|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 02/04/2006 : 15:53:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
My analysis of satellite imagery for the past 15 years certainly *is* directly related to solar modeling. Since you are a chemical engineer, how about showing us where the Dr. of nuclear chemistry made his error. So far I see nothing about your college education that suggests you are any more qualified at solar physics than I am, and I've not heard you take a stab at Dr. Manuel's work. That would seem to be right up your alley in fact. Where's his error?
You haven't shown that Dr. Manuel's work supports your wild guess about the surface of the sun. In fact, I can, and have quoted you several places where you've admitted that it does not support the idea of a solid surface sun. And furthermore, you haven't provided any quotes or comments from Dr. Manuel where he specifically acknowledges that he also believes the sun has a solid surface.
And again you're expecting other people to "take a stab". Repeat after me, Michael. "This wild conjecture about the sun having a solid surface is an idea presented by Michael Mozina, there fore it is the responsibility of Michael Mozina, and Michael Mozina alone to prove it."
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:00:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Now stop being so lazy, and do the work necessary to prove the sun has a solid surface. Or shut the hell up about it. 
Stop running like hell from the isotope analysis that shows evidenc of mass separation. Stop whining about not getting data, when you utterly ignore the data presented to you. You are just like the creationist that is given isotope analysis to consider, and rather than considering it, they attack the messanger, and ignore the isotope analysis. That is all you're doing here. You ignore the parts of the evidence that you don't like, and you attack the individual. It's the oldest, most pathetic trick in the book. I'm not impressed a creationist denial of isotope analysis and I'm equally unimpressed with your denial of isotope analysis. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:04:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You haven't shown that Dr. Manuel's work supports your wild guess about the surface of the sun.
There's not "guess" work here at all, simply "observation". Manuel observed via the field of nuclear chemistry that the sun is mass separated. His work is based on observation, not guesswork. My observations of a mass separated sun are also "observations", not wild guesses. The fact you keep trying to skirt this most fundamental support mechanism of *Birkeland's* model, shows me how desparate your whole show has become. Instead of dealing with this evidence in an intellectually honest way, you keep avoiding it like the plague. Yawn.....
I'm not expecting anyone to prove anything for me, but I do expect you to deal with the evidence I hand you in an intellectually honest manner. If you don't do that, I can't help you. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:05:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I didn't ask you to prove my guess. I asked you to take the isotope analysis evidence and deal with it in integrity. If you won't do that, I can't make you embrace reality. It is not up to me to personally make you deal with the evidence presented in an intellectually honest manner. If you won't act like a grown up and deal with the science, don't expect me to take you very seriously.
You have already admitted, and we've all agreed, that the isotope analysis you keep whining about does not provide evidence of a solid surface on the sun. There, for the fifth time, sixth?, eighth?, I've dealt with it. And again, I'm not the one who postulated the silly idea about the sun having a solid surface. That was you.
Now, in an intellectually honest manner, were you lying before when you said Dr. Manuel's isotope analysis does not support your solid sun conjecture? This is not a false dichotomy, Michael. Either you believe it does not support it, as you have plainly and clearly stated, and therefore it's not relevant. Or, if you do believe the isotope analysis supports your wild guess, you were lying when you said that. What'll it be?
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:07:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Stop running like hell from the isotope analysis that shows evidenc of mass separation. Stop whining about not getting data, when you utterly ignore the data presented to you. You are just like the creationist that is given isotope analysis to consider, and rather than considering it, they attack the messanger, and ignore the isotope analysis. That is all you're doing here. You ignore the parts of the evidence that you don't like, and you attack the individual. It's the oldest, most pathetic trick in the book. I'm not impressed a creationist denial of isotope analysis and I'm equally unimpressed with your denial of isotope analysis.
Okay one more time. You already said the isotope analysis does not support your silly idea that the sun has a solid surface. If you're now claiming it does, you're a liar. If it's relevant, you're a liar. If it's irrelevant, shut the fuck up about it.
Edited for punctuation. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/04/2006 16:54:42 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:15:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Okay one more time. You already said the isotope analysis does not support your silly idea that the sun has a solid surface. If you're now claiming it does, you're a liar. If it's relevant, you're a liar. If it's irrelevant. shut the fuck up about it.
