|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 19:53:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Dave, while I have no respect for GeeMack at this point, that is not the case with you. I would really prefer if you and I kept things at least modestly "professional". There are a lot of things you've said that I disagreed with, but I have resisted the need to call you a liar. Let's be civil.
But Michael, you are a liar. Shall we embarrass you a little and post some quotes?  quote:
That simply isn't true. In fact I've admitted as much now *several* different times, most recently to John. I fully realize that mass separation alone does not in and of itself prove there is solid surface, but it does support my arguments in a general sense, and does provide the evidence that a solid surface is "possible". I've been VERY clear about this, starting with HH a long time ago. If you can't hear me, it's not my fault. I've been quite clear about that.
In a general sense, your allegedly solid surface would have to have a thickness, a density, a temperature, and be made of some material. In a general sense it doesn't matter one bit about your mass separation issue if you can't demonstrate in some scientifically sound manner that the necessary characteristics of a solid are met with your surface.quote:
That doesn't however mean you can simply ignore that data and not note the significance of that data, and not consider that data as it relates to the density issue.
The most important density issue with your crazy notion is that you don't have the slightest idea how dense your made up solid surface is, or how dense the chromosphere is, how dense the Sun's core is. For that matter since you don't have a clue about the various densities involved in your conjecture, how could you possibly suggest that it does or does not relate to the density issues of your wild guess or anyone else's.  quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
You said so yourself that they do not allow us to distinguish between a solid shell and a mostly iron core,
Yes. In fact I've said that several times now.
Then it's irrelevant to your concern about the surface of the Sun being solid, the possibility of which, by the way, in case you've forgotten, is the sole purpose of having this discussion.quote:
True, but then the gas model isn't one of those competing models and my job is at least "half" done. That density figure that you toss around however is bases on a non mass separated model, and that part of Kosovichev's work becomes something that needs to be scrutinized a bit differently in light of the new understanding that the sun is mass separted. It has a direct impact on our conversation either way.
First, you haven't demonstrated that those density figures would not apply equally to a mass separated Sun as they would to one of any other made up mixture of materials. Maybe it's a more reasonable place to start than using what your silly idea has, absolutely no density figure at all. And you might well be the only person on Earth who would think a model is "half" done when you're not willing to posit any quantitative specifics about it at all. quote:
I never claimed there were two possible models, nor am I relying upon the isotope analysis to demonstrate the sun has a solid surface. I'm using satellite images to demonstrate the sun has a solid surface, not isotope analysis. That's where those RD images become very useful in determining which *mass separated* models we should choose from.
Here is something you've obviously missed, Michael, and it's extremely important to what you believe to be your body of evidence. Pay attention now. Running difference images do not show any physical detail of a surface, none. They are used as a method of graphing differences. That is in fact why they call them "running difference" images. It's already been explained to everyone reading this discussion how those can't be used as evidence of a solid surface. They aren't pictures of anything. Anyone who missed it, I'll be glad to link back to the relevant posting.quote:
I have not. I've been very honest about this issue from the beginning. The very first time HH meantioned it, I agreed with him. I didn't skirt that issue, and I've never tried to use isotope analysis to distinguish between various mass separated models. All the mass separation data proves is that gas model theory is useless and we need a new mass separated model to take it's place. Regardless of whether or not it has a solid surface it's not a giant ball of hygdrogen gas either!
But whether or not it's a solid surface is the absolute basis of your claim and the singular focus of this discussion. If it's not a solid surface then your conjecture is wrong. Period. Once you abandon that silly idea you can open a new thread to discuss the possibilities of various other mass separated models.quote:
Ya, but even Kosovichev can't seem to explain the behaviors of that column above and below the surface. I don't seem to have any trouble doing that. I didn't hear much in the way of how or why that plasma turned at right angles either for that matter.
Of course it isn't up to Kosovichev to explain things in ways that do or do not make sense relative to your conjecture. You haven't provided even a wild guess about how that plasma cruises at 3,000 miles per hour horizontally through your supposedly solid surface. That's a critical issue.quote:
But Dave, we don't even seem to agree with the idea that dark energy would exist inside the sun in the first place! I'm of the opinion that *if* there really is anything like 'dark energy' it is simply the mass that is contained within light. I'm actually far more inclined to believe that acceleration and in fact all of these anomolous issues relate to cosmic scale Birkeland currents. If the sun does in fact have a iron shell, and Birkeland currents are creating the acceleration of our universe, this could "drastically" affect our sense of absolute (non accelerated) density.
