|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:37:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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!
If you don't mind, I'd like to look at these calculations again. You and I seem to have a very different recollection of what calculations you believe that you provided, and I don't want to misrepresent you. Do you recall which thread that was?
quote:
If it's simply that, then it's already taken into account through its gravity.
How so? We would need to know the center of mass of the light that has come from the sun wouldn't we?
quote:
Or should we be talking about "absolute density" of a Sun which generates no light?
I'm more concerned about the mass contained within the light particles that have already left the surface. The center of this mass of light may be "pulling" on the bodies in the solar system, particularly if the center of this mass is beyond the solar system. Again however, I'm more inclined to believe that actual influences that are unaccounted for are Birkeland currents, not dark energy.
quote:
Except that you can't describe how we can calculate the effects of that acceleration on anything, so what does it matter?
It matters as it relates to the density issue. Whether I can fully define these influences or not, such influences certainly could affect our concept of "density" compared to a purely heliocentric perpective. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:42:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
That is a circular feedback loop in the final analysis. What you are suggesting is that I hand you an average density number so you can compare it to a heliocentric view that I don't believe is accurate in the first place. What point is there in that excercize?
How about I insist you take a stand on the isotope analysis?
quote:
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.
This isn't a question of evasion. There are simply some questions that I can give reasonably good answers to, and there are some that I would simply be "guessing" about at the moment. I'd much rather focus on things I *can* demonstrate rather than on something I would essentially be "guessing" at. I simply see no point in pulling numbers out of thin air just for the fun of it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 21:43:41 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:49:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Orignially posted by Michael Mozina...
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).
Yes, please do. Be very specific and pin down those external factors. You go, boy.quote:
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.
Primarily a Birkeland model, hmmm, no evidence to show that's true, but passing the buck, good strategy when your own conjecture is failing so miserably. And pinning this down, specifically, okay let's look at that again...quote:
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.
How's that for pinning down, with specifics? Wow. Thanks for making that clear, Michael! Troll.
Good try (well, not really) at discrediting contemporary astrophysics. But even without that as a base to work from, that whole line of thought still has nothing to do with your requirement to prove your guess. Unless you have a demonstrable way to connect it directly to your conjecture, to show how it supports your wacky notion about a solid surface on the Sun, you're simply babbling about unrelated tangent issues, something that you've said you wouldn't do. Show how it is evidence of your guess, or leave it behind and get back to the subject of the thread.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:51:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Also, if 90% the sun's mass was dark matter (just as the rest of the universe, as Michael claims), then there would only be 10% of ordinary matter (atoms) compared to what there should be according to the standard solar model.
The sun is now where I think "dark energy" is found. I believe that this missing mass is found in light particles. The sun would not have "dark energy", but it would "emit" light energy/matter. The overall center of that mass contained within light could influence our notion of density in the opposite directly, particularly if most of the light (and mass) is beyond our solar system. That seems rather likely since the sun has been shining for 4.6 billion years now.
This thread will explain pretty clearly what I think "dark energy" really is, and it should give you a better idea of how I think it affects our sense of absolute density.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35884 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:54:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Orignially posted by Michael Mozina...
How do you intend to "weigh" the penumbral filament layer?
Dumb shit. There's no such thing as a penumbral filament layer other than something you've made up in your mind. You're simply deluded. You aren't capable of presenting your thoughts in an intelligent, cogent manner. You're a troll.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:58:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
That is a circular feedback loop in the final analysis. What you are suggesting is that I hand you an average density number so you can compare it to a heliocentric view that I don't believe is accurate in the first place. What point is there in that excercize?
Because you could show how those measurements are inaccurate. You could reformulate the equations to come out right. You could show how accounting for dark energy, Birkland currents, or whatever you wish to add, modifies the density measurements to such a degree that a mostly iron surface now becomes feasible. Dave has tried and hasn't been able to change the figures anywhere near enough to do it. So, either it's not possible or he lacks some critical information. It's up to you and you alone to provide that information.
But simply tossing out the density measurement entirely because it hasn't accounted for factors you can't even quantify is totally unacceptable. It would be like creationists throwing out the validity of radiometric dating simply because of some ill-formed doubts about its accuracy. Sorry, either show how the figures are wrong or accept them, but you don't get the luxury of cherry picking results you like and hand waving away the ones you don't. Science doesn't work that way.
And for the last time, the isotope analysis doesn't directly suport the solid sun theory in any way (you've admitted as much), which makes it irrelevant to this discussion. If you'd like to open another thread entitled "Weaknesses of the Solar Gas Model" perhaps someone will bother to look into it.
|
"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 22:03:12 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:03:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Orignially 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.
