|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2006 : 21:56:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Michael, for the last time, whether or not the gas model is correct has absolutely nothing to do with your model.
Actually HH, it does have everything to do with my model. If the gas model is correct, my model is not. Likewise if Birkeland's model is correct, the gas model cannot be correct. It's not MY personal model. In fact it was "invented" about 100 years ago. It was verified about 50 years ago by Bruce and about 35 years ago by Manuel. I'm really a "Johnny come lately" to this model.
quote:
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.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm the one with isotope analysis to support my case. You're the one handwaving it away without even an ATTEMPT to explain why you do this. I'm the one with chemistry on my side here, not you. If you doubt this, show me the flaw in Manuel's work! Isotope analysis doesn't care about your FAITH in the gas model.
quote:
Similarly, you keep bitching about what the gas model doesn't account for while ignoring the criticisms raised of your model.
No model is RIGHT by default. Each deserves equal scrutiny. That is what pure skepticism is all about.
quote:
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.
Sure it's a dichotomy. Both models cannot be right. There is either a surface with iron on it or there isn't anything solid sitting at .995R. Both options cannot be right. So far, Birkeland's model is the only one with heliosiesmology evidence to support it which can be easily explained in the model and was actually predicted by this model.
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 22:21:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
I already told you that I personally would NOT do such a thing with raw images over a multiple hour timeframe, but you refuse to try it another way. Why? Take any two of those running difference images from NASA you see in that movie and show me any sign of diffferential rotation, and we'll talk. Until then I'm not anyone can isolate surface features from atmosphere over a multiple hour timeframe without a lot of luck and a lot of practice.
quote:
Then you can tell me how to determine the amount of erosion going on, and I'll re-run my calculations again.
I've explained to you repeatedly that this is not an easily answerable question. I've also shown you a number of images now that show this very DYNAMIC process taking place on the surface. In each of these movies/images you can see the CHANGING location of these high energy emissions and the dynamic nature of these surface changes in highly electrically active areas.
quote:
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.
Just with lightning relects off surfaces randomly as the the lightning location changes, so too the light on the structures will vary radically although the surface FEATURES will not vary. Look at that Lockheed movie again Dave. There are a lot of changes to the lighting effects on those mountain ranges, but they do not move in relationship to one another over the entire length of the movie. The central mountain ranges do move in relationship to the structure on the left or near the top, or to the right. There is NO differential rotation in these images Dave, none!
quote:
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.
I would take two sets of running difference images and I would look for very SPECIFIC and highly localized features and compare DISTANCES, between three or four objects in the image. That is how I have looked for such "structure" in the past.
quote:
Thanks for telling me my math is good, though. That gets at least one bone of contention out of the way.
To your credit Dave, you are the ONLY one I've met here that has attempted to address this topic SCIENTIFICALLY. I appreciate that aspect of your responses.
There are however some important aspects you MUST consider if you wish to understand this model.
quote:
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?
I'm suggesting it removes MOST (not all) of the atmospheric interference and what we and up with are "structures" that are more obvious to the naked eye.
quote:
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.
Let's try this without the hostily Dave. I assure you the results will speak for themselves. That Lockheed movie is the "best" of the RD images I have reviewed either from NASA or Lockheed. If you want to see results from this technique, you'll find them in these images.
The NASA RD images are also "good", but they lack the resolution of the Lockheed images. I suggest you start with the Lockheed Images of that timeframe and look at that set of features in that movie. None of the features on that image move around in relationship to one another. The fact these structures show no sign of differential rotation during the whole duration of that movie demonstrates that this layer behaves RADICALLY different than what we see in the photosphere. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 22:39:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What utter nonsense.
This is the verbage you use that "sets me off" Dave. It's not "nonsense", it's common sense. If there is nothing "better" to chose from, why would I give up my ideas from a scientific perspective?
quote:
Nobody here is proposing a theory. We are, instead, criticizing your theory.
That is false. You are in fact SUPPORTING an alternative theory that has already been falisified by Stanford and UCLA.
quote:
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!"
But there's been no "mistake" made here Dave, and no proof of any mistake.
quote:
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.
