|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 01/22/2006 : 13:28:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The air of creationism is due to your assertions that unexamined data should be respected (I assume you made a typo in that argument from authority);
A creationist tactic would be to leave key data UNEXAMINED and continue to assert that inadequate supporting data has been presented.
There is no arguement from authority here, just real life data from a professor of Nuclear Chemistry that WARRANTS examination.
quote:
that it's up to the critics of a theory to disprove it;
That's usually the way it works Dave. The scientific data is presented, and the rebuttal is supposed to address said presented data.
quote:
that it's up to the critics of a theory to provide a better one, and that it's up to the critics of a single proponent to show him where he went wrong.
One or the other is required. In other words, even if the idea I present is possible, but there is a better one available, that needs to be considered. Likewise, even if the actual explanation is not understood, but there is an obvious flaw in the data presented, then that too must be considered. Either of these options may provide a valid scientific refute, but you can't just ignore the data altogether!
quote:
Every one of your quoted assertions is an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from you, and make it a burden of disproof on us. That is classic creationism in the "prove that God doesn't exist" sense.
No Dave, that is real science, and how science works. You are the one playing the creationist game here. I presented solid isotope research in solar activity to demonstrate that the sun is mostly made of iron and mass separates the plasma in it's atmosphere. At the time I put up my website, I'd never even heard of Dr. Oliver Manuel. He called me after reading the website. I was impressed with the data he had to show me. I believe he has provided ample data in the form of isotope analysis to support my case. You now are supposed to read said data, and find the flaw, or find the "better" scientific explantion. You have done neither. You have done what every creationist does and literally have ignored the data, not commmented on the data, and left the data "unexamined" so you don't have to deal with it!
quote:
Science, however, works because its proponents can demonstrate that what they say is true, to the point where it would be unreasonabel to doubt it.
But I did provide the data to support my case. It is unreasonable to leave it unexamined.
quote:
That's true of evolution, but you're trying to claim exemptions for your theory. Evolution, after all, doesn't depend at all upon criticisms of creationism: evolutionary theories rest upon nothing more than positive evidence for evolution. If creationism didn't exist, it would have no effect upon the strength of evolutionary arguments.
And likewise, the existence of the gas model theory isn't going to change that isotope analysis from the University of Missiouri at Rolla one iota. As long as you leave it "unexamined" and unaddressed however, you'll never deal with the science that has been presented to support my case that Birkeland's model is correct.
quote:
No proponent of evolution who knows the subject would be caught dead saying anything like "evolutionary theory is a viable alternative to creationism because creationists can't explain HERVs," but that's precisely analogous to what you've been saying here.
I have simply been pointing out that current gas model theory has been falsified, and no gas model theory on earth ever predicted that stratification layer. It would be analogous to noting that isotope analysis shows that creationism is false. In this case, isotope analysis shows that gas model theory is false. Mass separation occurs on the sun. It's not complicated and there is no shift of burden going on at my end. I have done my part. I have presented the data to support my case. You have not done your part. You have not addressed the data I presented. You left it "unexexamined" as any good creationist might do.
quote:
Evolutionary scientists can show that evolution is a working theory. They don't demand that anyone else respect that. They don't demand to be considered correct unless others show them wrong, and they don't demand that scientific criticism of evolutionary theories be coupled with better alternative theories. Your situation is diametrically opposed to that of an evolutionary biologist, Michael.
Sure they do Dave. They present evidence to support evolution and they expect that data to be "examined", not left "unexamined". Your whole attitude here reeks of creationist tactics, starting with the fact that you've left the isotope data "unexamined" while demanding I jump through additional hoops of your own design.
The whole attitude you've conveyed here is just like a creationist who believes they are right, ignores the data that is inconvenient for them, and then divert the conversation to something else. You won't address the images or the isotope analysis, but you want to discuss the flow of electricty, and I'm supposed to have answers to any question you might have, or somehow you are "right" to ignore the data that has already been presented. Like I said, this whole attitude of yours REEKS of creationist tactics. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/22/2006 13:43:15 |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 14:42:27 [Permalink]
|
The question came up regarding how mass flows through a region that you have guessed is actually a solid layer. And you answered...quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Woah. Actually mass flows in the form of moving electrons *IS CERTAINLY* predicted in this model. That flow of electrity in the arcs is due to the electrons flowing through the crust. There certainly *IS* mass flow prediction in a solid surface model. In addition, just as here on earth, the crust of the sun does crack, and magma does flow. That happens more freqently on the sun. In at least two respects the Birkeland model of the sun predicts mass flow through the crust.
