|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/28/2006 : 15:10:33 [Permalink]
|
Oh, good grief. The paper "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete" contains an obvious creationist argument:Could this be a coincidence? Hardly! If all 83 elements in the Sun's atmosphere were equal in abundance, the probability for the chance selection of any set of seven elements would be 7! 76! /83! = 2 x 10-10. This differs little from zero. The actual probability for chance selection of these seven elements is orders-of-magnitude less, in fact less than 2 x 10-33 because the probability of selection would depend on the abundance of each of these trace elements in the solar atmosphere. Compare and contrast this "argument from probability" with the creationist notion that since the odds of a functional protein coming together by chance is so close to zero that evolution can't possibly be true. The argument is a poor one, a strawman which assumes that a competitive model (the "hydrogen Sun" and/or evolution) would only explain the observations by pointing to "chance" or "random" occurences. What does the standard solar model say about the relative abundances of the elements in the photosphere? Dr. Manuel doesn't say. Do you know, Michael? And then tell me why, Michael, in the face of such piss-poor scholarship, I should continue reading. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 15:17:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Could you explain to me why you believe that Dr. Manuel's work does not support my work again? He's written 4 papers in the last year that have included my work. We are very good friend at this point, and it's clear even in our personal conversations that he fully supports my work. I'm really curious about how you deny all this. There must be quite a big fat juicy rationalization in there somewhere to explain that seemiingly irrational behavior.
Okay Michael, you obviously have some sort of reading or language comprehension deficiency. I keep trying to explain it to you, but you demonstrate a denseness that can only be rivaled by the solid surface on your fantasy sun. It looks like Dave W. explained what it is that you're misunderstanding. I'm certainly not going to reiterate. I will say this, however: You've just added one more posting without having offered any substantiation of any sort to your obviously unsupportable guess. Once more... Discarded.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 15:52:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, good grief. The paper "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete" contains an obvious creationist argument:
Huh? Are you trying to insinuate that Dr. Manuel is a creationist, or is this simply smear by association on your part?
quote:
Could this be a coincidence? Hardly!
If all 83 elements in the Sun's atmosphere were equal in abundance, the probability for the chance selection of any set of seven elements would be 7! 76! /83! = 2 x 10-10. This differs little from zero. The actual probability for chance selection of these seven elements is orders-of-magnitude less, in fact less than 2 x 10-33 because the probability of selection would depend on the abundance of each of these trace elements in the solar atmosphere.
I'd say the mathematical odds evidently don't favor chance selection.
quote:
Compare and contrast this "argument from probability" with the creationist notion that since the odds of a functional protein coming together by chance is so close to zero that evolution can't possibly be true. The argument is a poor one, a strawman which assumes that a competitive model (the "hydrogen Sun" and/or evolution) would only explain the observations by pointing to "chance" or "random" occurences. What does the standard solar model say about the relative abundances of the elements in the photosphere? Dr. Manuel doesn't say. Do you know, Michael? And then tell me why, Michael, in the face of such piss-poor scholarship, I should continue reading.
You know, you can rationalize this away any way you wish if you must do so to keep yourself from looking honestly at this evidence. You can blame me, or you can pick out one sentence and go postal, but that is not a scientific attitude, and that is piss poor logic on your part.
I looked at your evidence in fine detail Dave. I used the flow patterns of the plasma that flatten out at around .995R to support my case. I used the fact that the underside of the crust has a column of rising plasma that move up and and away from the column, whereas the topside works in reverse to support my case. I looked the evidence in the eye and I'm coming to terms with it, openly and honestly and fairly and SCIENTIFICALLY. Whatever objection I have *REGARDING THE SCIENCE*, I have articulated, and I have been highly specific. I didnt' hand wave away Kosovichev's work, in fact I used elements of it to support my position, and I've been careful to mention that I respect and admire his efforts and achievements. I've been very specific about the ASSUMPTIONS I'm concerned about, and I will continue to do so. I expect you do to the same. I treated you "scientist" with respect. Why are you so intent on handwaving away the lifes work of a professor of Nuclear Chemistry from the University of Missiouri at Rolla? I didn't act that way toward Kosovichev or his work. Who is acting like the creationist here Dave? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/28/2006 16:41:26 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 15:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Once more... Discarded.