That is not "intellectually honest" Dave. You have FAITH in a model that has already been falsified. You have to give me some valid scientific reason to believe your FALSIFIED model is somehow scientifically superior to my own, or I have no legitimate reason to believe my model is somehow inferior to your already falsified model.
quote:
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.
That is a false statement. I've carefully explained my motives and my reasoning over and over again.
quote:
You've simply said, "erosion" or "lighting effects" or "atmospheric blurring" and expected us to believe you.
Whereas you seem to expect me to believe your falsified gas model has merit. Why?
quote:
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.
Even Alexander Kosovichev "blew off" this idea Dave. A handwave of "magnetic fields" fails to explain how magnetic field form at exactly this location, how they hold a specific "depth", how they do this over the whole SPHERE of the sun. You haven't offered a legitimate way to explain this "layer" just by tossing out the term "magnetic fields". If Dr. Kosovichev doesn't believe this to be a valid explanation for these phenomenon, why should I?
quote:
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.
I didn't say any of that Dave. I said I need a SCIENTIFIC reason to prefer YOUR model over mine. If it CAN be shown that my model is wrong, then I'd be happy to accept it. So far, that has not happened. I respect the fact you TRIED to do this mathmatically, but I've also explained why that won't work in raw images. I've also offered you a METHOD to falisify this model by finding differential rotation in those RD images from Lockheed or NASA.
quote:
No wonder you refuse to address the movement of plasma within your allegedly solid layer.
I do not believe that plasma DOES move WITHIN the solid layer. I do however agree with Stanford and UCLA that this layer CHANGES with the solar cycle.
quote:
Can you link to that again, please?
http://www.thesunisiron.com/
quote:
False dichotomy again. For a guy who likes to point out logical fallacies, you can't seem to get away from that one.
There is no false dichotomy here Dave. The gas model is not exempt from scrutity just because you put FAITH in it.
This is quite analogous to what a creationist might do. They might ATTEMPT to ASSUME their view is "right by default" as you are doing with the gas model. They do not offer isotope analysis to support their views. Instead they ATTACK the evidence, but offer none of their own to support their view.
quote:
Creationists also like to consider themselves as being persecuted by a larger majority.
Actually creationists tended to do all the persecuting.
quote:
Matt suggested that you find Intelligent Design to be unreasonable. Is that not true? Do you find ID to be reasonable, instead?
You are absolutely correct on this point Dave. I owe Matt an appology. I misread his original statement. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 23:16:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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,
Why won't you focus on supporting the 'solid surface model'? Attacking the mainstream theory is a classic creationist tactic, and it tends to indicate a lack of positive evidence.
quote:
...you have instead focused on attacking the individual.
I have merely called your credibility into question.quote:
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.
Your lack of credibility makes debating the veracity of the 'solid surface model' with you pointless.quote:
quote:
You have made many false and misleading statements.
Name one, and prove it - SCIENTIFICALLY!
Very well, on page four you said,quote:
The gas model didn't predict the right amount of neutrinos at first!
The gas model did in fact predict the right number of neutrinos. The problem turned out to be that neutrinos change flavor on the way to earth and thereby had escaped detection.
There's one example. If you'd like more please don't hesitate to ask. I'm sure that someone will be happy to oblige you.
quote:
quote:
You use ad hoc reasoning to avoid falsification.
What????
The solid surface model offers an incorrect density prediction. Rather than admit to this failure you propose that some unknown and unexplained process affects our ablility to correctly measure the density of the sun. This is a classic ad hoc hypothesis.
From the skeptic's dictionary, "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory."
quote:
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.
From where I sit you've spent 20+ pages dogmatically asserting that you are right and ignoring legi |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 23:17:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That is false. I have applied a LOT of analysis, including images from 5 satellites, isotope analysis, and heliosiesmology evidence as well!
Oh stop hollering. So you LOOKED AT THOSE PICTURES FOR A LONG LONG TIME. So what?quote:
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.
