|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2006 : 11:54:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
In that case, if all stars contain massive quantities of iron and other elements: how did the first stars form?
That is a good question. If you don't assume that everything was once subatomic in nature (Big Bang) then matter in the form of iron and heavier materials may have predated this particular universe by eons.
Maybe the first stars did form from hydrogen as in BB theory, but I see no evidence to suggest that our sun is mostly hydrogen.
quote:
As I understand it, there wouldn't have been enough iron atoms during the first billion years of the universe to fill swimmingpool. Let alone congeal into millions upon millions of stars.
Actually, that is OLDER theory at this point since Hubble and Spitzer have already demonstrated the existence of "mature" galaxies and lots of iron in the early universe. In fact we see very little "change" in the abundance of iron over the past 13 billion years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 11:56:08 [Permalink]
|
I'll give Michael this; he has determination. All of the facts here, and everywhere else he has posted, has shown that his ideas are usupportable and just plain wrong. In spite of this he clings to his ideas like a tick on a dog. If he could apply this attitude to a sporting event there is no doubt he could make it to the olymics. Unfortunately facts cannot be changed by dogged determination to change them - and I am afraid he is simply wasting his time.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 12:21:20 [Permalink]
|
Even those articles state that the stars with iron in them are Population I stars. Under the generally accepted theory of stellar development, Polulation II (and the as-yet unobserved III) contain little or no iron, respectivly. Only 1.6% of our sun is not either hydrogen or helium (by mass), and that is considered metal-heavy!
Where did the massive amounts of iron needed in Michael's model come from, in the Population II and III stars? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 14:48:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Page 3
quote:
I find the center of the "crater" at 06:56:47 on 18 August, 2003, to be at 626,526 in pixels.
Come on Dave. Evidently you "eyballed" the presumed "center" of an extremely large crater, and gave me not even a HINT of how you actually determined the "center", or how how you separated light from the atmosphere vs. light from the surface.
Oh, forcryingoutloud. You can't even be bothered to read the sentences before the one you quoted, or look at the example (you could tell me how far off my centering rectangles are, in your estimation, and why). You also can't be bothered to tell us how to distinguish "light from the atmosphere vs. light from the surface" despite direct questioning about it. "Patient and fair" you are not, Mozina. |
- 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 - 01/13/2006 : 16:14:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I'll give Michael this; he has determination. All of the facts here, and everywhere else he has posted, has shown that his ideas are usupportable and just plain wrong. In spite of this he clings to his ideas like a tick on a dog. If he could apply this attitude to a sporting event there is no doubt he could make it to the olymics. Unfortunately facts cannot be changed by dogged determination to change them - and I am afraid he is simply wasting his time.
I think you are right about wasting my time, at least HERE anyway. These kinds of comments are just plain pointless. I've shown you images now for 4 separate satellite programs to support my views, and you folks won't even acknowledge the fact that current gas model theory doesn't even predict that stratification layer FOUND by Stanford and UCLA. Current gas model theory can't explain ANY of the images I've shown you, and no one here as bothered to offer any serious scientific explanations of these images using gas model theory.
Now you keep putting faith in a model that is KNOWN to be FLAWED as it relates to that stratification layer at .995R, but I for one have no faith it whatsoever, nor do I see any evidence is satellite images that even REMOTELY supports a hydrogen sun theory.
I will win debate sooner or later, even if it takes years to do so. I'm a patient man, and I will continue to add content and depth to my website as time passes and I learn more, but even now there is evidence to support my model from:
A) Nuclear Chemistry
B) Heliosiesmology
C) Yohkoh Images
D) SOHO Images
E) Trace Images
F) RHESSI images
G) Geos images
So far not one of you has addressed those NON MOVING structures we see in the Lockheed video, but you all seem to put faith in Dave's eyeballing of crater.
Do yourself a favor and watch a few days of SOHO raw images and notice all the structure that moves in unison as the sun rotates. These "structures" do not "roam around" in any way, shape or form.
www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/" target="_blank">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/
www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_01/060110_dit_195.mpg" target="_blank">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_01/060110_dit_195.mpg
www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_01/060111_dit_195.mpg" target="_blank">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_01/060111_dit_195.mpg
www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_01/060112_dit_195.mpg" target="_blank">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_01/060112_dit_195.mpg
It doesn't matter what images we might select, and in fact these are just the most current three days worth of raw images. You can pick out all sorts of "structure" in these images that rotates uniformly *IF YOU LOOK*. I can't of course MAKE you lift a finger to educate yourself especially if your whole belief system is based on faith. Since you haven't offered any logical explanations for that first RD image from Lockheed, I can only assume that your whole belief system is in fact based on faith, and nothing I might hope to offer you scientifically is going to make you give up your faith based sense of reality.