The parallels here with creationism are eerie. You both seem to reject isotope analysis with a handwave. None of you tackle the science aspects, not even a little. The statements that come out of your mouths (Manuel's work doesn't support your fantasy) are litererally outrageous and illogical and a lie. The need to focus on bashing the individual is exactly the same. You are definely the worst of the lot GeeMack. You won't deal with the data because you don't have the expertise. All you had to do was admit it and move on. Instead you go for bashing the individual again based on a statement taken completely out of context that has absolutely nothing to do with the science he presented. Your attitude disgusts me GeeMack. You are not a scientists, your are a sleaze artist. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/28/2006 15:59:14 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 17:06:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If all he's done is include your work, then it isn't very proper of him to suggest that you were a co-author. But if you were a true co-author, then it's improper for you to say that Dr. Manuel wrote those papers (you would have said, "we wrote four papers in the last year that have included my work").
I think you're getting hung up on verbage again. Hilton, Sumeet, Oliver and I have all contributed content to these papers and have worked on the verbage of these papers. The first paper Oliver, Sumeet and I did together was mostly based on materials involving nuclear chemsitry and based on Dr. Manuel's lifes work. It would be inapproriate for me to try to take credit for anything remotely related to his life's work, and my comments simply reflected that position. Hilton and Sumeet probably wouldn't appreciate my choice of terms either frankly, but your suggestion is inappropriate.
quote:
After all, the fact that Dr. Manuel supports you personally doesn't mean that the isotope analysis supports your theory, especially when you seemed to agree that an abundance of iron doesn't necessarily mean an iron shell.
But his work does support Birkeland's model in the sense it suggests the sun is mostly iron, and mass separates the plasma in the solar atmosphere. I would not matter if I came along with satellite evidence to support both their findings. Their work fits together, with or without my involvement. The fact that Dr. Manuel's model calls for mass separation of plasmas intrigued me because I determined this as well based on satellite observation. The fact Manuel's isotope analysis calls for mass separation does support Birkeland's model. The fact Manuel's work suggests the sun is mostly iron does support Birkeland's model. None of this has anything to with me personaly other than the fact that I believe the satellite evidence also supports Birkeland's model. All of this evidence directly supports Birkeland's model. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 17:11:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Huh? Are you trying to insinuate that Dr. Manuel is a creationist, or is this simply smear by association on your part?
Neither. My, you are fond of the false dichotomy, aren't you? Dr. Manuel simply presented an argument which is so bad in terms of its construction and conclusion that I question his ability to correctly do the sort of science he presented in that paper. He may be a fine nuclear chemist, but he's got a long way to go before he'll be a good astrophysicist.quote:
I'd say the mathematical odds evidently don't favor gas model explanations.
Only if the gas model makes the claim that elemental abundance in any given star is random. Does it? Both you and Dr. Manuel have failed to answer that question, but to dismiss the standard solar model based upon that probability calculation, the standard solar model must be making such a claim. Otherwise, the probability equation is simply a red herring.quote:
You know, you can rationalize this away any way you wish if you must do so to keep yourself from looking honestly at this evidence. You can blame me, or you can pick out one sentence and go postal, but that is not a scientific attitude, and that is piss poor logic on your part.
Except I haven't done what you've described, so it's just another strawman on your part.quote:
I looked at your evidence in fine detail Dave. I used the flow patterns of the plasma that flatten out at around .995R to support my case. I used the fact that the underside of the crust has a column of rising plasma that move up and and away from the column, whereas the topside works in reverse to support my case. I looked the evidence in the eye and I'm coming to terms with it, openly and honestly and fairly and SCIENTIFICALLY.