... which sounds like you're saying it sure looks like it to you. Somehow you don't think you need to explain how much mass or over what periods of time. Are you saying electrons move up and down through the crust and magma only moves up through it? What do you mean by, "That happens more frequently on the sun?" How much more frequently. Is the mass that apparently moves through your solid layer actually magma like we find coming from a volcano here on Earth, or is it some other material? Does it rise to the surface by the same mechanism found in volcanoes here on Earth, or is there some other mechanism involved? Do those images in the paper under discussion represent electrons flowing through your solid layer or magma flowing through it?
You see, to the question about how mass moves through your solid layer, your response was, "It just does." So Dave W. goes on to ask you to be more specific...quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
Using standard helioseismology texts for reference, along with standard electrical axioms and atomic properties, and any images or other data you might find related to the sunspot in question, calculate the average electrical resistance (in ohms/meter) of the shell material (both solid and molten) and the current through it (in amperes) which, when coupled with the actual amount of "cracking" and "magma flow" throughout the sunspot area, would result in the overlying plasma necessarily registering sound waves such that through time-distance helioseismology, Kosovichev would determine that mass between 3,460 and 6,000 km below the visible photosphere was moving at speeds between about 600 and 1,200 m/sec when averaged over 13 hours. Show your work, including all references used.
... and you throw another one of your typical defensive tantrums. You get riled that he's asked you to be more specific about your claim, and instead of even addressing the issue you balk at the question altogether. Your reply was just a pissy little non-informative retort, and outright refusal to answer the question. It was filled with dodges and excuses for not answering...quote:
That's usually the way it works Dave. The scientific data is presented, and the rebuttal is supposed to address said presented data.
[...]
I believe he has provided ample data in the form of isotope analysis to support my case. You now are supposed to read said data, and find the flaw, or find the "better" scientific explantion.
[...]
I have presented the data to support my case. You have not done your part. You have not addressed the data I presented.
[...]
Sure they do Dave. They present evidence to support evolution and they expect that data to be "examined", not left "unexamined". Your whole attitude here reeks of creationist tactics, starting with the fact that you've left the isotope data "unexamined" while demanding I jump through additional hoops of your own design.
[...]
You won't address the images or the isotope analysis, but you want to discuss the flow of electricty, and I'm supposed to have answers to any question you might have, or somehow you are "right" to ignore the data that has already been presented.
And of course it still begs the question, what is it about, "It's your claim, you prove it," that you don't understand?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 16:05:32 [Permalink]
|
Mozina is not only disregarding how the data for mass flow was gathered, what kind of matter movments could even register in that measurement. But also misses another crucial point:
quote:
Woah. Actually mass flows in the form of moving electrons *IS CERTAINLY* predicted in this model. That flow of electrity in the arcs is due to the electrons flowing through the crust.
In a solid iron shell, the mass of an electron is roughly 1/83000th the weight of iron. How would helioseismology register mass-movements of electrons when it actually measures movements of plasma?
This is yet another smokescreen/red herring. Of at the very least a blatantly poor attempt at force-fitting data to comply with your model.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 16:07:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And of course it still begs the question, what is it about, "It's your claim, you prove it," that you don't understand?
And what part of "the proof is in the images and the isotope analysis" don't you understand? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 16:14:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
And what part of "the proof is in the images and the isotope analysis" don't you understand?
Thanks for the, well, lack of reply. I take that as a refusal to back up your claim. The claim that the sun has a solid shell apparently can't be supported. Looks a lot like this case is pretty near closed.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 16:16:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
In a solid iron shell, the mass of an electron is roughly 1/83000th the weight of iron.
How is that even relevant? The plasma above the surface is not made of iron.
quote:
How would helioseismology register mass-movements of electrons when it actually measures movements of plasma?
Ok, I'll bite. How do you know that this technique ONLY measures the movement of SOME kinds of mass, and not others? How is this not special pleading?
quote:
This is yet another smokescreen/red herring. Of at the very least a blatantly poor attempt at force-fitting data to comply with your model.
There was no smoke screen of any sort. I mentioned at least two ways that mass flows through the surface. I was asked to explain the movement of mass through this layer. I did exactly that. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 16:19:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Thanks for the, well, lack of reply. I take that as a refusal to back up your claim. The claim that the sun has a solid shell apparently can't be supported. Looks a lot like this case is pretty near closed.