I've had too many conversations with creationists over the years to believe you can make anyone listen to science or nuclear chemistry if they don't wish to hear it.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/13/2006 16:18:34 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 17:21:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
So far not one of you has addressed those NON MOVING structures we see in the Lockheed video, but you all seem to put faith in Dave's eyeballing of crater.
If you didn't intend to toss the crater into your pool of evidence you shouldn't have. Your silly mistake, eh? Several of us have addressed your "crater" evidence, but it didn't hold up. And when questions came from it, you blew them off. At least one of us has spent a significant amount of time analyzing the images. Why should we give any more than a cursory examination to your next claim of "structure" when you won't even invest yourself into a thorough examination of your "crater" claim?
You won't answer the questions that have been brought up regarding your claim that this is evidence. You keep waving your hands and stamping your feet and insisting that it looks like a crater to you so dammit it must be a crater. We've asked you to describe how Dave W.'s analysis of the movement and location and "erosion" can be taken into account. You just continue to reject any criticism, and continue to claim that you're right because it sure as hell looks like it in those pictures.quote:
Now you keep putting faith in a model that is KNOWN to be FLAWED as it relates to that stratification layer at .995R, but I for one have no faith it whatsoever, nor do I see any evidence is satellite images that even REMOTELY supports a hydrogen sun theory.
Some of us haven't put our faith in any particular model. The fact that you've made a pretty piss poor case for your "theory", a case built on your observation of some images, and the fact that several of us have called you on your lack of ability to thoroughly support your model, does not in any way indicate that we have some kind of blind faith in the popular contemporary notion of the makeup of the sun. Your insecurity is showing.quote:
So far not one of you has addressed those NON MOVING structures we see in the Lockheed video, but you all seem to put faith in Dave's eyeballing of crater.
You haven't addressed this issue either other than to simply claim that your interpretation of some images must be correct because you damn well think it is. If Lockheed and NASA haven't ventured an opinion on those images yet, perhaps it's because they aren't as willing to jump to minimally substantiated conclusions as you are.quote:
It doesn't matter what images we might select, and in fact these are just the most current three days worth of raw images. You can pick out all sorts of "structure" in these images that rotates uniformly *IF YOU LOOK*. I can't of course MAKE you lift a finger to educate yourself especially if your whole belief system is based on faith.
You have been working your way up to this over many pages now, but you've now demonstrated beyond any doubt that you are a contemptible arrogant jerk. If *WE LOOK* and don't see things in the pictures the way you do, *WE ARE AS LIKELY TO BE CORRECT AS YOU ARE*. Get the hell over it. It has nothing to do with our faith, and apparently everything to do with yours.quote:
I've had too many conversations with creationists over the years to believe you can make anyone listen to science or nuclear chemistry if they don't wish to hear it.
For the Xth time, what the hell is wrong with your theory that you can't go tell it to those scientists and nuclear chemists? Obviously something, eh? I think you have a serious problem with how you invest your ego into your theory if you feel like you have to jump up and down and holler in a forum of intelligent skeptics, but don't have the balls to go to the top of the field and present your case to those people. If you want to play with the big kids you have to go to the big kids' playground. Go. Hit the road. I, for one, don't think you have what it takes.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 19:33:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've shown you images now for 4 separate satellite programs to support my views...
That's your claim. What you haven't yet done is given us any reason to think that your claim (that the satellite images support your views) is true. What you need to do is present us with your methodology for determining that any of the satellite images shows anything from 0.995R. Pick one image - any one will do - and tell us the steps you went through to get from that data to the conclusion that some parts of the image were of something at a depth of 3,460 km under the photosphere.
That's it. That's all you need to do. If the methodology is already described somewhere and is available on the Web, that's even easier for you, since all you'll have to do is post a link.
Once you do that, then we'll be able to analyze the methodology, validate it, and then apply it to the same images you did, and come to the same conclusion that you have.
Until then, we cannot come to the same conclusion, since all we have to go by is your say-so, and that's not good enough. It shouldn't even be good enough for you. That you seem to expect it to be good enough (in that you've so far refused to discuss your metholodogy for any of your conclusions) is why people are irate, especially given the fact that you've claimed to want to have a scientific discussion. We can't discuss the science until you show us what the science is, yet all you've shown us is premise and conclusion, skipping right over several steps of the scientific method. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 20:42:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think you are right about wasting my time, at least HERE anyway.