Except you're not. Scientific evidence for a proposition must be both necessary and sufficient. That a rising column of plasma spreads out horizontally when it hits a solid surface is necessary for your hypothesis, but it isn't sufficient evidence that a solid surface exists because other possible explanations exist which you haven't been able to dismiss.quote:
Whatever objection I have *REGARDING THE SCIENCE*, I have articulated, and I have been highly specific.
Highly specific regarding your own fantasy about the way the science of helioseismology works. Had you been highly specific about actual helioseismology, I would have responded in a different way.quote:
I didnt' hand wave away Kosovichev's work, in fact I used elements of it to support my position, and I've been careful to mention that I respect and admire his efforts and achievements.
I haven't handwaved away anything you've said (certainly not with a "that number doesn't seem right" handwave like you used). I examined the images, and found your explanation of them lacking in many regards, not least of which is the fact that you cannot provide any evidence that any of them came from 3,460 km under the visible photosphere. I examined the helioseismology, and even emailed the author of the single article you were so proudly touting as evidence, and I find the idea that a 0.1% difference in density is insufficient to explain a solid shell in a sea of plasma. I didn't even need to examine the isotope analysis before you admitted that it is insufficient to support your theory (it's even largely unnecessary, since there's enough iron in the Sun given standard observations to make a sphere with an outside radius of 0.995R which is nearly 68 km thick - pure iron).quote:
I've been very specific about the ASSUMPTIONS I'm concerned about, and I will continue to do so.
Except when we explain to you why your questions about the "ASSUMPTIONS" (+5 points) are based upon a faulty understanding of the process(es) involved, you just keep on claiming that you have "concerns." Nothing will ever get resolved unless you also explain your concerns with the explanations of your original concerns.quote:
I expect you do to the same.
Except that you cannot answer many of my concerns, and have admitted as such. What am I supposed to do, ignore your lack of explanations?quote:
I treated you "scientist" with respect.
And I treat people with respect for their scientific work based upon the quality of their scientific work. The idea that I should show someone respect who thinks a probability calculation is evidence against a model which isn't based on a similar probability calculation is simply absurd.quote:
Why are you so intent on handwaving away the lifes work of a professor of Nuclear Chemistry from the University of Missiouri at Rolla?
I'm not handwaving away anything. You said that his life's work is not sufficient support for your model. I agree with you. I happened to go ahead and read it, anyway, and found an absolutely unscientific argument in there which makes me less motivated to continue reading, much less take any of the conclusions seriously without double-checking every step of logic and scrap of math, which I have no intention of doing since it is irrelevant to your theory of a solid shell.quote:
I didn't act that way toward Kosovichev or his work. Who is acting like the creationist here Dave?
Creationists aren't defined by their disrespect for anyone's work. In fact, they're quite fond of saying, "I have great respect for the work of Dr. So-and-So, but I find his assumptions weak in this case," just like you're doing. They're also fond of making probability calculations which have nothing to do with the theory they're attempting to ovethrow, just like Dr. Manuel did. |
- 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 - 01/28/2006 : 17:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But his work does support Birkeland's model...
Where can I read about Birkeland's solar model in Birkeland's own words?quote:
...in the sense it suggests the sun is mostly iron...
Which isn't sufficient to support your model.quote:
...and mass separates the plasma in the solar atmosphere.
Which we haven't even gotten around to discussing. Define the term "solar atmosphere." |
- 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 - 01/28/2006 : 17:50:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Neither. My, you are fond of the false dichotomy, aren't you? Dr. Manuel simply presented an argument which is so bad in terms of its construction and conclusion that I question his ability to correctly do the sort of science he presented in that paper.
