|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 14:46:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
NOBODY has a 'model' that has as many maybe, could be, or likely comments as you.
It's certainly part of a pattern. When it was pointed out that Manuel's model would require a much higher mass to the Sun, Michael called into question our ability to measure its mass with any accuracy. When I started using a particular density figure for the top of the photosphere, Michael called into question our ability to measure its density with any accuracy. When it was pointed out that measuring the density doesn't depend upon knowing the material, Michael asserted that the gravitational and electromagnetic configuration questions haven't been addressed.
In other words, Michael seems to be quite good at finding possible exceptions (though he can't seem to actualize them very well), and thus can't help but say "maybe," "could" and "likely," since if he were to pin something down, he'd just have to question it himself. I have little doubt that if this goes on long enough, Michael will question our assumption that physical laws are the same on the Sun as they are here on Earth (in fact, I'd much prefer we get to that point sooner than later, since it would save us all a lot of time).
Of course, questioning things is a good idea (it's why we're here at the SFN), but there are limits beyond which it becomes ridiculous. And Michael's brand of questioning isn't skepticism, but reads much more like postmodernist cynicism.
And for evidence of that, note that when I did run calculations of the Sun's mass including all the dark matter and dark energy, and ran them in Michael's favor, and still came up with effects that were many orders of magnitude too small to worry about, Michael didn't respond to it at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 15:19:20 [Permalink]
|
Layman's intrusion: Isn't calculating the mass and average density of the Sun rather straightforward for those possessing the math, based upon the known orbital velocities of the planets, and the Sun's observed volume? Does dark matter even need to come into the calculation? (I'll leave out dark energy, because I haven't a clue what that is.)
Haven't these figures been solidly known for centuries???
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 15:27:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course, questioning things is a good idea (it's why we're here at the SFN), but there are limits beyond which it becomes ridiculous. And Michael's brand of questioning isn't skepticism, but reads much more like postmodernist cynicism.
The Skeptic's Dictionary has a term for someone like Michael--a contrarian.
quote:
A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty.
Contrarians demand endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken rather than to ensure that the most reasonable conclusion be arrived at. Contrarians often refer to their endless demands for more study and their claims that doubts still remain—no matter what the consensus—as "sound science," a bit of doublespeak that is the scientific equivalent of the filibuster.
The contrarian philosophy is Orwellian doublespeak at its best: Some of the best science available is labeled "junk science" by contrarians simply because there are contrary views that may be held by a very small minority.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 15:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Actually, they were cheap shots and I suppose I am baiting you.
Well, at least you're honest.
quote:
It ticks me off how you wiggle out of answering specific questions or purposely misunderstand sound scientific principals and then say crap like this.
Join the club. It ticks me off how the whole lot of you can simply ignore the isotope analysis that provides evidence that the sun is mass separated. That information alone blows away current gas model theory.
It also irks me no end that rather than dealing with that issue, or the RD images, or any of the things I can directly answer questions about, instead I get asked all sorts of off the wall stuff that no one could possibly answer at the moment. Worse however is that when folks find a question I can't answer this is somehow seen as some sort of "proof" I'm wrong. The whole attitude is irrational and anything *but* scientific.
quote:
In the model I've proposed the plasma near the surface will likely be quite a bit cooler than the plasma at the surface of the photosphere.
By the way, there have been a number of studies of sunspot activity that find umbra temperatures of less than 4000K. In addition, we already have evidence that thinner upper layers are hotter than the lower thicker plasma layers. The photosphere for instance is much cooler than the chromosophere. There is no leap of faith here at all!
quote:
Jesus Christ shutup! No data, no math, no mechanism, no nothing. Just a bunch of wild conjectures.
Bull. Every bit of data and math I have presented has been utterly and completely ignored. No response, no scientific rebuttal, nothing.
quote:
I have read many scientific papers and spoken with many scientist NONE of them make wild stupid conjectures like this. NOBODY has a 'model' that has as many maybe, could be, or likely comments as you.
