|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:43:28 [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. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 00:27:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I'll admit to confusing the two. I readily admit that I don't know the difference between mass separation and mass fractionization. In all the contexts I've seen, fractionization is just separation, the term not implying any particular underlying method. What am I missing here? Also, what does "really" mean in this sort of context?
Sorry, I missed this earlier. In the case of Dr. Manuel's work, there really isn't that much difference between these two terms. All his measurements were related to isotopes of elements that he assumed would be in plasma form. Mass fractionatization relates specifially to the arrangement of isotopes of an element, whereas mass separation need not involve any isotopes, just different elements. The process of mass fractionation in plasma is most likely due to the electrical activity between the surface and the universe IMO, whereas mass separation from the surface to the core is probably mostly driven by gravity IMO.
quote:
(BTW, I'm Currently working my way through the first isotope paper, nothing concrete either for or against the solid shell hypothesis that I can see as yet).
In the sense that a mass separated model supports the possibility of a solid surface, *any* mass separation evidence would in that sense support a solid surface concept. This evidence also falsifies contemporary gas model theory in one fell swoop, which is probably why Manuel rejected gas model theory long before meeting me. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/09/2006 00:29:48 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 03:42:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Sorry, I missed this earlier. In the case of Dr. Manuel's work, there really isn't that much difference between these two terms. All his measurements were related to isotopes of elements that he assumed would be in plasma form. Mass fractionatization relates specifially to the arrangement of isotopes of an element, whereas mass separation need not involve any isotopes, just different elements.
So there really is no difference. Since isotopes are also different masses (pretty much by definition). By the definition, mass separation has to lead to isotope separation. It can't even be a matter of resolution, as the mass difference between two isotopes could well be greater than or equal to the difference in mass between adjacent elements!
I cannot imagine a process which would separate, based on mass, element X from element Y1 but somehow not separate isotope Y1 from isotope Y2, even though the mass difference:
(Y1-X) <= (Y2-Y1)
If there is some other force (not mass related) at work, then I would suggest an entirely different term is justified.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The process of mass fractionation in plasma is most likely due to the electrical activity between the surface and the universe IMO, whereas mass separation from the surface to the core is probably mostly driven by gravity IMO.
If it's "mass fractionation", how is it driven by electical activity? You'll also have to be more specific than "the universe". You've got to admit that's more than a little vague. You should at least be able to describe which "parts" of the universe this "electrical activity" is interacting with.
quote:
(Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In the sense that a mass separated model supports the possibility of a solid surface, *any* mass separation evidence would in that sense support a solid surface concept. This evidence also falsifies contemporary gas model theory in one fell swoop, which is probably why Manuel rejected gas model theory long before meeting me.
I have a bunch of points about Manuels work, which I'll post a little later as they still need some tidying up, but your overall argument doesn't really make sense here. You've said that Manuels work supports the possibility of your model. This is perhaps true, but the work "possibility" is very important. You also have to admit that Manuels work supports models that do not include a solid surface. You cannot therefore use Manuels work as a supporting argument for a solid surface, at least without a lot of refinement and extension, which I've seen none of as yet.
If you're trying to use Manuel's work simply to discredit the current gas model, that's all well and good, but remember, it's just a model, disproving the model won't change the reality that the model currently seems to support quite well. It also won't in any way validate any proposed replacement model. Disproving the current gas model is a competely separate topic at any rate. I'll address this further later.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 09:03:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
So there really is no difference.
In this case, as it relates to Dr. Manuel's findings, not really, no.
quote:
If it's "mass fractionation", how is it driven by electical activity?
Birkeland described the sun as a giant cathode in space. The flow of electricity from the surface and into space, and the flow of hydrogen gas from the surface is what I believe drives mass separation of the plasma atmosphere.
quote:
You'll also have to be more specific than "the universe". You've got to admit that's more than a little vague.
Well, I'm not trying to be vague. The sun is ultimately interacting with all the currents in space, and probably planetary bodies as well. It's a little hard to be more specific. Any area of space that is less negatively charged than the sun is a candidate to interact with.
quote:
You should at least be able to describe which "parts" of the universe this "electrical activity" is interacting with.
It's interacting with the parts of space that are less negatively charged than it is. If you watch the flow patterns of the LASCO satellites, you'll notice these currents move, and they are not flowing in the same patterns from one day to the next. Any area of space that is less negatively charged than the surface of the sun is a viable candidate to interact with.
quote:
I have a bunch of points about Manuels work, which I'll post a little later as they still need some tidying up, but your overall argument doesn't really make sense here.
I'm looking forward to your comments.
quote:
You've said that Manuels work supports the possibility of your model. This is perhaps true, but the work "possibility" is very important.
I agree. That is why I've been completely upfront about that distinction.
quote:
You also have to admit that Manuels work supports models that do not include a solid surface.
Indeed. In fact I'm quite sure that when he first discovered this data, it was his opinion that the core could be very deep and it could also be made of plasma, however neutron stars (his model of the core) tend to form "surfaces" around themselves (according to theory). As I said, it's the satellite images that I'm using to demonstate a "solid" surface rather than a mass separated plasma surface.
quote:
You cannot therefore use Manuels work as a supporting argument for a solid surface, at least without a lot of refinement and extension, which I've seen none of as yet.
I didn't really try to use Manuel's work to demonstrate a solid surface. I used this data to show evidence of mass separation which *can* support a solid surface model as well as a mass separated plasma model as well.
quote:
If you're trying to use Manuel's work simply to discredit the current gas model, that's all well and good, but remember, it's just a model, disproving the model won't change the reality that the model currently seems to support quite well.
Well, in essense I suppose I am attempting to disredit current non mass separated gas model theory based on isotope analysis. If this data is accurate, contemporary gas model theory cannot be accurate. It's a mutually exclusive issue. Either the sun is mass separated or not. Even it there were no solid surfaces to be seen in solar images, there would still be no reason to continue to put any faith in contemporary gas model theory. This data would falsify non mass separated gas model theory in one fell swoop.
quote:
It also won't in any way validate any proposed replacement model.
I respectfully disagree. I believe that such information does support a mass separated replacement model, even if you don't accept the notion that there is a solid surface under the photosphere. Either way you look at it, a new model is necessary, and this data is crucial information as wel begin selecting replacement models.
quote:
Disproving the current gas model is a competely separate topic at any rate. I'll address this further later.
It's not really a "completely" separate "topic" IMO. Afterall, we are discussing solar models and the viability of various solar models. My statements are constantly being compared to the yardstick of the gas model, and data related to gas model theory. If I'm willing to accept that this information does not directly prove that the sun has a solid surface, then it seems fair that you would accept that this information would in fact falsify contemporary theory either way. We would still need to find a "better" scientific model, regardless of whether or not you accept the notion of a solid surface. There would still be "evidence" that we need a better scientific model, specifically *some* kind of mass separated model. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/09/2006 09:13:24 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 09:24:25 [Permalink]
|
This thread is locked due to its length.
Kil
Please go here if you are interested in continuing this discussion.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