You said the images were affected by varying amounts and directions of light. You didn't say how. You didn't explain how you isolate surface from atmospheric change. You just said you looked at the crater yourself and it surely does look solid. But the truth is, you're too lazy to do any more than stomp your feet and insist you're right. You've been asked how the light and atmosphere affect the images, and instead of venturing an intelligent comment you just holler and yell about how nobody believes you.quote:
It doesn't just look SOLID, it *IS* solid. It conducts electricity. It holds "structure" over a period of days.
You just keep at it. Shout a little louder and a few more times and you'll be closer to proving your theory. Yeah, that's how good science works. Sheesh, what a tantrum throwing child you've turned out to be, eh?quote:
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.
What I think is sad is how you can be such a bad sport about this. Your guess isn't automatically right just because nobody presents an alternative. You can't get past your insistence that by god and by golly everyone needs to just look at those pictures longer and finally they'll all see the light like you have. You aren't going to holler and whine your way to good science no matter how hard you try. But you sure are one persistent child, aren't you?quote:
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.
You're wrong again. But you're consistent. You're making an incorrect assumption that I have faith in any model. You can't support your theory and you know it. So all you have to fall back on is your belief that you win by default. And when you're reminded that's not how it works you throw another tantrum. Well, go ahead if it makes you feel better. If you really had anything valid or scientific to say you wouldn't waste your time getting all whiney and defensive like this. You'd set about the task of making your case.quote:
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.
The burden of proof is on you. The gas model theory, right or wrong, is not relevant to you supporting your case. Until you get that through your skull you're going nowhere. Ask a sixth grade science teacher about this. It's elementary stuff.quote:
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.
I could continue to tell you how it's not my job to prove some other theory. It's your job to prove your theory. But you're obviously not willing to understand that. Until you have the balls to lay your theory on the table at the top of the heap in the scientific community, I'm going to accept you for what you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be, an incapable amateur guesser.quote:
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.
Yes, you are talking about winning debates. In fact you're the only one who thinks this IS a debate. You think it's a debate because you can't support your conjecture, so you think that if we can't support some other possibility you must be right. Too bad you can't prove your point on its own merits. Too bad all you have is all your bluster, pomp, conceit, and bad attitude. It's not a debate of your solid sun model versus whatever next best proposal. It's your obligation to substantiate your claim. Your claim is looking sillier every time you resort to trying to tear apart the critics instead of supporting your conjecture. Again, you're completely full of shit. You completely misunderstand the scientific process.quote:
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.
And as your parting shot you STILL insist that you've looked at your damn pictures and it STILL looks solid to you and NOBODY is going to show you up 'cause you're so right. Well, no, you're not. You're wrong. You don't have what it takes. If this is no game then write up your material and submit it to the peer reviewed science journals. But again I don't think you can. You don't have the science or the balls to do it. I'm calling you out on this.quote:
Sure it's a dichotomy. Both models cannot be right. There is either a surface with iron on it or there isn't anything solid sitting at .995R. Both options cannot be right. So far, Birkeland's model is the only one with heliosiesmology evidence to support it which can be easily explained in the model and was actually predicted by |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 01:25:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
I already told you that I personally would NOT do such a thing with raw images over a multiple hour timeframe, but you refuse to try it another way. Why?
Why? The answer should be obvious: you won't tell me the steps you (or Lockheed or NASA) used to generate running difference images. Until you do, I simply cannot create the same images from the same raw data as you have. And because of that, were I to try it on my own, you'd simply respond, "well, that's not the same algorithm for an RD image that I used, so your analysis cannot possibly be correct." Why the hell would I even try under those circumstances?
No, the onus is on you, Michael, to describe in detail the processes you've used so that one of the primary tenets of the scientific method - replicability - can be met.
So, on to the details. I know for a fact that the "crater" shifts by many pixels over just three hours (go back and look at the links to the raw data I provided). Given that to do an RD image, I will have to re-center one or more images, what method should I use to match up the images (in X/Y pixels) prior to running any RD algorithm on it? And then after the RD process, how will I calculate how far to shift the images back in order to make a determination of where they fall on the Sun's surface?quote:
Take any two of those running difference images from NASA you see in that movie and show me any sign of diffferential rotation, and we'll talk. Until then I'm not anyone can isolate surface features from atmosphere over a multiple hour timeframe without a lot of luck and a lot of practice.