Actually, the only liar here is you GeeMack, and the only one you are lying to is yourself. I did *not* claim that Manuel's work did not support Birkeland's model. I did say that Manuel's work does not automatically demonstrate teh sun has a solid surface. I was being honest about that distinction, since at first even I was not sure if the mass separation I was observing involved a solid layer or a plasma. There is no automatic correlation between mass separation and solids. That does not mean however that Manuel's work does not support my solid surface model. In fact, it does support my solid surface model in one very *key* and important way. If the sun was not mass separated as gas model theory suggests, then there is no way that the sun could have a solid surface under the photosphere. If however the sun is mass separated, it is possible that the sun could have a solid surface, though this layer could in "theory" also be plasma. If however you accept that the sun is mass separated, then gas model theory as it is presently practiced is falsified. Period.
Now, having said all that, Manuel's work does support my model in that key area of mass separation. If you accept this, we'll throw current gas model theory out the window and move on. If not, please provide evidence that Manuel was incorrect. Otherwise I will continue to rub your nose in the fact that you are not being in integrity with this data, and you are only lying to yourself. Nobody here is buying your nonsense, certainly not me. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:15:18 [Permalink]
|
Direct questions, relevant, and in fact critical to your conjecture...
If the surface of the sun is solid it has describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. You have not locked in on even a broad range of specifications to describe these characteristics. If your allegedly solid surface is indeed solid...Specify the thickness of the surface within +/- 5000 km.
Specify the temperature of the surface within a range of +/- 2000°C.
Specify the density of the surface within +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe a material composition, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion of the whole within +/- 10%. Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
And, since you claim that you're only supporting Birkeland's conjecture, show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the sun. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers.
And since you claim that Dr. Manuel supports your wild conjecture, provide direct quotes from his material where he states clearly that he also believes the sun has a solid surface. Give relevant links to specific references, and provide pages numbers, please.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:22:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Actually, the only liar here is you GeeMack, and the only one you are lying to is yourself. I did *not* claim that Manuel's work did not support Birkeland's model. I did say that Manuel's work does not automatically demonstrate teh sun has a solid surface.
Okay, then I think we can all agree it's irrelevant. So shut the fuck up about it.quote:
Now, having said all that, Manuel's work does support my model in that key area of mass separation. If you accept this, we'll throw current gas model theory out the window and move on. If not, please provide evidence that Manuel was incorrect. Otherwise I will continue to rub your nose in the fact that you are not being in integrity with this data, and you are only lying to yourself. Nobody here is buying your nonsense, certainly not me.
Please provide evidence that there is not an invisible pink unicorn in my living room.
Just can't get it through that skull of yours, can you? It's nobody's job to prove your guess wrong. It's your job to prove it right. You haven't. So far you're a 100% failure in that regard. Now you can keep mouthing off instead of providing evidence, leaving us no choice but to accept that you don't have any evidence, or you can build your case. I predict more whining and jabbering and not another speck of support from you.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:38:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
If however the sun is mass separated, it is possible that the sun could have a solid surface, though this layer could in "theory" also be plasma. If however you accept that the sun is mass separated, then gas model theory as it is presently practiced is falsified. Period.
You are just plain wrong here. The contemporary "gas model" already accepts that the surface of the sun is plasma. Plasma is ionized gas. If the sun's surface is plasma, it fits the "gas model" perfectly. And if it's plasma, it is gas, therefore it's not solid. Period.
Now if you have any evidence to support your guess about the surface of the sun being solid, please present it here.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/04/2006 16:39:51 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 16:50:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Okay, then I think we can all agree it's irrelevant.
No GeeMack, *we* do *not* agree that it is "irrelevant". You are only fooling yourself here since Manuel himself has seen fit to write at least four different papers with me so far, in less than a year. Your denial of this evidence to support Birkeland's model only shows me that you are not willing to be honest here, not with me, not even with yourself. Current gas model "theory" is predicated on the notion that the sun is *not* mass separated in any significant way. That "theory" is at odds with observations from nuclear chemistry and satellite technology. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/04/2006 16:50:52 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:08:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
No GeeMack, *we* do *not* agree that it is "irrelevant". You are only fooling yourself here since Manuel himself has seen fit to write at least four different papers with me so far, in less than a year. Your denial of this evidence to support Birkeland's model only shows me that you are not willing to be honest here, not with me, not even with yourself. Current gas model "theory" is predicated on the notion that the sun is *not* mass separated in any significant way. That "theory" is at odds with observations from nuclear chemistry and satellite technology.