Ya right! The whole concept of "dark energy" is a *way* more "out there" in terms of a lack of a physical explanation and pure conjectures. The concept of a black hole with infinite density is itself a logical contradiction. The whole notion that the sun is somehow and mysteriously *not* mass separated is complete and utter speculation. The notion that hydrogen fusion is the heat source is pure speculation. In fact the entire gas model theory is one big case of special pleading to begin with. So is the whole notion of a big bang.
quote:
That is why I dismiss you. It is not with a handwave, but based on your pages and pages of baseless, unscientific, inane conjecture.
That's also why I reject the current gas model by the way.
quote:
This is also why I find it odd that you are an author on a paper with Dr. Manuel. You see generally a scholarly paper is written by well... scholars.
Yes, and? If Dr. Manuel is right, and Dr. Birkeland was right then it won't make a lick of difference what you think of me. It's never been about me to begin with.
quote:
PS. I don't know diddly about Ratcliffe - other than he doesn't believe that the big bang occured.
Yet you were willing to trash him none the less?
I don't buy the big bang concept either. That's another of those wild, rediculace, unsupportable gas model assumptions as well. Nevermind the fact that Arp has already shown that the methods used to determine distances are simply wrong and easily falsifyable. Never mind the Hubble an Spitzer data that show mature galaxies (many times the size of our own galaxy) less than 1 billion years after the presumed event. Nevermind the fact that originally it was believed that galaxies didn't form for billions (plural) of years after the BB. The whole concept that our universe began as a "singularity" is nothing but a big fat bag of pure speculation that has nothing to do with real science. The only reason that idea is still being clung bu gas model theoriest is because that idea supports the notion that hydrogen would be the first thing to form in suns. Other than that simple theoretical idea, there is absolutely no data to support the Big Bang concept involved a "singularity". Every little bit of current gas model theory is based on utterly blind speculation and special pleading. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 15:43:03 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 15:44:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I don't buy the big bang concept either. That's another of those wild, rediculace, unsupportable gas model assumptions as well. Nevermind the fact that Arp has already shown that the methods used to determine distances are simply wrong and easily falsifyable. Never mind the Hubble an Spitzer data that show mature galaxies (many times the size of our own galaxy) less than 1 billion years after the presumed event. Nevermind the fact that originally it was believed that galaxies didn't form for billions (plural) of years after the BB. The whole concept that our universe began as a "singularity" is nothing but a big fat bag of pure speculation that has nothing to do with real science. The only reason that idea is still being clung bu gas model theoriest is because that idea supports the notion that hydrogen would be the first thing to form in suns. Other than that simple theoretical idea, there is absolutely no data to support the Big Bang concept involved a "singularity". Every little bit of current gas model theory is based on utterly blind speculation and special pleading.
Ok, I take it back. Michael's just your standard, run-of-the-mill crackpot.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 15:52:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
If this is that starting point of mass separation then the hole concept is horribly flawed.
Lets see, there are no hydrogen/helium meteorites found on earth because the sun is mostly iron.
Huh? Care to show me any hydrogen helium metories that have been found here on earth?
quote:
That is funnier than you saying you can't find the density (or mass) of a material without knowing what the material is.
I'm glad you find it "funny", but it's the reality of the situation.
I didn't see you tackle any of the arguements I made about this earlier. Care to explain why none of the closest planets to the biggest hydrogen source in our solar system have managed to acquire a hydrogen atmosphere around them and why they are all mass separated but somehow the sun is not? Talk about special pleading.... |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 16:27:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Huh? Care to show me any hydrogen helium metories that have been found here on earth?
You sure don't have any problem proving you're just plain stupid. Only about 5% of the meteorites found here on Earth have any significant amounts of iron in them. That kinda blows your silly fantasy about a connection between meteorites and your nutty solid surface Sun delusion.  quote:
I didn't see you tackle any of the arguements I made about this earlier. Care to explain why none of the closest planets to the biggest hydrogen source in our solar system have managed to acquire a hydrogen atmosphere around them and why they are all mass separated but somehow the sun is not? Talk about special pleading....