What in the heck are you talking about? I "supported" my claim with isotope analysis that you have NEVER (not once) addressed. Until you do, you are no better than a creationist in my book. Anyone can deny the validity of something with a handwave, and anyone can outright ignore the evidence that has already been presented. That is all you are doing.
Now Dave would like to get into a totally different topic, and avoid the evidence that has already been presented, including that LACK of differential rotation in this layer and the isotope analysis. All this demonstrates to me is that when backed into a corner, you will do exactly what a creationist does and simply deny the evidence that has been presented and ignore it outright. Yawn..... |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 16:33:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Now Dave would like to get into a totally different topic, [...]
Actually Dave W. asked a perfectly legitimate question about the topic that was currently under discussion, not a totally different topic. I asked about some details regarding that same question. Apparently mass flows through your "solid" surface, but you refuse to explain how. Instead you just smart off. Apparently the claim that the sun has a solid shell can't be supported. Looks like this case is just about settled.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 17:21:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Now Dave would like to get into a totally different topic, [...]
Actually Dave W. asked a perfectly legitimate question about the topic that was currently under discussion, not a totally different topic.
Yes, it is a different topic that is unrelated to the evidence I presented. Evidently Dave is of the impressions that he does not need to address the isotope analysis or the LACK of differential rotation in the RD images. Instead he's focused on some other issue altogether and outright ignoring the evidence I have already presented regarding isotope analysis, just as you are doing.
quote:
I asked about some details regarding that same question. Apparently mass flows through your "solid" surface, but you refuse to explain how.
What are you talking about? I explained "how" in two different ways!
quote:
Instead you just smart off. Apparently the claim that the sun has a solid shell can't be supported. Looks like this case is just about settled.
Sure, if you ignore the isotope analysis and ignore the images entirely, I suppose you can just ignore it all and go back to blissful ignorance if you prefer. I can't stop you of course. Don't expect me to be impressed with your lack of dealing with the isotope analysis any more than you are impressed with a creationists who does the same thing. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/22/2006 17:29:02 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 17:30:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
Using standard helioseismology texts for reference, along with standard electrical axioms and atomic properties, and any images or other data you might find related to the sunspot in question, calculate the average electrical resistance (in ohms/meter) of the shell material (both solid and molten) and the current through it (in amperes) which, when coupled with the actual amount of "cracking" and "magma flow" throughout the sunspot area, would result in the overlying plasma necessarily registering sound waves such that through time-distance helioseismology, Kosovichev would determine that mass between 3,460 and 6,000 km below the visible photosphere was moving at speeds between about 600 and 1,200 m/sec when averaged over 13 hours. Show your work, including all references used.
quote:
Originally posted by me...
Are you saying electrons move up and down through the crust and magma only moves up through it? What do you mean by, "That happens more frequently on the sun?" How much more frequently. Is the mass that apparently moves through your solid layer actually magma like we find coming from a volcano here on Earth, or is it some other material? Does it rise to the surface by the same mechanism found in volcanoes here on Earth, or is there some other mechanism involved? Do those images in the paper under discussion represent electrons flowing through your solid layer or magma flowing through it?
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse...
In a solid iron shell, the mass of an electron is roughly 1/83000th the weight of iron. How would helioseismology register mass-movements of electrons when it actually measures movements of plasma?
Okay, Michael Mozina, you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't going to answer the questions and that you can't support your conjecture. Your work here is done.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 18:08:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...but you want to discuss the flow of electricty, and I'm supposed to have answers to any question you might have...
If you're going to make a factual claim, as you did in asserting that "molten" parts of the shell plus electron flow can result in a helioseismology result which looks exactly like a plasma flow at about 1,000 m/sec, then yes, I expect you to be able to do the calculations that allowed you to state that claim with certainty. That's all that question #2 deals with: the steps you must have logically taken to arrive at the conclusion you stated. You must have already done those calculations, after all, or otherwise you'd be making a claim without the evidence to back it up. So, present your work where you found out how much electron flow is needed to mimic a plasma flow when measured via helioseismology. Once you do, question #2 will be answered and we might be able to move onto something else.
Stonewalling does not help your case. |
- 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 - 01/22/2006 : 20:57:23 [Permalink]
|
So, I emailed Dr. Kosovichev with some questions, and got back a reply pretty damn quick (thanks again, Dr. Kosovichev!). His reply was short, but packed with useful information.
Point #1 was that density measurements using helioseismological methods match the standard solar model (from photosphere to core) to within 2% of the SSM's values. See figure six on page 18 of "Inversion methods in helioseismology and solar tomography," published in 1998.
Point #2 was that the changes in density which marked a "density stratification" in "Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle" were less than 0.1%.
