|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 01/25/2006 : 12:18:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf...
Not just density, ANY EXTERNAL FACTORS! Now thats impressive, Id love to see the math for that, whatever that is. Does this even cover the unknown properties of dark matter you were using in your defense?
Math? MATH!? We don't need no steenking math! Since when has Mozina concerned himself in the very least with pesky little complications like facts or math? 
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 14:56:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It's your claim. You prove yourself right.
Isotope analysis? Isotope analysis? We don't need no steenking isotope analysis! Since when has Mac concerned himself in the very least with pesky little complications like facts or isotope analysis?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 15:10:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
And you do understand such pliability is a weakness when it comes to scientific theories, correct? A theory that can accomodate any density figure is scientifically useless.
That is not so. The only "density" calculation we are talking about here is *ABSOLUTE* density in ABSOLUTE terms. Even though gas model theory predicts RELATIVE density just fine, that is not any gurantee it actually reflects "ABSOLUTE" density. Having a prediction of this quantity might be nice, but there are simply too many unknowns for me to say what the density might be in ABSOLUTE terms. That is distinctly different however from a "relative" concept of density which can be easily derived from the formulas that are currently used to determine "density". All I am suggesting is that these RELATIVE numbers may not even come close to reflecting density in absolute terms.
I'll grant you that a lack of knowledge in this area may be a relative weakness, but considering the fact that the gas model can't explain something as simple as a sunspot, by your logic, the current gas model theory is less than "useless" in comparison to Birkland's model. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 15:21:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The existance of new orbital objects in strange orbits is immaterial.
That seems like one of those "absolute" statements I tend to have a hard time with, but in general terms I hear where you are coming from. The fact there are bodies in our system in strange orbits is itself not evidence of external influences, not without analysing all their movements to the n'th degree anyway.
quote:
The model proposed is that a great majority of the mass will at the ecliptic, not that all of it will be there.
I would actually assume that any movement we might find is more than likely related to movement in the Z axis. If anything, I would expect the effect to be seen in the distance of the planets from the equatorial plane. I seriously doubt the movement is in the x or y plane or would would see the affects that you describe.
quote:
And the perturbing effect on the orbit of smaller objects from significantly larger objects cannot be discounted when trying to explain why these things are in these odd orbits.
I would agree with you here about the fact that the presence of materials in odd orbits does not in and of itself demonstrate my case. It simply shows that we are still discovery a lot about our solar system, and we don't yet fully understand all the physical factors that are in play. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/25/2006 15:23:48 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 15:28:40 [Permalink]
|
I propose that the universe is actually a solid. The reason the universe appears not to be solid is due to dark matter interfering with our perception of it.
Look at this picture and short animation. The nature of the solid universe can easily be seen. It is clear that there is structure here. The vacuum model of the universe is officially dead. I have sent 150 e-mails the JPL but the told me to fuck-off. Clearly, they are scared of the facts.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 16:01:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'll grant you that a lack of knowledge in this area may be a relative weakness, but considering the fact that the gas model can't explain something as simple as a sunspot, by your logic, the current gas model theory is less than "useless" in comparison to Birkland's model. :)
There is a big difference between a theory that cannot currently explain a particular fact and a theory that can "accomodate" any potential fact. You make it seem as if until we know everything about the solid sun model we can't predict anything. What good is that? What is the "relative" density of the sun according to the iron shell model? Can you say? What is the composition of this shell, even in rough estimates? Can you say? About how much material is eroded on the sun in one hour on average? Can you say?
Until you begin to even tentatively quantify any of the ideas you've been bantering about over the last month, you have nothing but a series of unsupported conjectures that may not even be theoretically possible, except you wouldn't know because you refuse to detail the theory in even rough strokes. If it is possible to come up with an equation that measures the probablity of intelligent life on other planets given almost no data, it seems you should have at least some rough calculations to offer after all your work. Where are they? Without them, we must all rely on Dave's numbers, which you seem to contest.
|
"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 01/25/2006 16:04:17 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 16:03:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I propose that the universe is actually a solid. The reason the universe appears not to be solid is due to dark matter interfering with our perception of it.
Look at this picture and short animation. The nature of the solid universe can easily be seen. It is clear that there is structure here. The vacuum model of the universe is officially dead. I have sent 150 e-mails the JPL but the told me to fuck-off. Clearly, they are scared of the facts.