Um, you're making it sound like an art, and not a science, Michael. But if you're talking about the SOHO movie, I'll bite...
Let's compare frame 15 and frame 28. Specifically, let's examine the rotation of the strong white vertical feature on the left side of frame 15. Let's examine its rotation at the equator, and at latitude 28° north (picked mostly arbitrarily, but also because it was about as far north as I could get keeping the feature in both frames). I've drawn those lines on the images, for frame 15 and frame 28 (the lines are actually one pixel below the latitude marked, to avoid covering up the relevant pixels). More specifically, let's examine the rotation along those latitude lines of the rightmost whitest pixel of the "structure," which I've marked with green vertical "bowties" for frame 15 and frame 28. (You might notice these are all GIF files, since that's a lossless format.)
In frame 15, the "bowties" at are pixel 223 on the equator, and pixel 224 at 28°N.
Now at this time, I've got to say that over a week ago, I concluded a time-consuming and complex examination of the 29 usable frames of that SOHO movie (one of the 31 was mostly blacked out, another one was washed out), and the data I gathered with that process tells me that the Sun's diameter in the movie is about 345 pixels. The problems I encountered were flares on the limb of the Sun blurring the edge. But I used estimations from all 29 usable images to come up with an average diameter of 345 pixels, or a radius of 172.5 pixels, centered on horizontal pixel 318 (the horizontal center of the images being between pixels 319 and 320). If that's acceptable to you, we can continue.
Given the above values for radius and center, then at the Sun's equator, pixel 223 represents a longitude of -33.4°, and at 28°N, pixel 224 represents a longitude of -38.1°.
Then, using the same values for center and radius, in frame 28, I find the "bowtie" on the equator to be at pixel 390, or longitude +24.7°. And the "bowtie" at 28°N is at pixel 366, or longitude +18.4°.
So, over the same time period, the rightmost edge of the white "structure" has rotated 58.1° at the equator, but only 56.5° at 28°N.
That is the signature of differential rotation, right there: the "structure" rotated 1.6° slower at 28°N than at the equator, over the same four days and six hours.quote:
quote:
Then you can tell me how to determine the amount of erosion going on, and I'll re-run my calculations again.
I've explained to you repeatedly that this is not an easily answerable question. I've also shown you a number of images now that show this very DYNAMIC process taking place on the surface. In each of these movies/images you can see the CHANGING location of these high energy emissions and the dynamic nature of these surface changes in highly electrically active areas.
Then what am I to do? How should I analyze the images and take erosion into account. Given the way you're making it sound, I should use lots of data points, and assume that erosion in one image will balance out erosion in another image. That is, of course, exactly what I did in the first place with the "crater" movement calculations. If you'd like to tell me how much erosion is affecting each of the 21 images, in terms of how far off the center (or edges) of the "crater" are from my estimations, please do so. The reason I posted an image of all 21 of my "centering rectanles" was so that you could tell me that they're wrong, and by how much they're wrong. I await your corrections.quote:
Just with lightning relects off surfaces randomly as the the lightning location changes, so too the light on the structures will vary radically although the surface FEATURES will not vary.
Again, you're telling me that you can't quantify the process at all, and just telling me "it happens." Unless you describe how I can account for lighting changes in the raw data - from one raw image to another - then I can't possibly take that data and make accurate analyses. Even if my conclusions agreed with yours, they couldn't possibly be considered to be correct, because I can't take lighting changes into account without you telling me the method you used to determine that lighting changes had occu |
- 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 - 01/15/2006 : 01:51:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually HH, it does have everything to do with my model. If the gas model is correct, my model is not. Likewise if Birkeland's model is correct, the gas model cannot be correct.