You didn't tackle that issue either. You babbled about the composition of the planets, then had your sorry, uninformed ass soundly kicked because you didn't know what you were talking about. You've got yourself buried so deeply in your lies and bullshit you've got nothing left but a pathetic sense of desperation.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 16:31:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Arp must be "crackpot" too I presume?
And I repeat--"The contrarian philosophy is Orwellian doublespeak at its best: Some of the best science available is labeled "junk science" by contrarians simply because there are contrary views that may be held by a very small minority."
For you to claim that there is "absolutely no data to support the Big Bang concept" and that it's "nothing but a big fat bag of pure speculation" despite it being the dominant theory endorsed by the vast majority of expert cosmologists makes my point far better than I could have alone. Thank you, Michael.
|
"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 02/08/2006 16:36:27 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 16:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Arp must be "crackpot" too I presume?
And I repeat--"The contrarian philosophy is Orwellian doublespeak at its best: Some of the best science available is labeled "junk science" by contrarians simply because there are contrary views that may be held by a very small minority."
So what? That would apply to anyone that disagreed with majority view. Everyone who's ever gone against the mainstream thinking is therefore a "crackpot". Your labeling system is "doublespeak".
quote:
For you to claim that there is "absolutely no data to support the Big Bang concept" and that it's "nothing but a big fat bag of pure speculation" despite it being the dominant theory endorsed by the vast majority of expert cosmologists makes my point far better than I could have alone. Thank you, Michael.
So what? That does not scientifically dispove Arps point! That doesn't address any of the problems with BB model. That doesn't deal with issues I raised about "mature" galaxies. All you did was use a cute little self fulfilling labeling system to prove what was already "assumed" in the labeling system. Anyone and everyone who disagees with majority opinion is by your definition a "crackpot".
You never cited that paper for me you claimed supported the gas model within 2% by the way. You never addressed those missing hydrogen atmospheres around any of the inner planets or moons. You never addressed any of the questions I put to you about the mass separation. You didn't address Arps scientific objections to red shift interpretation. In short, you're ignoring all the science entirely and creating handy labeling systems to make you feel better. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 16:57:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Join the club. It ticks me off how the whole lot of you can simply ignore the isotope analysis that provides evidence that the sun is mass separated. That information alone blows away current gas model theory.
We haven't ignored it. You're a liar.quote:
It also irks me no end that rather than dealing with that issue, or the RD images, or any of the things I can directly answer questions about, instead I get asked all sorts of off the wall stuff that no one could possibly answer at the moment. Worse however is that when folks find a question I can't answer this is somehow seen as some sort of "proof" I'm wrong. The whole attitude is irrational and anything *but* scientific.
Your misinterpretation of running difference images borders on raw stupidity. And again, the issue has been dealt with in clear, concise, and scientific terms. You're a liar. And you're wrong.quote:
Bull. Every bit of data and math I have presented has been utterly and completely ignored. No response, no scientific rebuttal, nothing.
Actually you haven't presented enough in the way of calculations to show that you can even balance your checkbook. Nobody had to take any issue with your math. You didn't lay any on the table, zero, none. Go back in all 50+ postings and find any calculations. You need quantitative data to make calculations, and you haven't presented any. You're a liar.quote:
Ya right! The whole concept of "dark energy" is a *way* more "out there" in terms of a lack of a physical explanation and pure conjectures. The concept of a black hole with infinite density is itself a logical contradiction. The whole notion that the sun is somehow and mysteriously *not* mass separated is complete and utter speculation. The notion that hydrogen fusion is the heat source is pure speculation. In fact the entire gas model theory is one big case of special pleading to begin with. So is the whole notion of a big bang.
All you said about dark matter and dark energy is that you don't know a fuckin' thing about either of them but that you can't possibly imagine how they don't support your delusion. Again, you're a liar.quote:
Yes, and? If Dr. Manuel is right, and Dr. Birkeland was right then it won't make a lick of difference what you think of me. It's never been about me to begin with.
