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/18/2006 21:29:12
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  21:30:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But I've already done that with isotope analysis, heliosiesmology, papers from The University of Maryland, and a boat load of satellite images.
You have provided tons of data.
The reason we don't accept all the stuff you have provided as evidence, is that we do not agree with your interpretation of that data.



So clue me in on how you interpret that isotope analysis and how that differs from how a creationist might try to "bash" the evidence presented without presenting some evidence of their own?
Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  21:33:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...

They found out about me via Dr. Kosovichev from Stanford. That's about the best information I have unless you or I want to pretend to read minds.

The issue here is that YOUR side of the isle made the allegate. I was you folks pulling alegation out of your backside, not me. I simply responded to the comment.
No, sir. You brought up that issue about all those downloads you got from Lockheed and how you believed it meant they took your material seriously. You made a flagrant leap of flawed logic. None of us made any comment whatsoever about the amount of downloading the Lockheed people were doing from your server. You've just been caught in a blatant lie.
quote:
I have competently provided a lot of evidence here that was pretty much ignored as with the isotope analysis. It's not my fault if you aren't paying attention and won't respond to the isotope issues or the more relevant aspects of this debate. If you won't address that aspect of this evidence, don't expect me to take you any more seriously than I take a creationist who ignores the same kind of isotope analysis as you are ignoring.
Now perhaps you can explain to us why we should take anything you say with even a grain of credibility when you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're willing to lie to make your point? Lying is the tactic employed by the creationists, so your comparison is backwards, again. You, sir, are the liar.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  22:23:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Those are all scientifically-gathered data, but when you put them together as you have, all the science just drops out from under them.


No Dave, all the evidence fits together like a glove. I didn't make any of the data up, not one bit of it. The is all about interpretation, and I have a solid under a plasma, while you have a rigid, irregulared shaped surface sitting on boiling jello. From a physics point of view, you haven't a leg to stand on. The plasma drops out from under your argument and shifts around in 8 minutes flat.

quote:
It's not enough to have satellite images, you have to be able to explain precisely how you determined those images come from 3,490 km under the photosphere.


I have done that primarily via heliosiesmology. That is where the downward plasma flow stop, and where that stratified layer begins.

quote:
You haven't even attempted to do that.


Yes I certainly have. Here is the link again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm
quote:
When the sound waves reach a point about 4,800 km (3,000 miles) below the surface, however, their speed increases significantly, indicating that the roots of a sunspot are hotter than their surroundings.


A solid will certainly conduct the sound waves FASTER than plasma and the speed of the waves would increase significantly. This depth is also where the the "root" of the sunspots, or more accurately the base of the arcs are located. The fact they are electrical arcs, also lends evidence of a solid surface. The fact the RD images don't DRIFT over the course of hours is also evidence of a solid under the plasma. All of the evidence fits like a glove.

quote:
And listening to you is exactly like listening to a creationist say, over and over again, "there are huge problems with evolution, here's how God did it, therefore creationism is correct."


But Dave, *I* (not you) am the one with the isotope analysis to offer and you (not me) are the one not addressing the data, and asking me to "take it on faith". Come on! The irony meter is redlined here Dave!

quote:
No, you haven't. I offer possible tests of your "erosion" hypothesis or other stuff, and you tell me they're impossible to test because you don't know how large an effect these things can have. That's science?


Yes Dave. That's also an honest answer. I know you'd like lightening to be predictable down to a math formula, but that just isn't the way life works sometimes. As much as I might like to hand you a nice math formula, it's not clear to me you would actually associate it with a MATERIAL of any sort. You haven't so far.

quote:
You ask me about differential rotation, and refuse to listen when I explain to you that it was measured by the movement of sunspots around the Sun (in 1630 no less). It has nothing to do with the random "dance" of filaments - it only measures the speed at which the photosphere at different latitudes rotates around the spin axis.


Dave, you are ignoring the whole REASON we see movement, and trying to misapply a math formula and forget the fact it applies to EVERY SINGLE PIXEL in that image, not just some "general movement" in some unspecified material. We're talking about density of plasma and movement of plasma Dave. It doesn't just sit there for hours in the same 3D shapes laying out shadows on a surface! What are those shadows Dave?

quote:
And you cannot explain why the photosphere at the Sun's equator spins, on average, 8% faster than your alleged 27.3-day rotation rate (which you refuse to explain how you measured), while the photosphere at the poles rotates slower than that. This is science?!?