Michael, you are correct that you are wasting your time here. The problem goes deeper than a simple disagreement on the merits of the 'solid surface model of the sun'. The problem is one of credibility. Specifically your lack of it.
You have made many false and misleading statements. You use ad hoc reasoning to avoid falsification. You don't follow through with the logical implications of the solid surface model. In short you lack intellectual integrity. I am not attempting to insult you, I bring these things up because they are crucial to your credibility.
I realize that you will likely dismiss all the above out of hand, but I urge you to consider it carefully. After all you will have a great deal more difficulty convincing anyone (especially those who are experts in the field) that the 'solid surface model' has value if you don't appear credible.quote:
I've had too many conversations with creationists over the years to believe you can make anyone listen to science or nuclear chemistry if they don't wish to hear it.
The irony here is that your modus operandi is similar to the creationists. I say this not to insult you, but to bring to light what I see as the source of your credibility problem.
If you were to ask yourself why you find Intelligent Design to be unreasonable the answer (in general terms) may be the key to you understanding why we find the 'solid surface model of the sun' to be likewise unreasonable.
BTW One thoughtful, consistent and relevant post will go a lot further and be appreciated a lot more than a thousand rushed, vague and overbearing ones. You also have a tendency to make spurious claims, and go off on irrelevant tangents when challenged.
Anyway I write all this in the spirit of goodwill. I would venture to guess that others here and elsewhere share these views. You have previously acknowledged that you need to improve your ability to communicate. I applaud that sentiment and hope it is more than lip service. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 13:43:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, forcryingoutloud. You can't even be bothered to read the sentences before the one you quoted, or look at the example (you could tell me how far off my centering rectangles are, in your estimation, and why).
I have already done this Dave. You never offered any method to determine SURFACE from ATMOSPHERE, not did you include any such method into your "eyeballing" efforts. Your math was fine, but the assumptions you began with could NEVER lead to accurate results.
quote:
You also can't be bothered to tell us how to distinguish "light from the atmosphere vs. light from the surface" despite direct questioning about it. "Patient and fair" you are not, Mozina.
I did that too Dave. I told you when I look over a period of HOURS, I tend to use RD images rather than standard images, because the standard images are "blurred" by the atmosophere. I've even given you links to SOHO movies that show that not only do SOME structures rotate uniformly across the surface, ALL of them do. Instead of listening to the technique I used and trying to incorprate it into your "analysis", it's evidently easier for you to simply not listen to the suggestions I have already offered you on several occasions. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 13:59:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Michael, you are correct that you are wasting your time here. The problem goes deeper than a simple disagreement on the merits of the 'solid surface model of the sun'. The problem is one of credibility. Specifically your lack of it.
That works both ways. Instead of offering a legitimate SCIENTIFIC explaination of the stratification layer using gas model theory, and instead of explaining any satellite images using gas model theory, you have instead focused on attacking the individual. That tells me that you don't have the scientific knowledge to explain these images using gas model theory, so you took the lazy way out.
quote:
You have made many false and misleading statements.
Name one, and prove it - SCIENTIFICALLY!
quote:
You use ad hoc reasoning to avoid falsification.
What???? My very first paper talks about all these issues. It's you that are creating "ad hoc" excuses for why the current gas model which offers NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER for that stratification layer is somehow acceptable even though you can't explain it one bit.
quote:
You don't follow through with the logical implications of the solid surface model.
Pure BS. I've spent 20+ pages explaining to you folks PERSONALLY.
quote:
In short you lack intellectual integrity. I am not attempting to insult you, I bring these things up because they are crucial to your credibility.
Now if that isn't the most ironic comment I've heard, I don't know what is. Intellectial integrity as it relates to science requires that you offer a legimate alternative to explain these observed phenomenon. You have not done so. Instead you DISHONESTLY attack the individual and feign some sense of superiority. Give me a BREAK! That is pure BS. Talk about intellectually dishonest behavior!
quote:
I realize that you will likely dismiss all the above out of hand, but I urge you to consider it carefully.
I'll consider it carefully the moment you step up and offer a legitimate scientific explanation of these images using gas model theory. Until then, you simply spew an intellectually bankrupt argument.
quote:
After all you will have a great deal more difficulty convincing anyone (especially those who are experts in the field) that the 'solid surface model' has value if you don't appear credible.