The isotope analysis issue is your ace in the hole, isn't it? You've said numerous times that it doesn't support your solid surface Sun conjecture, yet anytime someone doesn't accept any of the shit you make up in your own mind, you fall back on accusing them of ignoring the isotope analysis. That's an extremely dishonest tactic. You have no integrity. There's nothing even remotely scientific about your approach. You're a lying, dishonest troll. I bet you make your momma proud. Did you tell her you're the laughing stock of the entire astrophysics world? 
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:43:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
If you don't mind, I'd like to look at these calculations again. You and I seem to have a very different recollection of what calculations you believe that you provided, and I don't want to misrepresent you. Do you recall which thread that was?
If you don't mind, I'd like to look at a single place in any of your 400+ postings where you've done any sort of calculations at all. I'd like to see it, but you can't show it because you haven't done any.  Troll.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:49:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, holy crap! You have got to be kidding me. The pictures which show coronal loops climbing to over 50,000 km above the photosphere are right there on your own Web site!
No one doubts that coronal loops are quite large and extend *well* into the corona. The question is where do they originate, above or below the photosphere?
quote:
The UofM paper explicitly states (in several places) that its measurements dealt with the top of the coronal loops and the "footprints" where the elecrtons go crashing into the chromosphere.
That last part is an "assumption" based on where they believe these 171, 195 and 284A images originate. Even before Trace was launched, it was designed with the intent of studying the "transitional region", the area where temps go from thousands of degrees to millions of degrees. Everyone has always "assumed" that transition takes place in the lower corona. The problem however is that the assumption was that the corona was the heat source rather than electricity. If electricity is the heat source (and this material suggests it could be), then this "transitional region" need not be heated or located in the lower corona at all. Again, these images are purely two dimensional, and the third dimension is *assumed*. That is why STEREO is so important.
quote:
So now, you're basically claiming that that piece of evidence for your theory is also "questionable" since those UofM scientists obviously assumed the locations of the electrons they were measuring, and are thus incompetent boobs because maybe the electrons were crashing into the chromosphere from underneath it.
Why do you feel it necessary to build strawmen of what I say? I do in fact "question" *everyones* placement of the transtional region, not just UofM, but NASA, Lockheed, and everyone who claims that the 171,195 and 284A images originate in the lower corona. It's not personal, or limited to UofM.
quote:
Actually, the magnetic fields which give rise to coronal loops in the standard solar models originate at the tachocline, some 200,000 km below the photosphere.
So they originate UNDER the photosophere as I suggest. If so, then their "footprint" can't be in the chromosphere.
quote:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002713/Sunspots.mpg
Ah, yes, the animation again, in which, judging from the curvature of the surface of the Sun, the magnetic field loops rise up from well below 0.995R. This animation is evidence against your theory, Michael. That you can't see that is simply incredible.
You're essentially "eyeballing" an animation now? :) I'm simply noting that the footprints of coronal loops aren't found in the corona, the chromosphere *or* even the surface of the photosphere. Whereever they originate, it's far below the photosphere, not the chromosophere.
quote:
You're right, Michael, you didn't say it must be considered wrong, you just said that until all of the factors you mentioned were taken into account, it cannot be considered correct. A mighty fine hair to split, wouldn't you say?
No, it's an important distinction IMO.
quote:
And no, I'm not saying that it must be considered correct, since I've asked you for disconfirming evidence. I've got no good reason to believe that the actual experts on the subject are wrong until you can show me evidence that they really are wrong.
That would be fine if you could expalin how they measured the density of an unknown material that they can't touch or measure directly. As it is, you're tossing out numbers that can't really be verified, and aren't really consistent with other data produced by these same people. Why for instance does the plasma turn at right angles at around 4800Km? Why is that plamsa column rising an spreading out under 48000KM and falling and moving toward the column above that point? These are question even these "experts" can't answer, and they are inconsistant with gas model theory. Until they are answered consistently, and that material composition is known, I see no valid way to make the density numbers you mentioned fit with any of the other heliosiesmology data we've looked at.
quote:
Fine. Mass/volume. Since I've already factored in the effects of dark matter, dark energy, and light,
I'd like a link here if you don't mind. I don't want to be called a liar again, and I'd like to see how you factored in "dark energy" again. You and I don't seem to be defining dark energy in the same manner.
quote:
and you specifically rejected factoring in Relativity as it effects the Sun's mass through motion,
It's not the velocity I'm worried about, it's the force of acelleration I'm concerned with.
quote:
I'm still waiting for you to provide a mechanism through which this acceleration changes the mass (or volume) of the Sun.