< |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/08/2006 19:57:21 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 19:55:03 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Dr. Mab. It took a trip to Wikipedia, but I now generally understand what you're telling me. So, essentially, Michael is stating or implying that strange and largely unquantified factors are in play, and that these factors make his iron sun model work, yet he isn't letting himself be pinned down as to what these factors are?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/08/2006 19:56:10 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 19:57:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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?
Good GOD Michael, you are joking right?!!
Let's go through this step by step. Dr. Manuel notes that meteorites (don't forget meteorites are on the earth's surface) have a high percentage of iron in them therefore the universe contains primarily iron. Ergo the sun is primarily iron.
But we measure through many different means that the sun is primairly Hydrogen and Helium. So why don't we find any hydrogen or helium meteorites on earth. THINK... Why don't we find solid hydrogen or helium on the earth's surface.
quote:
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.
Stop Michael you sound like nut!
In this universe it is not necessary to know what a material is to determine it's density.
Assume I have a cube of something and I measure that it is 10 cm on each side. I then weigh this cube of something and it weighs 50 kg.
The density is 50,000gm/1000cm^3 or 50gms/cm^3.
[cheap shot] I hope I didn't skip too many steps in the math problem [/cheap shot]
You can use density to help you determine what a material is... I recall my son did an experiment like that in his 7th grade science class.
It is nice to know that it is possible to write papers about astrophysics without even the MOST BASIC understanding of science or math - what a country!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 20:16:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dave, while I have no respect for GeeMack at this point, that is not the case with you. I would really prefer if you and I kept things at least modestly "professional". There are a lot of things you've said that I disagreed with, but I have resisted the need to call you a liar. Let's be civil.
Michael, I didn't call you a liar because I disagreed with you, I called you a liar because you said something about me which isn't true. You're the one making this personal with your "but you haven't addressed blah-di-blah" statements which are flatly false. I may not have addressed the things you want me to address, but since you're being less than clear (and even evasive) about many things, it certainly isn't because I'm avoiding any subject.quote:
That simply isn't true. In fact I've admitted as much now *several* different times, most recently to John. I fully realize that mass separation alone does not in and of itself prove there is solid surface, but it does support my arguments in a general sense...
It supports any model with a mass-separated atmosphere equally well.quote:
...and does provide the evidence that a solid surface is "possible".
How so? You haven't explained the logical thread behind that conjecture to my knowledge.quote:
I've been VERY clear about this, starting with HH a long time ago. If you can't hear me, it's not my fault. I've been quite clear about that.
That doesn't however mean you can simply ignore that data and not note the significance of that data, and not consider that data as it relates to the density issue.
You still haven't explained how it relates to "the density issue" (as if there were only one) as I don't see any reason why your neon plasma cannot be 0.000002 g/cm3. The "significance" of what you've said about the "data" is that you can't offer up any density values at all, and can only offer a vague and unsupported conjecture that a calcium plasma might (for unknown physical reasons) approach the density of an unknown solid under unknown conditions of gravity and electromagnetism. I can't "address" that issue at all, since it rests entirely on things we haven't measured in any way, so there's no way to validate or invalidate that guess.quote:
True, but then the gas model isn't one of those competing models and my job is at least "half" done.
Right, so only half of infinity to go!quote:
That density figure that you toss around however is bases on a non mass separated model...
You have yet to demonstrate that as fact.quote:
...and that part of Kosovichev's work becomes something that needs to be scrutinized a bit differently in light of the new understanding that the sun is mass separted. It has a direct impact on our conversation either way.
Except that you can't quantify how it has an impact, so it's worthless to discuss it at all. There is no "new understanding" of anything under your mass separated model, but only the removal of understanding. Everything about your model as it regards the helioseismology measurements is a question mark.quote:
I never claimed there were two possible models...
You claimed that the falsification of the gas model paved the way for the consideration of your model, which is the false dichotomy I'm talking about. The fact is that multiple competing models are under consideration by mainstream solar physicists as we speak, and none of them need to be eliminated before others can be considered.quote:
...nor am I relying upon the isotope analysis to demonstrate the sun has a solid surface. I'm using satellite images to demonstrate the sun has a solid surface, not isotope analysis.
Then what is there to consider about the isotope analysis?quote:
That's where those RD images become very useful in determining which *mass separated* models we should choose from.