So, given that the SSM says that the density of the solar material 3,000 km below the surface is 0.00003 g/cm3, and we add a possible 2% error, and then add a further 0.1% for the 0.995R density stratification itself, we find that just below 0.995R, where Mozina posits a solid surface, the density is no more than 0.0000306306 g/cm3.
This makes the solar material just below 0.995R less dense by a factor of almost 100 than the lightest silica aerogels (the least-dense solids I can think of, even though they're wholly unsuitable for Mozina's solar shell), which have a density of 0.003 g/cm3.
This, along with Mozina's partial descriptions, allows us to put several constraints on the possible "shell" materials. It must:- be solid,
- be electrically conductive,
- be at least 50% iron atoms,
- contain some "rocky" material,
- have a melting point near 2,000 K, and
- have an average density 40 times lower than air at STP (0.00124 g/cm3).
I'd say these requirements (especially the first and last) severely limit the types of materials which can go into the shell. Does any known non-homogenous mixture of materials satisfy all of these constraints simultaneously? Can any possible non-homogenous mixture of materials satisfy all these requirements? The list of candidates should be extremely short, now. |
- 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 - 01/23/2006 : 09:52:19 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Dave W. If I'm understanding your post properly, the solid surface of the sun is about 320 times less dense than the densest known gas, radon, at standard temperature and pressure, 0.009729 g/cm3. The solid shell would be somewhere between the STP density of hydrogen, 0.00008989 g/cm3, and the STP density of helium, 0.00017869 g/cm3. It is composed of over half iron. It allows for the movement of mass through it, fairly freely. Some of the mass that flows through the solid shell is electrons and some is magma of an undefined type. And the shell conducts electricity.
I've made a list of commonly known gasses and their densities at standard temperature and pressure (0°C at 1 atmosphere). This is not to suggest the temperature and pressure on the surface of the sun are anything like that. I'm just showing a relative picture of the densities of these various gasses. Of course the temperature on the surface of the sun is significantly higher than 0°C. And I'm not sure if the pressure has been specified for the surface at depths between 0.995R and 0.991R, the region where the solid shell exists. That actual working pressure is likely to skew these figures quite drastically. But I'm willing to let Michael Mozina work out those details.- Hydrogen (H) = 0.00008989 g/cm3
- Sun's Shell = 0.0000306306 g/cm3
- Helium (He) = 0.00017869 g/cm3
- Neon (Ne) = 0.00089 g/cm3
- Nitrogen (N) = 0.0012506 g/cm3
- Oxygen (O) = 0.001429 g/cm3
- Xenon (Xe) = 0.005879 g/cm3
- Radon (Rn) = 0.009729 g/cm3
It seems we have some good material to work with now that can help us understand the makeup of the solid surface. I expect Michael Mozina can explain a little more precisely the composition of the shell and how it fits within the necessary criteria. I also expect he can fill us in on what those surface pressures are, how they would affect the densities of the gases in this list, for a relative density comparison, and how that pressure affects the density of the solid surface proposed in his conjecture.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/23/2006 09:54:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 10:27:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Thanks Dave W. If I'm understanding your post properly...
Yup, you understand it properly.quote:
I also expect he can fill us in on what those surface pressures are, how they would affect the densities of the gases in this list, for a relative density comparison, and how that pressure affects the density of the solid surface proposed in his conjecture.
An intrepid explorer of this issue might be able to take the plasma density and composition (per the standard model), and, given that Dr. Kosovichev also noted that the plasma behaves nearly like an ideal gas (in terms of compressibility), calculate backwards to discover what the pressure just above the solid surface must be. Another email might also get an answer to that question, but I'd rather not disturb the good doctor with such trivialities.
But, wow! Just think of the possibilities! If the substance which makes up Mozina's surface can exist here on Earth out in the open, one could carve "balloons" out of it which would never deflate or lose their bouyancy. Want a balloon in the shape of a real dog? No problem. Just carve a chunk of the Sun's surface into whatever breed you like, and tie a string around its tail. Given how much more bouyant it is than helium, you could paint it, too. Considering the dynamics of the situation under the shell, this substance is probably also highly resistant to sheer forces, which would mean a revolution in ship and aircraft design.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the only source for this material will be the same store to which physics teachers go to purchase immovable objects and friction-free surfaces for in-class demonstrations. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 11:48:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the only source for this material will be the same store to which physics teachers go to purchase immovable objects and friction-free surfaces for in-class demonstrations.
Mono-pole magnets? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