Credibility begins and ends with SCIENTIFIC explantions. I have offered mine. You have not. That makes you completely lacking credibility in my book, so I could personally care less what you personally think about me.
quote:
The irony here is that your modus operandi is similar to the creationists.
No, that's your game not mine. I'm the one who put nuclear chemical isotope analysis on the table to support my case. You can't tell me why that analysis is wrong, nor will you offer any of your own as a refute. Instead you simply IGNORE it, and resort to insult and ridicule. It's you that are ignoring isotops analysis, not me. Get real. Where is your nuclear chemical evidence to support the gas model again?
quote:
I say this not to insult you, but to bring to light what I see as the source of your credibility problem.
You're just playing a role, and behaving like the rest of PACK. You obviously don't have the scientific knowledge to engage in this debate in an intellectually honest way, so you hurl insults from the peanut gallery. Yawn....
quote:
If you were to ask yourself why you find Intelligent Design to be unreasonable the answer (in general terms) may be the key to you understanding why we find the 'solid surface model of the sun' to be likewise unreasonable.
I don't support any concept of a 6K year earth, so your comment about intelligent design as it relates to my beliefs is FALSE, and another example of why you have not been intellectually honest in this converstion. It is YOU, not ME that is unwilling to offer any explanations for these images and YOU, not ME that is unwilling to listen to the isotope analysis. It YOU that are acting like a creationist, not me.
quote:
BTW One thoughtful, consistent and relevant post will go a lot further and be appreciated a lot more than a thousand rushed, vague and overbearing ones. You also have a tendency to make spurious claims, and go off on irrelevant tangents when challenged.
How ironic. Rather than offer a legitimate scientific alternative to the first image on my website, you've totally focused on insult. Talk about irrelevant tangents....
quote:
Anyway I write all this in the spirit of goodwill. I would venture to guess that others here and elsewhere share these views. You have previously acknowledged that you need to improve your ability to communicate. I applaud that sentiment and hope it is more than lip service.
These comments don't come accross as "good will" comments in any way. A "good will" comment would involve some sort of scientific alternative that you felt was a superior explaination. A good will arguement would involve SCIENCE and LOGIC. This was not such an arguement. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 14:31:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I did that too Dave. I told you when I look over a period of HOURS, I tend to use RD images rather than standard images, because the standard images are "blurred" by the atmosophere. I've even given you links to SOHO movies that show that not only do SOME structures rotate uniformly across the surface, ALL of them do. Instead of listening to the technique I used and trying to incorprate it into your "analysis", it's evidently easier for you to simply not listen to the suggestions I have already offered you on several occasions.
One more time you're saying you keep on looking at the pictures and it keeps looking solid to you, but you're not willing to apply any further analysis. If you could only see how completely foolish you look when you demand others analyze your claims, then when they do you simply dismiss their analysis out of hand. Yet when asked to analyze your own claim you reply that you've been looking at those damn pictures for so long and it STILL looks solid to you. You keep whining that if we all just looked at the pictures longer we'd finally see what you see. And you call that science? You're so full of shit.quote:
That works both ways. Instead of offering a legitimate SCIENTIFIC explaination of the stratification layer using gas model theory, and instead of explaining any satellite images using gas model theory, you have instead focused on attacking the individual. That tells me that you don't have the scientific knowledge to explain these images using gas model theory, so you took the lazy way out.
You have a real problem. You think people need to prove to your satisfaction that the gaseous sun theory is correct, otherwise yours must be correct by default. It has ceased to matter what sort of scientific knowledge or experience you have. You completely missed some critical things in your middle school science classes. You can't support your theory by demanding that it must be right if others can't, or won't thoroughly explain other theories. You have the scientific approach of a 12 year old. And it seems pretty obvious you're not going to grow up and join the real world of science.quote:
Pure BS. I've spent 20+ pages explaining to you folks PERSONALLY.
You've spent nearly all that time demanding that we see the same things in your pictures that you see in them. We don't. You lose. Stop whining. Get over it. Your continuing to act like a child isn't getting you anywhere.quote:
No, [modus operandi similar to the creationists is] your game not mine.
No, that is your game. Remember this?...quote:
I will win debate sooner or later, even if it takes years to do so.
You're not going to win your debate here by hollering and waving and being an condescending jerk. Your pictures look like a solid surface to you. They don't look like it to most anyone else. Looks like we're right and you're wrong this time. You don't have what it takes to play your silly game out in the real world of science. If you did, you'd be doing it. Makes me wonder if you're just damn sure you don't have the science to do it, or if you're just damn sure you don't have the guts. I'd guess it's some of each.