How so? How can we differentiate, based upon the satellite images, between a mostly iron shell and, say, a mostly calcium shell with some iron tossed in? Heck, since neither ionized copper nor ionized carbon would show up in 195A or 171A images at all, how can we use those images to decide between a solid, mostly iron shell and a copper lattice filled with diamond windows which contain steel ball bearings?quote:
All the mass separation data proves is that gas model theory is useless and we need a new mass separated model to take it's place. Regardless of whether or not it has a solid surface it's not a giant ball of hygdrogen gas either!
That's what we've been saying: the mass separation issue is irrelevant to whether or not your model is correct. Nobody here is defending the gas model. I tried to explain it to you, since you don't understand it, but that got me nowhere, fast.quote:
Ya, but even Kosovichev can't seem to explain the behaviors of that column above and below the surface.
Has he even tried to do so, or is he simply making observations to be explained at a later date?quote:
I don't seem to have any trouble doing that. I didn't hear much in the way of how or why that plasma turned at right angles either for that matter.
I still don't see how you can have plasma rushing down at 500 km/sec and also have the silicon plasma layer rising to form the umbra at the same time. So yeah, I think |
- 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 - 02/08/2006 : 20:19:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But Dave, we don't even seem to agree with the idea that dark energy would exist inside the sun in the first place!
What are you talking about? In my calculations, I posited a Sun with the same density of dark energy as is thought to exist throughout the universe!quote:
I'm of the opinion that *if* there really is anything like 'dark energy' it is simply the mass that is contained within light.
If it's simply that, then it's already taken into account through its gravity. Or should we be talking about "absolute density" of a Sun which generates no light?quote:
I'm actually far more inclined to believe that acceleration and in fact all of these anomolous issues relate to cosmic scale Birkeland currents. If the sun does in fact have a iron shell, and Birkeland currents are creating the acceleration of our universe, this could "drastically" affect our sense of absolute (non accelerated) density.
Except that you can't describe how we can calculate the effects of that acceleration on anything, so what does it matter? |
- 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 - 02/08/2006 : 20:27:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You are however trying to use "relative density" to disprove this model without respect to the source of acceleration. Since this is essentially a Birkeland model, and the sun has an iron shell, I say in for a penny, in for a pound. I'm inclined to think that acelleration is due to large scale currents running through our solar system.
Fine, but since the acceleration should affect our mass measurements regardless of the model we adopt after measuring the Sun's mass, the "relative density" is not going to be measured differently. The average "relative" density of the Sun, regardless of what solar model one uses, is 1.4 g/cm3. Since the acceleration of the Sun - however it might affect the Sun - must be the same in reality, then it'll be different from 1.4 g/cm3 in exactly the same way, regardless of the solar model. Unless you're claiming that if the Sun has a solid conductive shell it'll somehow be accelerated differently by these currents than if it were a ball of conductive plasma.quote:
The units are no different. The movement and or the dark energy must simply be factored into the equations.
Movement would be factored in through relativity, but you said "no" to that on page three of the first thread here. So tell me how to factor in this "acceleration."quote:
But the mass that comes off that sun is not calculated into these measurements and has not been, not even in 2006 text books.
How much mass comes off the Sun? How much mass falls into the Sun? |
- 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 - 02/08/2006 : 20:29:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's relative to all the external influences of the universe. Let's use that bowling ball analogy. If that ball happens to be in motion and has a velocity while we try to "weigh" it, that "weight" that we measure relative to our position may not accurately reflect the actual mass of the ball.
You're describing Einsteinian relativity here, which you already said was not what you were talking about when you wanted us to "factor in" the movement of the Sun. You can't have it both ways.quote:
It's the motion and external influences that complicate any sense of "absolute" mass.
Since the rest mass of anything is still described relative to something else, I fail to see how it is absolute, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 20:29:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But Dave, we don't even seem to agree with the idea that dark energy would exist inside the sun in the first place!
What are you talking about? In my calculations, I posited a Sun with the same density of dark energy as is thought to exist throughout the universe!
No, no, Dave. Michael needs you to refuse to consider his dark energy concerns, because if anyone ever tried to take them into account he would have to find a new excuse. He's perfectly happy "disagreeing" with you about whether there is dark energy inside the sun, outside the sun, wherever, so long as he can leave it as one big question mark. Michael has shown consistently now he has no desire to resolve his concerns. He needs them to hide behind.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 20:38:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Thanks you, Dave and Michael for taking a detour to answer my question. I have read each as carefully as I could, given my knowledge.
Dave, thank you for trying to be clear to a layman observer. You seem to have confirmed what I'd suspected (with your addition of the Earth's mass thrown into the calculation, which I hadn't considered -- I guess I was thinking that ignoring the Earth's mass wouldn't make much difference).