If Oliver Manuel is right then you're wrong, 100%. And yes, it's always been about you in your mind, otherwise you wouldn't spend the vast majority of your time here complaining about how nobody believes you and everyone's picking on you. You're a cry baby. You're all pissed off because you've stuck your neck out in front of the world and bragged up a completely idiotic and unsupportable fantasy. Simple as that.quote:
I don't buy the big bang concept either. That's another of those wild, rediculace, unsupportable gas model assumptions as well. Nevermind the fact that Arp has already shown that the methods used to determine distances are simply wrong and easily falsifyable. Never mind the Hubble an Spitzer data that show mature galaxies (many times the size of our own galaxy) less than 1 billion years after the presumed event. Nevermind the fact that originally it was believed that galaxies didn't form for billions (plural) of years after the BB. The whole concept that our universe began as a "singularity" is nothing but a big fat back of pure speculation that has nothing to do with real science. The only reason that idea is still being clung to in fact is because it supports the notion that hydrogen would be the first thing to form suns with. Other than that simple theoretical idea, there is absolutely no data to support the Big Bang concept involving a "singularity". Every little bit of current gas model theory is based on utterly blind speculation and special pleading.
You don't accept any real live, highly evidenced science, which is backed with decades of vigorous, detailed, and thoroughly scientific research, yet you faithfully keep your nose pressed tightly up against Dr. Manuel's ass. (And please, we know you two have a very close personal relationship, but spare us the sordid private details, will ya?) And you claim you're only presenting Birkeland's conjecture, but you don't even know how Birkeland's conjecture might relate to your silly claim. You're a liar, Mozina, it's yours, all yours. You ought to learn when to shut up. You've blown your case completely and you've made yourself look like a complete jackass in the process. And you just can't seem to quit.
So knock off your pathetic whining. You obviously don't want to explore the possibility of a solid surfaced Sun. You obviously want to practice your piss poor debating techniques. You're a troll. You don't even have the imagination of a troll. I'm not naming names, but the most persistent, stupidest trobb that ever came through here would at least make up some answers. You just refuse to provide any. You're going to continue to get belittled and ridiculed and treated like dog shit because that's how you treat people. If you don't like it, you need to straighten up your act. Oh, and as if you don't already make yourself look stupid enough, you seriously need to get a spell checker.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 17:14:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
We haven't ignored it. You're a liar.
The depth of your delusions and denial at this point is really fascinating GeeMack. I've tried now for 4 threads to get you to deal with the mass separation issue, and you simply will not. You'd rather create an internal rationalization about how you "believe" it somehow doesn't support my arguements, even though I've explicitely explain HOW it supports my arguements. You are arrogant, delusional, in denial and just plain mean. Since you don't have any scientific reason to reject the isotope analysis, about all I can do at this point is pity you and pity those like you and pity those around you.
You of all people are the single most disengenous human being I've ever met in cyberspace. You don't know squat about what you're talking about from a scientific perspective, so all you do is play "kill the messenger" ad hominem games.
I'm really bored of you at this point. It's very clear that you aren't ever going to come clean within yourself about the mass separation issue. Until you do, I'll just pity you like I pity any creationist that ignores the isotope analysis entirely and instead goes for the personal attacks. Your fixation on spelling is another perfect examply of your need to focus on the irrelevant trivia instead of the scientific issues. The more you run away from the mass separation issue, the less respect I have for you GeeMack. I really don't care what you think of me at this point. You couldn't possibly have less respect for me than I have for you right now. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 17:25:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Layman's intrusion: Isn't calculating the mass and average density of the Sun rather straightforward for those possessing the math, based upon the known orbital velocities of the planets, and the Sun's observed volume? Does dark matter even need to come into the calculation? (I'll leave out dark energy, because I haven't a clue what that is.)
As I demonstrated through calculation, the contributions of a universe full of dark energy and dark matter don't change our density measurements of the Sun enough to make a difference when solar scientists cannot agree on the radius of the Sun to within 50 km or so. The dark matter and energy contributions pale in comparison to that whopping huge seven-thousandths-of-one-percent uncertainty.quote:
Haven't these figures been solidly known for centuries???