Edited for spelling. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/14/2006 16:13:42 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 14:41:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's you that are creating "ad hoc" excuses for why the current gas model which offers NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER for that stratification layer is somehow acceptable even though you can't explain it one bit.
Michael, for the last time, whether or not the gas model is correct has absolutely nothing to do with your model. Creationists, as you like to point out, do this all the time. The totality of their evidence for creationism rests upon their perceived failures in evolution to explain certain features of life. Similarly, you keep bitching about what the gas model doesn't account for while ignoring the criticisms raised of your model. Give it up. This isn't a dichotomy. What the gas model does or does not say has no impact upon the evidence for your model.
|
"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 01/14/2006 15:29:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 16:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have already done this Dave. You never offered any method to determine SURFACE from ATMOSPHERE, not did you include any such method into your "eyeballing" efforts.
I'm waiting for YOU to tell me how to distinguish "SURFACE from ATMOSPHERE" in a single raw image. As soon as you do, I'll apply YOUR METHOD to the raw images, and re-run my calculations. Then you can tell me how to determine the amount of erosion going on, and I'll re-run my calculations again. Then you can tell me how lighting effects should be taken into account, and I'll re-run the calculations a fourth time. I'm waiting for information from you, Mozina.quote:
Your math was fine, but the assumptions you began with could NEVER lead to accurate results.
Prove it. Tell me the method you would use to determine the location of the "crater" in each individual image, and I'll re-run the calculations and we'll all see if that 11% discrepancy goes away.
Thanks for telling me my math is good, though. That gets at least one bone of contention out of the way.quote:
I did that too Dave. I told you when I look over a period of HOURS, I tend to use RD images rather than standard images, because the standard images are "blurred" by the atmosophere.
But that doesn't tell me anything. You (or Lockheed or NASA or someone) ran an unspecified RD algorithm over some unspecified set of images, and then what? You still haven't told me how you distinguish surface from atmosphere after running the RD. Or are you claiming that the RD process eliminates all atmospheric effects?quote:
I've even given you links to SOHO movies that show that not only do SOME structures rotate uniformly across the surface, ALL of them do. Instead of listening to the technique I used and trying to incorprate it into your "analysis", it's evidently easier for you to simply not listen to the suggestions I have already offered you on several occasions.
No, it is you who haven't listened. As I said before, we could do some analysis of the SOHO full-surface RD movie, except for the fact that you haven't addessed the issues of erosion, lighting changes and surface/atmosphere distinction. You might be implying that none of those have any effect after the RD process on images separated by days (instead of hours), but I certainly won't be doing any more work with nothing but implications. |
- 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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 16:48:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Intellectial integrity as it relates to science requires that you offer a legimate alternative to explain these observed phenomenon.
What utter nonsense. Nobody here is proposing a theory. We are, instead, criticizing your theory. If an article is printed in a science journal which contains a mathematical mistake, people who criticize the paper are not obligated to offer an alternative conclusion, but only have to say, "look, a mistake!"
Intellectual integrity also demands that you stop offering this false dichotomy as if it were some sort of scientific shield for you to hide behind. It isn't, and it's very tiring to keep hearing you harp on it over and over again. You have a theory to defend. We don't. It's that easy.
Besides, even when we have offered scientific explanations for things seen in those images and movies, you've blown those explanations off without a single scientific reason. You've simply said, "erosion" or "lighting effects" or "atmospheric blurring" and expected us to believe you. Or, you simply assert that magnetic fields cannot hold a plasma together for however long the time period in question is, without offering a shred of evidence for your opinion. This is, once again, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.quote:
I'll consider it carefully the moment you step up and offer a legitimate scientific explanation of these images using gas model theory. Until then, you simply spew an intellectually bankrupt argument.
Interesting. Even if you can be shown to be dead wrong, you won't consider that possibility until someone else offers a gas-theory explanation. But if the gas theory is wrong also, then you will never consider yourself to be wrong.
No wonder you refuse to address the movement of plasma within your allegedly solid layer.quote:
No, that's your game not mine. I'm the one who put nuclear chemical isotope analysis on the table to support my case. You can't tell me why that analysis is wrong, nor will you offer any of your own as a refute.
Can you link to that again, please?quote:
Instead you simply IGNORE it, and resort to insult and ridicule. It's you that are ignoring isotops analysis, not me. Get real. Where is your nuclear chemical evidence to support the gas model again?