Bull. His statement was nothing more than a mathematical look at the odds of random chance. Period. You slapped on the label "creationism" on it to smear him by association.
quote:
He may be a fine nuclear chemist,
He's an excellent one in fact.
quote:
but he's got a long way to go before he'll be a good astrophysicist.
Actually you have that backwards. He's already spent his whole life studying the solar output, and he knows more about astrophysics that most human beings. He's an EXCELLENT astrophysicist, and his work supports Birkeland's model who was another EXCELLENT astrophysicist.
quote:
Only if the gas model makes the claim that elemental abundance in any given star is random. Does it?
I'll give you that one, since I edited the comment after you started responding. It was simply a mathematical look at the odds of random chance favoring specific elements. You were the one to slap a judgment label on a mathematical look at the odds.
quote:
Except I haven't done what you've described, so it's just another strawman on your part.
Well, I haven't heard a single comment from you regarding the actual chemistry. All I've heard from you amount to emotional reactions to an individual sentence that has nothing to do with the science he is presenting.
quote:
Except you're not. Scientific evidence for a proposition must be both necessary and sufficient. That a rising column of plasma spreads out horizontally when it hits a solid surface is necessary for your hypothesis, but it isn't sufficient evidence that a solid surface exists because other possible explanations exist which you haven't been able to dismiss.
But Dave, you've not been able to dismiss my suggestion either! The fact the plasma flow stops at .995, makes you're suggestion that this is a "minor" change in density seem rather suspect. Your suggestion that this stratified layer is made of plasma is further eroded by the underside movement of that plasma that spreads out as it reaching the surface. None of these movement patterns suggest a "small" change in density, in fact they suggest a significant one exists at .995R, right where we see a significant change of sound speed and plasma flow directional shifts.
quote:
Highly specific regarding your own fantasy about the way the science of helioseismology works.
The fantasy here is believing that anyone's work is beyond scrutity and there there cannot be *any* other valid epxlanations for the data that is extracted from these methods.
quote:
I haven't handwaved away anything you've said (certainly not with a "that number doesn't seem right" handwave like you used).
You've not touched the chemistry with a ten foot pole yet Dave. It's been over a month, and I've answered 10 pages of questions about your heliosiesmology data. I've even used some of that data to support my position, and I've articularled the key issues that separate my interpretation from Kosovichev's interpretation of the data.
quote:
I examined the images, and found your explanation of them lacking in many regards, not least of which is the fact that you cannot provide any evidence that any of them came from 3,460 km under the visible photosphere.
That's Ok Dave, since your explanation wasn't even scientifically possible. During the duration of the time in question, the arcs and loops are changing positions. If "magnetic fields" were responsible for these structures, then they too have shown signs of movement during the time the coronal loops showed signs of movement. You never addressed the shadowing effects of the image, nor the "density" issues related to that "surface" compared to dust blowing in the plasma wind.
For some reason, you're fixated on whether or not thousand mile long arcs can pierce aerogel. I don't get it frankly. You want to have your cake and eat it too. First it's too light to fit my model, now it's too thick. Which is it?
quote:
I examined the helioseismology, and even emailed the author of the single article you were so proudly touting as evidence, and I find the idea that a 0.1% difference in density is insufficient to explain a solid shell in a sea of plasma.
And I've pointed out that there is a "bais" in these methods that "interprets" a change in the speed of sound as a change in temperature rather than density shift in material. The bais relates to the expectation that no solids exist under the surface of the photosphere, and that bias skews that .1% density difference in a significant way. That figure in density change is also not consistent with the flow patterns seen in the rest of his data. Such a miniscule change in density would not cause the plasma flow patterns we see throughout these layers. The column goes from rising and pushing outward, to falling and being sucked toward the column between figures 2A and 2B. You've never demonstrated that a .1 percent change in density could do such a thing!
quote:
I didn't even need to examine the isotope analysis before you admitted that it is insufficient to support your theory (it's even largely unnecessary, since there's enough iron in the Sun given standard observations to make a sphere with an outside radius of 0.995R which is nearly 68 km thick - pure iron).