Yes, but both models can be wrong, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. So attacking the gas model does absolutely nothing to bolster the iron sun theory. Continuing to do so even when it doesn't benefit your case in any way is indicative of an obsession. And, since no one here is arguing the validity of the gas model, your increasingly shrill cries that we are all faithful devotees of some prevailing dogma is beyond absurd. We're not focused on it, only you seem to be.
|
"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 01/15/2006 01:54:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 01:58:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Can you link to that again, please?
http://www.thesunisiron.com/
You've got to be kidding me. For one thing, I asked for a link to the evidence provided by "nuclear chemistry" that supports your theory of a solid surface, made mostly of iron. The link you provided offers mostly conclusions, without any of the underlying evidence or science.
For another thing, do you really expect me to seriously consider a Website which starts out with a falsehood? The standard solar model does not say that the "sun formed instantly as a homogeneous body from an interstellar cloud with no mass accretion or mass loss." What utter garbage!
No, if you want us to scientifically critique the nuclear chemistry evidence that supports your ideas, you're pretty much obligated to link to the scientific papers which present precisely that evidence. The link you provided offers a high-level overview, but nothing one can analyze well at all.
Please try again. ArXiv papers will be fine in lieu of peer-reviewed journal articles which most of us here won't be able to access anyway. |
- 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 - 01/15/2006 : 03:31:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Why won't you focus on supporting the 'solid surface model'? Attacking the mainstream theory is a classic creationist tactic, and it tends to indicate a lack of positive evidence.
I have already provided you positive evidence in form of nuclear chemical analysis, heliosiesmology and several different solar satellites. Creationist tend to offer no science of their own to support their views. That is how you are behaving. You have nothing to offer me from a scientific perspective, but you'll handwave away a lifetime of isotope analysis without a second thought.
quote:
I have merely called your credibility into question.
You have simply resorted to the oldest cheap trick in the book: smear the individual.
quote:
Your lack of credibility makes debating the veracity of the 'solid surface model' with you pointless.
My "credibility" has nothing to do with the issue. PERIOD! I'm the one providing scientific data to support my views. You are the one acting like a creationist and throwing stones and handwaving away isotope analysis. In my book you personally have ZERO credibility. I at least give Dave his due for TRYING to provide a scientific context to refute the arguement. You personally have never done anything of the sort, so your views about me as an individual have absolutely no credibility with me.
quote:
Very well, on page four you said,quote:
The gas model didn't predict the right amount of neutrinos at first!
The gas model did in fact predict the right number of neutrinos. The problem turned out to be that neutrinos change flavor on the way to earth and thereby had escaped detection.
Er, I think you're splitting hairs. It did NOT predict the right number of neutrinos in the RIGHT flavors. Does that make you happier?
quote:
There's one example. If you'd like more please don't hesitate to ask. I'm sure that someone will be happy to oblige you.
Well, I think you'll need to do better than that to demonstrate any manovolent intent on my part. You're quibbling over details IMO.
quote:
The solid surface model offers an incorrect density
prediction. Rather than admit to this failure you propose that some unknown and unexplained process affects our ablility to correctly measure the density of the sun. This is a classic ad hoc hypothesis.
I did NOT create dark energy "ad hoc". I didn't create universal acceleration "ad hoc". These are accepted aspects of astronomy. Show me how they are accounted for in heliocentric models! You have the majority of the mass of the solar system unacco |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:02:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I did NOT create dark energy "ad hoc". I didn't create universal acceleration "ad hoc". These are accepted aspects of astronomy. Show me how they are accounted for in heliocentric models! You have the majority of the mass of the solar system unaccounted for in your "density" calculation. That's all I'm suggesting. Since I can't see inside the surface, and I have never suggested a specific density of the sun, your ALLEGATION there is a density problem based on heliocentric concepts of density that don't include dark energy or univeral acelleration is "ad hoc".
You application of these things to the density calculation is what is ad hoc. It has been pointed out to you that, in cosmic terms, the sun is too close to the Earth to affect density calculations to any substantial degree. Since the discovery of dark energy, no scientist has ever said we suddenly need to discard the density measurements of our own sun. You alone are suggesting that, and only because your model (I'm sorry, the model you impartially endorse) gives a wrong figure.
quote:
It is FACT that we do not live in a heliocentric universe. That is not an "ad hoc" anything. It's reality. You BELIEF that a heliocentric concept of density is FACT is dubious at best.