They ignored you because it looks more like a liquid than a solid.  |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/25/2006 16:04:55 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 16:16:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
There is a big difference between a theory that cannot currently explain a particular fact and a theory that can "accomodate" any potential fact.
Birkeland's model cannot accomodate "any" potential fact. It can however accomodate a lot of external influences as it relates to movement.
quote:
You make it seem as if until we know everything about the solid sun model we can't predict anything.
That is certainly not how I feel. In fact I made a bunch of predictions in my first paper, and I can predict quite a bit, even though I cannot predict density in ABSOLUTE terms at this point in time.
quote:
What good is that? What is the "relative" density of the sun according to the iron shell model? Can you say?
Sure, the "relative" density is density we use to launch satellites and to compute current calculations that allow us to move around in our solar system RELATIVE to movements of our solar system.
quote:
What is the composition of this shell, even in rough estimates? Can you say?
It is roughly half iron. Rough enough?
quote:
About how much material is eroded on the sun in one hour on average? Can you say?
I've never sat down to even attempt to compute such a number. Where would I use it?
quote:
Until you begin to even tentatively quantify any of the ideas you've been bantering about over the last month, you have nothing but a series of unsupported conjectures that may not even be theoretically possible,
Not only is it theorically possible as Birkeland demonstrated 100 years ago, it has OBSERVATIONAL SUPPORT in the form of satellite images, and isotope analysis and heliosiesmology data as well.
quote:
except you wouldn't know because you refuse to detail the theory in even rough strokes.
That is false. I've answered as many questions as I can, and far more than most solar scientists can offer you as it relates to the cause of sunsposts, the suns 11 year active cycle, the layouts and arrangements of plasma in the atmosphere, etc.
quote:
If it is possible to come up with an equation that measures the probablity of intelligent life on other planets given almost no data, it seems you should have at least some rough calculations to offer after all your work. Where are they? Without them, we must all rely on Dave's numbers, which you seem to contest.
There seems to be some sort of notion floating around here that I personally am supposed to know every detail of Birkeland's model, or it somehow isn't worthy of consideration. There's also this notions that if you "stump Michael" with some archane question, that is somehow proof that Birkeland's model is wrong. There is no one to one correlation between what I personally can explain and how the universe functions. Just because I can't tell you how much surface iron moves around every second doesn't mean that Birkeland's model is incorrect.
You are still individualizing this conversation in ways that aren't healthy. You would not dismiss the gas model because one individual couldn't tell you anything about that first image on my website using gas model theory, so why would you exclude a model that CAN explain that image in great detail just because this one individual doesn't know all the secrets of the universe? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 01/25/2006 16:17:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2006 : 17:11:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'd be happy to see and understand how Kosovichev accounted for this possibility and know that it was done "properly". That would matter to me far more than how many others agree with his findings given exactly the same set of assumptions.
Well, wait just a minute here!
You've claimed, over and over, that Kosovichev's 2005 paper falsifies the standard solar model, and that it tells you where your solid layer is. But now, just a few months later, you don't even known if Kosovichev did his work "properly"?
It's fine by me, Michael, if you want to take the 2005 paper off the table as part of your "evidence" until you get an answer from someone on whether or not it contains "properly" done methods. In doing so, of course, your "big picture" gets that much smaller. You won't have that 0.995R figure to point to anymore when someone asks "how deep is this Lockheed 'gold' video?" You'll have to say, "I don't know, because I don't know if helioseismology as currently practiced is proper or not."quote:
There's no goal shifting on *MY* part. In fact I'm miffed you would actually accuse me of such a thing when I've gone to all the trouble of isolating the exact nature of my concern.
But the exact nature of your concern has become known only after several back-and-forth posts. You said, "that 0.00003 number sounds made up." I said, "Kosovichev verified the SSM." You said, "But you're relying on just one paper." I said, "here's another, how many more would you like?" You said, "it doesn't matter, because I'm no longer asking for validation of the 0.00003 figure." You can take the individual remarks out of context all you like, Michael, but it won't change the fact that you moved the goalposts.quote:
That is RADICALLY different behavior than you have shown toward Dr Manuel's work.
Indeed. I'm being perfectly honest in saying that I haven't read it, and so I'm not going to comment on anything about it. I'm not complaining about its assumptions or conclusions or any of that. I'm not asking you one question about it which, when answered, I'll claim I was asking about something else. I can't and won't say whether I think the isotope analysis is correct or not, because I don't have the faintest idea.quote:
At least I have read the literature and I have isolated the exact nature of my concerns.