If the sun is accelerated faster or slower by these Birkeland currents than say the earth, then this differential in the aceleration will affect our sense of "density" as it relates to the sun.
quote:
Does the acceleration makes the Sun appear more massive or less massive than it is "at rest?"
That would depend on whether is is accelerated faster or slower than the earth.
quote:
Or does it make the Sun appear larger or smaller than it would "at rest?"
It's not really a "larger/smaller" arguement in a Bi |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 23:32:28 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:52:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
If you don't mind, I'd like to look at a single place in any of your 400+ postings where you've done any sort of calculations at all. I'd like to see it, but you can't show it because you haven't done any.
Since you never bothered to actually read any of Manuel's work, I can see why your remain so ignorant on this topic. It's a pity your denial process prevents you from getting into the math, but it's hardly my fault. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:11:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Because you could show how those measurements are inaccurate. You could reformulate the equations to come out right.
To do that, I'd first have to know what is the "right" density number to begin with. I can really only see the solar atmosphere down to the surface, not what is under the surface. Therefore "guessing" at density would be the best I could hope for, and then I'd be working the math to fit a ficticious figure I pulled out of thin air. That hardly seems "scientific" from my perspective.
quote:
You could show how accounting for dark energy, Birkland currents, or whatever you wish to add, modifies the density measurements to such a degree that a mostly iron surface now becomes feasible.
That might be doable. It certainly sounds more reasonable.
quote:
Dave has tried and hasn't been able to change the figures anywhere near enough to do it. So, either it's not possible or he lacks some critical information. It's up to you and you alone to provide that information.
I would say that Dave and I are not yet on the same page as it relates to "dark energy" or Birkeland currents yet, but I agree that perhaps it might be good to work on a ballpark method of describing these influences.
quote:
But simply tossing out the density measurement entirely because it hasn't accounted for factors you can't even quantify is totally unacceptable.
Not really. You can know something is wrong but not be able to prove it yet. I can certainly "toss out" heliocentric concepts of reality as "inadequate". I can see many factors that are not included in these calculations, factors that we already KNOW affect our universe. Whatever these heliocentric figures represent, they cannot be applied in absolute terms when regular matter only makes up less than 10% of the known universe.
quote:
It would be like creationists throwing out the validity of radiometric dating simply because of some ill-formed doubts about its accuracy.
In what way have you deal with the isotope analsys, or are you just throwing it out based on some unknown and unspecified doubts?
quote:
Sorry, either show how the figures are wrong or accept them, but you don't get the luxury of cherry picking results you like and hand waving away the ones you don't. Science doesn't work that way.
Yes I can and yes it does. If I can demonstrate that a helioscentric concept of density is missing 90% mass of the universe, you can't simply ignore that reality. An earthcentric concept of reality is still wrong, even if I can't personally "disprove" it for that matter. I trust lots of areas of science and I've learned to respect science. I know that science can be highly exact, and sometimes very problematic. There are many problems in astronomy today, all of which seem to be coming to a head as we learn more and study more. Some ideas are falling to the wayside, while other ideas, like plasma cosmology are being refined and improved based on modern technology.
quote:
And for the last time, the isotope analysis doesn't directly suport the solid sun theory in any way (you've admitted as much), which makes it irrelevant to this discussion.
Bull. It's directly related to this discussion. It provides evidence that demonstrates that it is possible to have a solid surface under the photosophere. It is information that is directly related to this model and this idea.
quote:
If you'd like to open another thread entitled "Weaknesses of the Solar Gas Model" perhaps someone will bother to look into it.
Why won't you deal with this issue now since it directly supports Birkeland's model and it simulutaneously destroys gas model theory? They are all related topics. Why be so damn picky about a thread title before you'll get real and investigate this issue? GeeMack's propoganda is pure BS. You need to think for yourself and deal with the evidence in integrity. It's right there, complete with the math. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 23:27:30 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:19:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The isotope analysis issue is your ace in the hole, isn't it?
No, it is scientific data that tells us about the nature of reality. Reality is that annoying little thing that you refuse to embrace in an honest manner.
quote:
You've said numerous times that it doesn't support your solid surface Sun conjecture,
No, I didn't. You keep "spinning" what I say and twisting my statements to suit your own agenda.
quote:
yet anytime someone doesn't accept any of the shit you make up in your own mind, you fall back on accusing them of ignoring the isotope analysis. That's an extremely dishonest tactic.