The fact that you can't show where Birkeland has postulated a solid surface on the sun only goes to demonstrate that you're talking out your ass. Now, how about you actually do your job here. Show where Birkeland claimed he believed the surface of the sun to be solid, or have a little integrity and acknowledge that you are either not presenting Birkeland's conjecture, or you are not claiming the surface of the sun is solid.
Also, either the surface of the sun is solid or it's not. What'll it be, Michael? Solid? Yes or no? Remember, you said, "I'm not hard to pin down." So do you claim the surface of the sun is solid? Because if you've abandoned that silly idea and are changing the subject to a discussion about mass separation, you should open a new thread.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:20:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
The fact that you can't show where Birkeland has postulated a solid surface on the sun only goes to demonstrate that you're talking out your ass.
The fact you didn't seem to even notice that Birkeland was experimenting with a solid surface sphere, surrounded by gas plasma shows you are wrong and not very attentive to detail. I even have one of Birkeland's images of a solid shelled cathode sphere, surrounded by gas suspended in a vacuum on the first page of my website. It's sitting right next to a Yohkoh image that look very similar.
The fact you won't address Manuel's (actually several nuclear chemists) isotope analysis that shows evidence of mass separation shows you are wrong.
The fact one of the same scientists that showed evidence of mass separation in the field of nuclear chemistry is doing papers with me currently, shows that this is not an 'irrelevant' issue as you claim. The fact that Manuel called me to support me in the first place shows you are wrong.
The fact you can't explain that first Lockheed RD image on my website shows that you are wrong.
The problem is however that you won't deal with any of the meaningful evidence in an intellectually honest way. Instead you keep attacking the individual and ignoring the evidence you don't like. I can't make you do your part, but I'm not about to "agree" with your assesment especially since you won't lift a finger to address that isotope analysis. You're just like a creationist in my book....Denial and personal attack....
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/04/2006 17:26:54 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:32:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
If however the sun is mass separated, it is possible that the sun could have a solid surface, though this layer could in "theory" also be plasma. If however you accept that the sun is mass separated, then gas model theory as it is presently practiced is falsified. Period.
You are just plain wrong here. The contemporary "gas model" already accepts that the surface of the sun is plasma. Plasma is ionized gas. If the sun's surface is plasma, it fits the "gas model" perfectly. And if it's plasma, it is gas, therefore it's not solid. Period.
No, it's not that simple. This is just more evidence that you aren't willing to take an honest look at the evidence and the implications of this evidence. Contemporary gas model theory is predicated on a *non* mass separated model. Even the observed presense of mass separated layers of plasmas, separated by the the element, completely falsifies contemporary gas model theory. Period. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:33:46 [Permalink]
|
The fact that you can't show where Birkeland has postulated a solid surface on the sun only goes to demonstrate that you're talking out your ass. Now, how about you actually do your job here. Show where Birkeland claimed he believed the surface of the sun to be solid, or have a little integrity and acknowledge that you are either not presenting Birkeland's conjecture, or you are not claiming the surface of the sun is solid.
Also, either the surface of the sun is solid or it's not. What'll it be, Michael? Solid? Yes or no? Remember, you said, "I'm not hard to pin down." So do you claim the surface of the sun is solid? Because if you've abandoned that silly idea and are changing the subject to a discussion about mass separation, you should open a new thread.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:35:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
No, it's not that simple. This is just more evidence that you aren't willing to take an honest look at the evidence and the implications of this evidence. Contemporary gas model theory is predicated on a *non* mass separated model. Even the observed presense of mass separated layers of plasmas, separated by the the element, completely falsifies contemporary gas model theory. Period.
The fact that you can't show where Birkeland has postulated a solid surface on the sun only goes to demonstrate that you're talking out your ass. Now, how about you actually do your job here. Show where Birkeland claimed he believed the surface of the sun to be solid, or have a little integrity and acknowledge that you are either not presenting Birkeland's conjecture, or you are not claiming the surface of the sun is solid.
Also, either the surface of the sun is solid or it's not. What'll it be, Michael? Solid? Yes or no? Remember, you said, "I'm not hard to pin down." So do you claim the surface of the sun is solid? Because if you've abandoned that silly idea and are changing the subject to a discussion about mass separation, you should open a new thread. Period.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