If you think that BBC news tidbit is scientific literature, then I see what you're main problem is.quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Sound_in_solidsquote:
Sound in solids
In solids, the velocity of sound depends on density of the material, not its temperature. Solid materials, such as steel, conduct sound much faster than air.
Hey, look at that, you found a Wikipedia item which is woefully terse and allows for misunderstandings. Whodathunkit?
Seriously, the square of the speed of sound in a solid is equal to the Young's modulus of the material divided by its density. Yes, sound velocity "depends" on the density, but the dependant relationship is an inverse proportion. That Wiki tidbit is also wrong, because Young's modulus for a material will change at temperature extremes (iron which is 10° below its melting point won't have nearly the elasticity of iron at room temperature). The temperature of a solid won't make nearly as much difference to the speed of sound as it will in a gas, but "not as much" doesn't equal zero.
And we've already been through what "much faster" means. The speed of sound in iron is eighteen times the speed of sound in air at STP. Materials such as rubber and cork have sound speeds much closer to that of the average gas. If you'd like to make some suggestions about what materials we should be comparing, we can easily see if any of them offer a 10% difference in the speed of sound across the gas/solid boundary. Until you can offer some combination of materials that might meet this criteria, we can safely ignore your suggestion that it's possible that suh a combination exists 3,460 km below the Sun's surface.
By the way, Michael, in what units would a person measure "absolute" density? |
- 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 - 01/25/2006 : 18:34:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Not only is it theorically possible as Birkeland demonstrated 100 years ago, it has OBSERVATIONAL SUPPORT in the form of satellite images, and isotope analysis and heliosiesmology data as well.
Not if the helioseismology was done improperly.
And if it was done properly, then the density of your allegedly solid shell must be far less than that of any known solid. |
- 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 - 01/25/2006 : 21:31:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Isotope analysis? Isotope analysis? We don't need no steenking isotope analysis! Since when has Mac concerned himself in the very least with pesky little complications like facts or isotope analysis?
Okay, I think we can accept that as your acknowledgment that all your completely unsubstantiated guesses I listed in this posting were indeed nothing more than guesses. You've stuck your neck out. We know how much you hate it, but it's time to do some actual work now. You need to go back and provide plausible scientific explanations for those 20 or so issues. Explain thoroughly how you make your determinations.
You see, so far you haven't even settled on a particular guess about the density or thickness of your alleged surface. You've said your surface erodes, but you haven't said how much. You've said magma flows through it, but you haven't said how much or how often. You've said it's electrically conductive, but you haven't told us what resistance factors are involved. You've mentioned a few materials you think make up the surface, but you haven't told us in what proportions. Temperature? Dark energy? Winds? And that's just for starters.
You see, if you can't explain at least some specific properties of your alleged surface, within certain ranges, specifications that you arrive at by applying physics, and in a way that you can demonstrate by showing calculations and citing references, then your entire conjecture is nothing more than a laughable guess.quote:
That is certainly not how I feel. In fact I made a bunch of predictions in my first paper, and I can predict quite a bit, even though I cannot predict density in ABSOLUTE terms at this point in time.
Obviously you can't provide an absolute density. From the guesses you've presented so far it could be more dense than iron or less dense than helium. You can't even predict density within some extreme range of the most outrageous possibilities. quote:
That is false. I've answered as many questions as I can, and far more than most solar scientists can offer you as it relates to the cause of sunsposts, the suns 11 year active cycle, the layouts and arrangements of plasma in the atmosphere, etc.
You've actually only made a few things clear. You don't have the slightest idea about most of the things you claim as support for your conjecture. You've looked at a lot of pictures for a long long time and they really really look like a solid surface to you. And you've made a very large pile of unsupported guesses.
So go back here and bring us up to speed on all those unanswered concerns. And remember...If you can't come up with exact figures, give us the high side and low side of all your results. Specify according to math and physics exactly how you reach your numbers. Provide links to all your references. You seem to be pretty desperate to move along, but really, you haven't even remotely met your requirements to support any of the claims of evidence you've guessed at so far. You've got a lot of work to do, Michael.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 08:58:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The existance of new orbital objects in strange orbits is immaterial.