The extremely dishonest tactic is building strawmen of what I say, not accepting the validity of the isotope analysis and not noting it's significance as it relates to this conversation. The only truely dishonest person I've met here is you and your stupid BS about how it doesn't matter. It does matter.
quote:
You have no integrity.
You keep pegging that irony metter GeeMack. You have dishonestly misrepresented everything I've said, you've run like hell from the important data. Worse yet, you spend all day hurling pointless and useless ad hominems into the conversation. You're one to talk.
quote:
There's nothing even remotely scientific about your approach. You're a lying, dishonest troll. I bet you make your momma proud. Did you tell her you're the laughing stock of the entire astrophysics world?
You, you you you you! That all you can do is play kill the messenger and hurl pointless crap into an otherwise interesting discussion. It's a pity your mamma didn't raise you any better, but in talking with you, I can see it wasn't her fault at all. You only hear what you want to hear, everyone else be damned. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/08/2006 23:23:29 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:20:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Since you never bothered to actually read any of Manuel's work, I can see why your remain so ignorant on this topic. It's a pity your denial process prevents you from getting into the math, but it's hardly my fault.
You seriously must have no idea how ridiculous you look when you say stupid things like that. No matter how irrelevant it is, even by your own acknowledgment, you just can't get your nose out of Dr. Manuel's ass, can you?
You still haven't provided a speck of evidence that the Sun has a solid surface, you haven't done a single calculation, you haven't provided anything substantive or quantitative at all, but you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and you can't stop yourself from continuing to prove that you're nothing but a lying troll.quote:
This isn't a question of evasion. There are simply some questions that I can give reasonably good answers to, and there are some that I would simply be "guessing" about at the moment. I'd much rather focus on things I *can* demonstrate rather than on something I would essentially be "guessing" at. I simply see no point in pulling numbers out of thin air just for the fun of it.
Yes this is evasion, pure and simple. You're busted lying again. Since the total of all your evidence doesn't amount to a pile of Chihuahua shit, you rely exclusively on your dishonest tactics of evasion, distraction, deflection, and outright lying. You know your silly guess won't hold up for a minute under even the most lenient scientific scrutiny. Your strategy is to avoid ever putting any of your claims in quantitative terms. That way nobody can show you how you've quantitatively failed. You can't afford to put yourself in that position, even if it means believing your own lies, since it would ruin you. As much as it burns you to hear the truth, and as much as you'd like to deny it, there's likely not a person who's read any of this discussion who would disagree with that assessment.
It's 60 pages now. You've had over 400 chances here to throw down some evidence of your nutty claim. (We won't even count how miserably you failed or how badly your arguments sucked or how transparent your dishonest tactics were on other forums elsewhere.) Let's take stock and see how well you've done. How 'bout it? Anybody? Do we have anyone here who is buying into Mozina's conjecture? Show of hands?
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:30:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
The extremely dishonest tactic is building strawmen of what I say, not accepting the validity of the isotope analysis and not noting it's significance as it relates to this conversation. The only truely dishonest person I've met here however is you and your insessent BS about how it doesn't matter. It does matter.
It does matter, it doesn't matter, it does matter. You're the one who can't make up your mind about it. Shall I embarrass you again by bringing in the quotes? It matters to you when you think you can use it and it doesn't matter when it works against you. You're a dishonest, lying troll.quote:
You, you you you you! That all you can do is play kill the messenger and hurl pointless crap into an otherwise interesting discussion. It's a pity your mamma didn't raise you any better, but in talking with you, I can see it wasn't her fault at all. You only hear what you want to hear, everyone else be damned.
This discussion ceased to be interesting for most people around here when it became clear you were a lying troll. Remember, I'm not the one who came in here totally unprepared to present a case for some nutty conjecture. That would be you. Next time you're playing messenger, and you don't want to take the heat for doing such a lousy job of it, turn down the job. Now stop your pathetic whining and either get back to trying to prove your silly fantasy, or shut the fuck up, troll.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:41:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
It does matter, it doesn't matter, it does matter. You're the one who can't make up your mind about it.
The fact you even "think" I've ever vascilated from my position in any way is proof that you're totally incapable of differentiating between reality, and your own BS. You're full of it.
quote:
Shall I embarrass you again by bringing in the quotes?
You embarass me? Don't make me laugh. The fact you WANT to embrass anyone only demonstrates you've got an ego problem. If I was worried about being embrarrased, I would never have put up my website in the first place. Get real.
Dr. Mab is going to chastize me again if I keep stooping to your level and rightfully so. I guess I'll stop here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