Either I mistyped something somewhere, or you're buying into "GeeMack's" propoganda. I never |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/28/2006 17:51:33 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:11:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Where can I read about Birkeland's solar model in Birkeland's own words?
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
quote:
Which we haven't even gotten around to discussing. Define the term "solar atmosphere."
When are "we" going to dicuss this issue anyway? The solar atmosphere is everything above the surface extending out to the sheath at the edge of the solar system. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/28/2006 18:12:10 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:16:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You know, you can rationalize this away any way you wish if you must do so to keep yourself from looking honestly at this evidence. You can blame me, or you can pick out one sentence and go postal, but that is not a scientific attitude, and that is piss poor logic on your part.
You haven't once expressed in any terms, scientific or otherwise, or made an attempt at a rational guess, that your "solid" shell is composed of any particular mixture of materials. If your fifth grade teacher gave a test and asked you to describe the material composition of a meteorite, and if you tried to answer that by showing her a photograph of one, you'd flunk the test.
You haven't ventured a guesstimate within some range, or included even a rough sketch of your scientific reasoning regarding its thickness or about its temperature. You haven't guessed how much it erodes, how often, or how the material might be replaced, or even if it's maybe just getting thinner and thinner all the time.
You haven't made any guesses, even within ridiculously broad ranges, about almost any of the details of your allegedly solid surface. For us to ask you to provide those details, to expect you to give explanations about the mechanisms that might cause those properties, is a 100% scientific position for us to take. Your outright refusal to even make wild extreme hairbrained guesses about those things is the epitome of a piss poor unscientific approach. Anyway, more whining from Michael and zero evidence provided. Discarded.
quote:
I looked at your evidence in fine detail Dave. I used the flow patterns of the plasma that flatten out at around .995R to support my case. I used the fact that the underside of the crust has a column of rising plasma that move up and and away from the column, whereas the topside works in reverse to support my case. I looked the evidence in the eye and I'm coming to terms with it, openly and honestly and fairly and SCIENTIFICALLY. Whatever objection I have *REGARDING THE SCIENCE*, I have articulated, and I have been highly specific. I didnt' hand wave away Kosovichev's work, in fact I used elements of it to support my position, and I've been careful to mention that I respect and admire his efforts and achievements. I've been very specific about the ASSUMPTIONS I'm concerned about, and I will continue to do so. I expect you do to the same. I treated you "scientist" with respect. Why are you so intent on handwaving away the lifes work of a professor of Nuclear Chemistry from the University of Missiouri at Rolla? I didn't act that way toward Kosovichev or his work. Who is acting like the creationist here Dave?
First, you have already claimed that helioseismology data is unreliable and shouldn't be used to describe the properties of the sun. Second, even if we could accept it as evidence for particular properties, you again incorrectly state that it supports your claim of a solid surface. If you accept that it shows movement of plasma, then you must accept that it shows movement of plasma at speeds up to 3000 miles per hour directly through your allegedly solid surface. And you haven't even ventured the wildest guess as to why this might happen.
So what's it going to be? The helioseismology shows that plasma moves upward and downward in regions above and below your "solid" surface and at even faster speeds horizontally through it? If so, explain that. Or will you just bail out completely on your claim that it provides any evidence of a solid surface at all? You can't have both.
More foot stomping from Mozina. His claim in the above section is that he is willing to accept evidence that comes from "our" reference source (although he still completely misunderstands the actual data he cites, uses the parts he thinks support his notion, and pooh-poohs it when that exact same data clearly demonstrates there is no solid surface). He seems to think that we should allow for some conciliatory acceptance of the material provided by his buddy. Another total lack of understanding the processes involved in scientific investigation.