Actually, I don't recall you even asking me this particuarly question. It's called cosmic wind. You can see the same effect on virtually every planet in the solar system. This is a plasma layer. It can "blow in the wind" and be driven by differential forces and tidal forces as well. There are probably shear forces involved off surface features to consider as well. A whole host of things allow for the differential rotation of plasma, and even gas model theory assumes plasma does this. I'm not proposing anything new from the corona to .995R. It's all plasma, and it works just the same as the gas model works down to that depth. At .995R however, we go from plasma to solid.

quote:
And I say again, I don't need to. Pretend the SSM doesn't even exist. That's what I'll do from now on, too. We are examining your model.


Another creationist tactic I might add. Attack the evidence (or ignore it) and then provide none of your own evidence to support your positions. I see.

quote:
What is the mechanism whereby the random atomic movement of atoms in the photospheric plasma is transformed into an overall velocity increase of that plasma as compared to your solid shell at the Sun's equator?


Pretty much the same forces that affect wind on our own planet, only I presume this is more of a cosmic wind than a solar wind driving the process. It could even be related to the movement of the magnetic core producing electricity through the surface features that drives the movement. The point is that the VISCOSITY of plasma enables it to move around. The solids on the surface don't move like the plasma.

quote:
How is the same mechanism responsible for a velocity decrease (compared to your solid shell) at the poles? Use the physical properties of the plasma's atoms, their temperature and density (etc.), tell me the name(s) of the phsyical process(es) at work, and then use math to tie it all together and derive, from those first principles, the equation for d
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/18/2006 22:53:20
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  22:32:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

quote:
Actually Dave, I do care. In fact I care enough that I have asked several people at Lockheed Martin about the image repeatedly only to have them deny even knowing who created the image. They would offer me nothing as far as information goes.

Gee, they blew you off after you repeatedly asked them... imagine that. It is almost like they did not take you seriously. Almost like they thought you have no understanding of physics, math and science in general and are wasting there time. Almost like they have heard this type of thing time and time again - where some guy comes up with a half baked idea and won't stop bother them and refuses to listen to people who really know what they are talking about.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?



Here was the quote. Who started this? What did my original comment have to do with downloads from Lockheed Martin?
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  22:35:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You've just been caught in a blatant lie...... Lying is the tactic employed by the creationists, so your comparison is backwards, again. You, sir, are the liar.


Why do you feel the need to play "liar liar pants on fire" here? I did *NOT* say anything about Lockheed downloading from my website in the original post that was quoted. I simply mentioned that I could not get a straight answer from Lockheed about a SPECIFIC image. Who's the liar?
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  22:38:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You have provided tons of data.
The reason we don't accept all the stuff you have provided as evidence, is that we do not agree with your interpretation of that data.



That's your perogative of course. Then again, just because a creationist disagrees with my isotope analysis as it relates to the age of the earth, does not mean they have provided evidence of their own. If you can't explain the nuances and details of these images with gas model theory that is knowingly falsified by the heliosiesmology data, then why should I put any FAITH in current gas model theory when it can't even explain the stratification at .995R and never, ever, ever predicted it?
Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2006 :  22:57:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...

Why do you feel the need to play "liar liar pants on fire" here? I did *NOT* say anything about Lockheed downloading from my website in the original post that was quoted. I simply mentioned that I could not get a straight answer from Lockheed about a SPECIFIC image. Who's the liar?
You are a liar. You were the one who initially brought in the issue of the Lockheed people downloading from your server. There is absolutely no reason for any of us to have expressed any such concern, in great part because we don't review your server records. You interpreted that download rate to mean they took your work seriously. You brought that up in an effort to support your case. But you were guessing. You pulled it out of your ass. I suggested another possibility, that being maybe you were the laughing stock of Lockheed. You were insulted. You said...
quote:
The issue here is that YOUR side of the isle made the allegate. I was you folks pulling alegation out of your backside, not me. I simply responded to the comment.
... when in fact nobody here could have brought up the issue of Lockheed's downloading from your website.

So I repeat, you're a liar. And you're whining about being persecuted again. And you've neglected to answer the question regarding how you expect any of us to take anything you say with any amount of credibility now that you've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're willing to lie to make your point.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 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 0.75 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000