We don't, but we are moving relative to the sun, making your objection baseless.
quote:
It is you that ASSERT a heliocentric/dark energyless concept of density creates some sort of problem for my model, but my model doesn't suggest a density measurement in the first place!
So how in the world can the gas model be "dead and buried" for it's failure to account for a single feature when your model fails to account for a cartload of information? Why not give the gas model a pass on what it "doesn't suggest in the first place?" Oh, that's right, because you assume your conclusions. The layer must be solid.
|
"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 01/15/2006 04:05:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:02:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Oh stop hollering.
Hollering? The only reason I use caps is to emphasize certain words in a sentence the way I might do if were having a verbal conversation. My use of caps has nothing to do with hollering. :)
quote:
So you LOOKED AT THOSE PICTURES FOR A LONG LONG TIME. So what?
So I'm better qualified to interpret these images than someone who's not put in that kind of time and effort.
quote:
You said the images were affected by varying amounts and directions of light. You didn't say how.
Yes, I did say how. The arcs along the surface change size, shape and intensity over time.
quote:
You didn't explain how you isolate surface from atmospheric change.
Yes I did. I personally choose to use RD images when trying to isolate surface structures. You can see these structures in the Lockheed image, and you can see the lighting change during that movie, but you can also see that the structures do not move in relationship to one another.
quote:
You just said you looked at the crater yourself and it surely does look solid.
No. I noted it size, shape and sides. I noted the time difference between them. I've overlayed the images on top of one another, and played with the original FITS files to create RD images as well. I've also looked at such images for many years and I am able to pick out surface features from electrical arcs as well, but that is not a reliable way to tell the surface from the streamers.
quote:
But the truth is, you're too lazy to do any more than stomp your feet and insist you're right.
Oh bull! I put several types of science on the table here to analyse and review. It's you that are too lazy to do anything other than handwave it away.
quote:
You've been asked how the light and atmosphere affect the images, and instead of venturing an intelligent comment you just holler and yell about how nobody believes you.
It's difficult to have intelligent debate with folks that don't bother reading anything I've written, and don't bother listening the first 2 or 3 times I explain a simple solution to the problem.
quote:
You just keep at it. Shout a little louder and a few more times and you'll be closer to proving your theory. Yeah, that's how good science works. Sheesh, what a tantrum throwing child you've turned out to be, eh?
You probably never read that link from the Maryland University I presume? Did you actually read ANY of the papers I wrote, or posted?
I'm going to simply ignore the point parts of your the rest of your post.
quote:
You're wrong again. But you're consistent. You're making an incorrect assumption that I have faith in any model.
You've given me no logical reason to believe there is a "better" model than the one Birkeland first offered us.
quote:
You can't support your theory and you know it. So all you have to fall back on is your belief that you win by default. And when you're reminded that's not how it works you throw another tantrum. Well, go ahead if it makes you feel better. If you really had anything valid or scientific to say you wouldn't waste your time getting all whiney and defensive like this. You'd set about the task of making your case.
There is not "making a case" with people who never read the materials I've collected. I've posted a TON of material on my website and in this forum, but obviously you haven't bothered reading any of it. What did you think of the data from the University of Maryland?
quote:
The burden of proof is on you.
No. The burden of proof is on EVERYONE and EVERY theory. No theory is RIGHT by default. What kind of skeptic are you again?
quote:
The gas model theory, right or wrong, is not relevant to you supporting your case.
I've already supported my case in many way, most of which you haven't bothered to read or consider. It's not my job to DISPROVE the gas model, expecially since UCLA and Stanford have already blown it out of the water. If however you cannot offer a "scientifically better" way to explain these images using gas model theory, then I see no logical reason not to trust Birkeland. He seemed to know astronomy better than most of his contemporaries, and most of astromers of today.
quote:
Until you have the balls to lay your theory on the table at the top of the heap in the scientific community, I'm going to accept you for what you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be, an incapable amateur guesser.
quote:
It's not a debate of your solid sun model versus whatever next best proposal.
Ya, ultimately it is. It's about which model is the better model, and which model BEST explains what has been observed. The gas model is not immune from scrutiny, and the fact it failed to predict that stratification layer at .995R speaks volumes to it's lack of usefulness.