Actually, finding the Sun's mass by using the Earth's mass was about the only method which would have worked 200 years ago. You could, using the orbit of Venus (for example) find the ratio of the mass of the Sun to the mass of Venus, but knowing a ratio doesn't let you pin the value down to any order of magnitude. In other words, if we didn't know the mass of the Earth, then all we'd be able to say is that the Sun masses as much as 332,950 Earths, but we couldn't say whether that means it's 1030kg or 1050kg or more!quote:
So the total mass of the Sun (regardless of whether that total includes neutronium, gas, plasma, an iron scaffolding, dark matter, dark energy or a burgeoning population of pixies), then, is a firm and fairly precise figure, derived from Newtonian orbital mechanics. You're also telling me that the Sun's average density is a bit harder to know with precision, due to a minor uncertainty in the Sun's measured diameter. Okay, did I get all that right?
Absolutely correct (haha!). |
- 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 : 20:42:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Okay, good, I can accept that, and it seems clearly stated. My impression of modern Heliocentrism is that it does take into account that the Sun itself is in orbit within the Milky Way, etc.
Modern astronomy certainly recognizes our place in the cosmos. If however you look at density calculations they typically won't include any external movements of any sort. In some ways this is understandable since some of the movements are not likely to have much of an influence and for simplicity sake, they often "simplify" the things that don't have a major impact. What is less obvious however, and potentially more important are the electrical interactions and specifically Birkeland currents. According to Birkeland (whom I would consider the founder of this model) the universe itself is full of Birkeland currents, or electromagnetic currents. He came to believe this based upon his observations of the northern lights, and the systematic measurements he took of the electromagnetic fields of the earth near and around the northern regions of the earth. These measurements convinced him of the electromagnetic influence of the sun on the earth. He even did some very impressive lab work with an electromagetic iron sphere suspended in a vaccum chamber, and created images that have modern satellite image counterparts.
Birkeland also predicted there would be electromagnetic interactions because of the electrical nature of the sun, and the fact it contained a lot of iron, etc. All of this took place around 1903-05. It wasn't until the 1960's that we were able to confirm the existence of Birkeland currents in our own system, and not until much more recently that would could confirm the existence of Birkeland currents outside of our solar system that were large enough to affect a solar system.
We still don't know what the affect might be of such currents running through our region of space. These affects however could be quite significant, *expecially* if Dr. Manuel is correct and the sun is mostly iron and is mass separated. Even different percentages of iron /metal content between various planets could have a significant impact on motions.
There is also currently a belief in astronomy that the movements of galaxies would seem to suggest that most of the mass of the universe is "unseen". By that I mean it affects the flow of matter, but it doesn't seem to emit photons. If that turns out to be the case (rather than some affect of cosmic scale Birkeland currents), I believe most of this unseen mass is found in light particles. Though light is considered to be "massless", light does convey "effective mass" and "pushes" against normal forms of matter, just as "dark energy" is supposed to do.
quote:
As a layman, I do know that mass is not weight. I also think that weight is as "easy" to measure as it is relative and changeable, while mass is an inherent property of matter, and is a bit harder to measure than mass. You seem to be confusing mass and weight above, but I may have misread you.
It really wasn't that good of an analogy on my part. I was hungry and in a hurry to get home. :)
Let's try it this way:
Suppose that Birkeland currents are in fact the force of acceleration and move us in the Z axis relative to the X,Y plane of our solar system. This force may not affect every body in the solar system equally. The iron content could have an affect as might the size of each object. That influence isn't going to be seen in heliocentric concepts of "density". |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:09:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Thanks, Dr. Mab. It took a trip to Wikipedia, but I now generally understand what you're telling me. So, essentially, Michael is stating or implying that strange and largely unquantified factors are in play, and that these factors make his iron sun model work, yet he isn't letting himself be pinned down as to what these factors are?
No, let me be very specific and pin down the external factors, and what they might be. The external factors that could affect these measurements are motion, Birkeland currents and dark energy (whatever that is).
Since this is primarly a Birkeland model in the first place, the likely external influences we should be looking for are external Birkeland currents interacting with bodies in the solar system that are not all necessarily the same percentage composition by element.
Dark energy is really a misnomer IMO. If such stuff really does exist (rather than Birkeland currents affecting the motion of galaxies), it's probably in the form of the relativistic mass of photons that convey momentum from one place to another.