False dichotomy again. For a guy who likes to point out logical fallacies, you can't seem to get away from that one.quote:
You're just playing a role, and behaving like the rest of PACK.
Creationists also like to consider themselves as being persecuted by a larger majority.quote:
quote:
If you were to ask yourself why you find Intelligent Design to be unreasonable the answer (in general terms) may be the key to you understanding why we find the 'solid surface model of the sun' to be likewise unreasonable.
I don't support any concept of a 6K year earth, so your comment about intelligent design as it relates to my beliefs is FALSE...
Hmmm. Matt suggested that you find Intelligent Design to be unreasonable. Is that not true? Do you find ID to be reasonable, instead? |
- 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 - 01/14/2006 : 21:48:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
One more time you're saying you keep on looking at the pictures and it keeps looking solid to you, but you're not willing to apply any further analysis.
That is false. I have applied a LOT of analysis, including images from 5 satellites, isotope analysis, and heliosiesmology evidence as well!
quote:
If you could only see how completely foolish you look when you demand others analyze your claims, then when they do you simply dismiss their analysis out of hand.
I don't care if you THINK I look foolish (to you).
I did not dismiss Dave's analysis out of hand. I carefully explain why his analysis won't work, specifically it does not isolate surface from atmospheric change, and it's essentially an "eyeball" of the CENTER of a very large crater rather than selecting a SPECIFIC set of FEATURES that can be isolated to a few pixels.
quote:
Yet when asked to analyze your own claim you reply that you've been looking at those damn pictures for so long and it STILL looks solid to you.
It doesn't just look SOLID, it *IS* solid. It conducts electricity. It holds "structure" over a period of days.
quote:
You keep whining that if we all just looked at the pictures longer we'd finally see what you see. And you call that science? You're so full of shit.
What I find sad is that you WON'T look at the pictures and WON'T offer a valid scientific alternative, but you WILL resort to insult and rude language. Yawn.
quote:
You have a real problem. You think people need to prove to your satisfaction that the gaseous sun theory is correct, otherwise yours must be correct by default.
No, that is actually what you insist of *ME*. In your head, if I can't prove my model to your personal satisfaction, then your FAITH wins by default, regardless of whether or not you can explain ANY of these direct observations.
quote:
It has ceased to matter what sort of scientific knowledge or experience you have. You completely missed some critical things in your middle school science classes. You can't support your theory by demanding that it must be right if others can't, or won't thoroughly explain other theories. You have the scientific approach of a 12 year old. And it seems pretty obvious you're not going to grow up and join the real world of science.
Nothing but rant. Yawn....
quote:
You've spent nearly all that time demanding that we see the same things in your pictures that you see in them.
No, but I have asked repeatedly for you to offer me some LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC explanation of these images using gas model theory. Rather do just doing it, you refuse to do so, and debase us both with childish, sophmoric insult.
quote:
We don't. You lose.
The only LOSER here is you for failing to even step up to the plate and offer a legitimate alternative. It is absolutely no skin off my nose if you consciously choose to stay ignorant for the rest of your life. I don't even care what you think, so there is no logical way for me to "lose" anything.
quote:
No, that is your game. Remember this?...quote:
I will win debate sooner or later, even if it takes years to do so.
You're not going to win your debate here by hollering and waving and being an condescending jerk.
I'm not talking about winning any debates HERE at all. I'm talking about being SCIENTIFICALLY right vs. being scientifically wrong. I am right. Regardless of what you think of me as a person, you cannot change reality. Reality doesn't care about personalities, not your, and not mine. The only thing that matters is who is right and who is wrong. I am right. Time is on my side.
Before you start thinking this is about ego, think again. Dr. Kristian Birkeland had this figured out 100 years ago. He even did the lab work to demonstrate his points. Now, 100 years later WE (not me) have the ability to verify *HIS* model. That is what has happened. It's just that simple.
quote:
Your pictures look like a solid surface to you. They don't look like it to most anyone else. Looks like we're right and you're wrong this time. You don't have what it takes to play your silly game out in the real world of science. If you did, you'd be doing it. Makes me wonder if you're just damn sure you don't have the science to do it, or if you're just damn sure you don't have the guts. I'd guess it's some of each.
I've had the "guts" to put put up with all the stupid insults and swearing that goes on in this forum. What passes for SCIENCE around here is SADLY lacking. This is no game, this is reality. These images reflect reality. The reality is, the sun has a surface. Others have also seen these images and see the same things I see.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