If there is a "better" scientific explaination of these images based on gas model theory, someone should be able to offer it. In over nine months of debate, that has NEVER occured, and I've debated the idea with the "experts" in the field like Alexander Kosovichev. Even he backed off his earlier expla |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:10:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The gas model is not immune from scrutiny, and the fact it failed to predict that stratification layer at .995R speaks volumes to it's lack of usefulness.
I wonder how many things your model has failed to predict. A few things, of the top of my head, which it does not predict are:
The sun's luminosity
The sun's energy output
The sun's sunspot cycle's period
How the sun creates its energy
Need I go on? These things, rather more important that the existance or abscence of a density boundary at 0.995r, speak volumes about the lack of usefulness of your model, Michael Mozina. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:20:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why? The answer should be obvious: you won't tell me the steps you (or Lockheed or NASA) used to generate running difference images.
One image is subtracted from next. It's not great mystery how they are created. NASA and Lockheed would have to tell you their favorite timeing technique. According to Stein at NASA, the shorter the difference in time, the better. I personally found a minimum of 30 minutes tends to lead to more useful images, but it's not a difficult thing to do even using Photosphop.
quote:
Until you do, I simply cannot create the same images from the same raw data as you have. And because of that, were I to try it on my own, you'd simply respond, "well, that's not the same algorithm for an RD image that I used, so your analysis cannot possibly be correct." Why the hell would I even try under those circumstances?
I suggest we use the images that are already available in the public domain so no one can accuse me of manipulating the images, and the results are independent of the individuals doing the analyis. Where do you see differential rotation in the Lockheed RD movie?
quote:
No, the onus is on you, Michael, to describe in detail the processes you've used so that one of the primary tenets of the scientific method - replicability - can be met. So, on to the details.
A running difference image is created by subtracting a previous image (pixel intensity) from the current image. According to Stein from Nasa, the shortest time difference between the two images, the better, but personally I have better success with images at least 20 minutes apart. Photoshop offer a function to do that easily and quickly.
quote:
I know for a fact that the "crater" shifts by many pixels over just three hours (go back and look at the links to the raw data I provided).
I know you BELIEVE this to be so Dave, and I know you made a serious attempt to find the "center" of this crater in later images, but you really should be looking for several suface features that are easily distingishable, not the "middle" of something that is poorly defined.
quote:
Given that to do an RD image, I will have to re-center one or more images, what method should I use to match up the images (in X/Y pixels) prior to running any RD algorithm on it? And then after the RD process, how will I calculate how far to shift the images back in order to make a determination of where they fall on the Sun's surface?
You won't have to "re-center" anything. The image that is left is left, and "centered". As long as you pick time difference between the images that is equal, there should be no problem with centering.
quote:
Um, you're making it sound like an art, and not a science, Michael. But if you're talking about the SOHO movie, I'll bite...
Let me look at your images and I'll comment once I've looked at them. From what I've read so far, I respect the process you've outlined.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 04:35:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The gas model is not immune from scrutiny, and the fact it failed to predict that stratification layer at .995R speaks volumes to it's lack of usefulness.
I wonder how many things your model has failed to predict. A few things, of the top of my head, which it does not predict are:
The sun's luminosity
The sun's energy output
The sun's sunspot cycle's period
My theory does not deviate from standard theory in these measurements. In fact my theory explain WHY the sunspot cycle occurs, unlike the gas model.
quote:
How the sun creates its energy
Well, technically there isn't ONE energy source. The primary energy source is fision IMO, but magneto affects apply, not to mention the interaction the sun has with the universe itself.
quote:
Need I go on? These things, rather more important that the existance or abscence of a density boundary at 0.995r, speak volumes about the lack of usefulness of your model, Michael Mozina.
Yes, I think you do need to go on, expecially since the first things on your list are simply measurements and the gas model fails to explain the sun's 11 year sunspot cycle, whereas my model explains this phenomenon quite well. More interestingly, the only gamma emissions we see from the sun take place at the base of the arcs on the surface. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