And another entire posting without the tiniest bit, or even an attempt to provide support for his conjecture. Discarded. Sorry Michael, you're just not doing very well, are you? 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:32:15 [Permalink]
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland
quote:
Vision of field-aligned currents stirs controversy
Kristian Birkeland and his terrella experiment
Enlarge
Kristian Birkeland and his terrella experiment
Birkeland suggested that polar electric currents -- today referred to as auroral electrojets -- were connected to a system of currents that flowed along geomagnetic field lines into and away from the polar region. He provided a diagram of field-aligned currents in his book, "The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903". This diagram is reproduced on the back of the bank note in the lower right corner. This book contains chapters on magnetic storms on the Earth and their relationship to the Sun, the origin of the Sun itself, Halley's comet, and the rings of Saturn. Birkeland's vision of field-aligned currents became the source of a controversy that continued for a quarter of a century, because their existence could not be confirmed from ground-based measurements alone.
The absolute proof of Birkeland's field-aligned currents could only come from observations made above the ionosphere with satellites. A magnetometer onboard a U.S. Navy navigation satellite launched in 1963 observed magnetic disturbances on nearly every pass over the high-latitude regions of the Earth.
The magnetic disturbances were originally interpreted as hydromagnetic waves, but it was soon realized that they were due to field-aligned or Birkeland currents. The first complete map of the statistical location of Birkeland currents in the Earth's polar region was developed in 1974 by A.J. Zmuda and J.C. Armstrong and refined in 1976 by T. Iijima and T.A. Potemra from satellite-borne magnetic field observations. The ring encircling the magnetic pole depicted on the back of the bank note is similar to the patterns of Birkeland and current derived from satellites.
It took over 60 years to confirm his prediction of currents, and maybe it will take another 60 years to confirm his solar model, but make no mistake about it, he was right. I can say this because part of his key prediction has already been "proven" in scientific circles, and there is satellite evidence of a solar surface. It's only a matter of time before people put two and two together. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:38:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Either I mistyped something somewhere, or you're buying into "GeeMack's" propoganda. I never "admitted" to anything of the sort, at least not intentionally. What quote are you refering to exactly?
Just a reminder. The exact words were...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
The isotope analysis cannot tell us whether or not the sun has a solid surface, which is your main conjecture.
That is quite correct.
Recap: H. Humbert said, "The isotope analysis cannot tell us whether or not the sun has a solid surface, which is your main conjecture." Mozina responded with, "That is quite correct."
Okay Michael, lying again to support your position? Or maybe, "That is quite correct," was just a simply stupid oversight on your part. Maybe you just can't remember what you're saying from one day to the next. Straighten up. Your credibility sucks big time.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:39:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Discarded. Sorry Michael, you're just not doing very well, are you?
You still don't seem to get it GeeMack. You're nothing but a two bit creationist in my book. The only thing that you've "discarded" is all sense of logical and rational thought. You can "discard" anything you wish, it's certainly no skin off my nose. I personally couldn't care less what you personally think. If you had a single ounce of integrity in your body, you would have dealt with the isotope analysis by now. Instead you handwaved it away just like any good creationist. Bravo Dr. Discard. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:45:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Okay Michael, lying again to support your position? Or maybe, "That is quite correct," was just a simply stupid oversight on your part. Maybe you just can't remember what you're saying from one day to the next. Straighten up. Your credibility sucks big time.
There is a HUGE difference between suggesting that the isotope analysis in and of itself does not prove the existence of a solid crust, vs. saying that Dr. Manuel's analysis does not support my model. You ALWAYS (I'll take the five point hit) take sentences out of context and build straw men. Yawn....
Manuel's work certainly supports Birkelands model as does the satellite imagery. It's not MY model, and this debate is not about ME. Get over it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/28/2006 18:47:48 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2006 : 18:50:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by Dave W....
Where can I read about Birkeland's solar model in Birkeland's own words?
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
This material does not seem to provide any information that might confirm Birkeland's notion that the sun has a solid surface. Please provide references to his specific comments on that issue.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