Ever since Henry Cavendish managed to measure Newton's gravitational constant in 1797, yes. That particular number has changed only one percent in the last 209 years.
You see, the acceleration one object will undergo when gravitationally attracted to another object is dependent upon the masses of both objects, their distance apart, and a constant representing the relative force of gravity. So, to find the Sun's mass, we'd want to find its effects on another large body like the Earth. But we don't know the Earth's mass, either. So, we need to find its effect on something else, like a solid block of iron which masses one kilogram (anything will do, actually).
So we've got this kilo block, and we drop it from several heights, and time it to see how quickly it accelerates, just like Galilleo. We come up with a number, which represents the force of gravity of the Earth. But how far away was the block from the center of the Earth? The ancient Greeks has a pretty good number for that, which of course got refined over the centuries.
Now, finding that gravitational constant took some work, involving big masses and measuring the force between them, but Cavendish finally did it. So, we know the acceleration, and the mass of our block, and the distance between the block and the center of the Earth, and the constant, so we solve the universal gravitation equation for the other mass, that of the Earth.
(Michael seems to think finding the mass of something for which we don't know the composition is impossible, but nobody knew much of anything about the interior of the Earth in 1797, yet they were able to "weigh" the planet, anyway.)
So now given the Earth's mass, we can do pretty much the same stuff as the Earth perpetually "falls" around the Sun, in order to find the mass of the Sun (again, without knowing anything about what's in the Sun). Using data from the orbits of other planets just allows us to be more precise.
Measuring the volume, of course, just takes a little bit of trigonometry, so it's much easier than finding the Sun's mass. Divide the mass by the volume, and poof! out comes the average density of the whole Sun.
These measurements, of course, include all of the effects of dark matter and dark energy, but Michael is grousing about some mythical "absolute density" which he refuses to define in any meaningful way, clucking instead about "acceleration" but also claiming that said acceleration doesn't figure into any of the density measurements through Einsteinian relativity, so nobody knows what the hell Michael is really talking about or how to apply his alleged objections to any measure we have now. In other words, his complaints are science-free and can be ignored. |
- 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 - 02/08/2006 : 17:32:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
As I demonstrated through calculation, the contributions of a universe full of dark energy and dark matter don't change our density measurements of the Sun enough to make a difference when solar scientists cannot agree on the radius of the Sun to within 50 km or so.
Only because you "assumed" that there is no dark energy *inside* the solar system, even though suns would be a likely source of such energy, and/or great conductors of electricity as plasma cosmology and Birkeland insist.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 17:43:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Layman's intrusion: Isn't calculating the mass and average density of the Sun rather straightforward for those possessing the math, based upon the known orbital velocities of the planets, and the Sun's observed volume? Does dark matter even need to come into the calculation? (I'll leave out dark energy, because I haven't a clue what that is.)
Haven't these figures been solidly known for centuries???
What has been "known for centuries" is that *if we use a heliocentric viewpoint* we can compute "relative" density quite well, so well in fact that we can put men on the moon and put satellites on other planets. In a relative sense, it all works and works quite nicely.
Unfoturnately however, all of this is based on "relative" movement and only focuses on less than 10% of the mass of the known universe, since these figures do not consider dark energy (which I think is just light) and dark matter and these things are thought to make up most of the known universe.
There is however a problem when you try to use "relative" ideas and attempt to apply them in "absolute" terms related to "density". The relative density is understood, but absolute density is less understood. Until we understand how Bireland current affect our solar system, it's a little premature to suggest that the sun has an "absolute" density of "x". It certainly has a "relative" density of "x", but in absolute terms we don't know what all factors are in play.
The dead give away to the oversimplification of the density issue is the fact that these density numbers are computed in a purely heliocentric manner, and we know that the universe keeps accelerating at a universal constant, and that has never been explained or factored into these equations. I've got no problem with density numbers in "relative" terms, but that relative number can't be used to declare "absolute" density. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