That seems like one of those "absolute" statements I tend to have a hard time with, but in general terms I hear where you are coming from. The fact there are bodies in our system in strange orbits is itself not evidence of external influences, not without analysing all their movements to the n'th degree anyway.
Yes, I forgot the word 'mere' before existance.
quote:
quote:
The model proposed is that a great majority of the mass will at the ecliptic, not that all of it will be there.
I would actually assume that any movement we might find is more than likely related to movement in the Z axis. If anything, I would expect the effect to be seen in the distance of the planets from the equatorial plane. I seriously doubt the movement is in the x or y plane or would would see the affects that you describe.
That we see erratic or strange orbits in TNO's is nothing new. There has been the suggestion that it may have been due to a near flyby by another star or a superdense object billions of years ago. (Near on a stellar level, that is.) Logically, some of the matter in orbit around the flyby object could be stripped away and pulled into an orbit like the strange ones suggested.
quote:
quote:
And the perturbing effect on the orbit of smaller objects from significantly larger objects cannot be discounted when trying to explain why these things are in these odd orbits.
I would agree with you here about the fact that the presence of materials in odd orbits does not in and of itself demonstrate my case. It simply shows that we are still discovery a lot about our solar system, and we don't yet fully understand all the physical factors that are in play.
And none of these lend credence to your proposed theory. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 11:31:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
About how much material is eroded on the sun in one hour on average? Can you say?
I've never sat down to even attempt to compute such a number. Where would I use it?
Where would you use it? Hmmm. Someone made a silly guess that the surface of the sun is solid. Part of the support for that silly guess came as a claim that the solid surface erodes. The question about how much erosion, over how long, by what process, what happens to the material, and how the material might be replaced surely wouldn't be something that person would consider important when making his silly guess, now would it? 
So there you go, Michael. There's another perfectly valid, legitimate, and even critically important issue that you've not only overlooked when postulating your guess, but one which you're apparently not willing to address in any scientific, meaningful way.
If you were applying a college level of scientific concern for the legitimacy of your guess, you'd already have at least some basic explanations for those questions about erosion. If you were applying even a high school level of scientific concern for the issue, you would have at least considered those questions. If you were applying even a grade school level of scientific concern, you'd at least understand why the questions about erosion are relevant.
You may be the only person here who hasn't figured it out yet, but your position is getting weaker with every one of these foolish replies you make. Obviously you can't support your guess, Michael. Looks like your job here is just about done.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2006 : 11:49:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
If you can't come up with exact figures, give us the high side and low side of all your results. Specify according to math and physics exactly how you reach your numbers. Provide links to all your references.
One of the things that the folks over at the BAUT forums kept "pinging" Michael on was his inability to present even a first-order estimate of anything (if I remember correctly). He hasn't done so here, either, thought that by itself is unlikely to get him banned here. Since he won't even report FOEs made by Birkeland, Bruce and/or Manuel, even in cases where Michael claims that they proved something or other (electrical arcs, for example), I can only conclude that he doesn't understand any of the things he's been proposing, nor does he understand the methods of science. |
- 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 - 01/26/2006 : 13:05:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
One of the things that the folks over at the BAUT forums kept "pinging" Michael on was his inability to present even a first-order estimate of anything (if I remember correctly). He hasn't done so here, either, thought that by itself is unlikely to get him banned here. Since he won't even report FOEs made by Birkeland, Bruce and/or Manuel, even in cases where Michael claims that they proved something or other (electrical arcs, for example), I can only conclude that he doesn't understand any of the things he's been proposing, nor does he understand the methods of science.
It's a shame, too. The subject could be much more interesting if he had any more to offer than just noise. It seems when Michael got banned over at the BAUT forum, the administrators had concerns pretty much identical to ours. Unwilling to apply any real science. Refusal to answer direct questions. Attempting to shift the burden of proof away from himself. He made almost 1,000 postings there, and apparently in almost four months he wasn't willing to support his guess with any more than an uninformed opinion of all those pictures he looked at for such a long long time.quote:
The Bad Astronomer said...
Thousands upon thousands of words have been written here, but it really still boils down to the same thing we have been saying since Word One: you've been simply looking at images and interpreting them without the benefit of any math, physics, or even understanding of how the images are made. There have been countless posts here trying to show you how to apply any and all of these three things, yet you have studiously avoided doing so. After all this time, that's a banning offense by itself.
Feeling a little troll déjà vu, anyone? 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