In other words part of the "mass" of the sun is carried away by light particles. That mass contained in light may in fact gratitationally attract bodies from this solar system as well. If the center of the mass contained with light particles is beyond the solar system at this point (it's had 4.6 billion years to emit light), then it too could influence absolute density measurements as well. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:20:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Good GOD Michael, you are joking right?!!
Yes, I was.
quote:
Let's go through this step by step. Dr. Manuel notes that meteorites (don't forget meteorites are on the earth's surface) have a high percentage of iron in them therefore the universe contains primarily iron. Ergo the sun is primarily iron.
That's his basic premise in a nutshell. Of course there's that isotope information as well.
quote:
But we measure through many different means that the sun is primairly Hydrogen and Helium.
The only "means" you are talking about is spectral analysis. The spectral analysis only tells us what elements are present. In and of itself it tells us nothing about the actual composition in terms of percentages, particularly if it's mass separated.
quote:
So why don't we find any hydrogen or helium meteorites on earth. THINK... Why don't we find solid hydrogen or helium on the earth's surface.
That's sort of my whole point. We find water, and we find MOLECULES that have hydrogen attached to something "heavy", but hydrogen gas in particular isn't very "sticky" when talking about bodies in the solar system. The hydrogen gas from the arcs of the sun doesn't even seem to stick around very long on the sun, and it's sure hasn't stuck to the moon in 4.6 billion years. Hydrogen is very light and more apt to be "blown away" by any large impacts. Heavier elements however will stick around.
quote:
Stop Michael you sound like nut!
In this universe it is not necessary to know what a material is to determine it's density.
Yes it is, especially if you can't touch it and have to look at it from a distance and you don't know what it's made of to begin with.
quote:
Assume I have a cube of something and I measure that it is 10 cm on each side. I then weigh this cube of something and it weighs 50 kg.
How do you intend to "weigh" the penumbral filament layer?
[cheap shot] I hope I didn't skip too many steps in the math problem [/cheap shot]
Feel better about yourself now?
quote:
You can use density to help you determine what a material is... I recall my son did an experiment like that in his 7th grade science class.
I'll bet he could touch the material in question.
quote:
It is nice to know that it is possible to write papers about astrophysics without even the MOST BASIC understanding of science or math - what a country!
It's nice to know that strawmen and silly debate tactics are allive and well in this wonderful country. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:28:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, no, Dave. Michael needs you to refuse to consider his dark energy concerns, because if anyone ever tried to take them into account he would have to find a new excuse.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35884
First of all, I'm of the impression that the whole concept of "dark energy" is inappropriately named. If you want to know what I think dark energy *is*, you can read through the thread above. I've even postited an explanation for the idea, though I'm not even convinced that this anamolous galaxy movement isn't caused by large scale Birkeland currents in the first place. I've been quite open about my ideas related to dark energy, how it works, and how it might influence the numbers. I still think Birkeland current are more important, and more likely to be a factor.
quote:
He's perfectly happy "disagreeing" with you about whether there is dark energy inside the sun, outside the sun, wherever, so long as he can leave it as one big question mark. Michael has shown consistently now he has no desire to resolve his concerns. He needs them to hide behind.
That's a pretty hollow allegation for a guy that has yet to address Manuel's isotope analysis. At least I've been open about my ideas and where I stand on these issues. You are essentially *insisting* that I ignore the possiblity of Birkeland currents and dark energy in favor of a heliocentric concept of reality. Since Birkeland currents have already been documented inside and outside of the solar system, I'm just not ready to ignore their possible influence. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:30:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're describing Einsteinian relativity here, which you already said was not what you were talking about when you wanted us to "factor in" the movement of the Sun. You can't have it both ways.
I agree actually, it was a bad analogy. What can I say, I was hungry. :)
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 21:44:31 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:33:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That's a pretty hollow allegation for a guy that has yet to address Manuel's isotope analysis. At least I've been open about my ideas and where I stand on these issues. You are essentially *insisting* that I ignore the possiblity of Birkeland currents and dark energy in favor of a heliocentric concept of reality. Since Birkeland currents have already been documented inside and outside of the solar system, I'm just not ready to ignore their possible influence.
No, Michael, I'm *insisting* you stop hiding behind "what ifs" and provide a density for your solar model and compare it to current measurements. You may account for whatever additional factors you wish, just be sure to demonstrate how you arrive at your figures and the reasoning behind using them. That's it. That's all we're asking. Come up with a density figure. Stop evading the question.
|
"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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
