|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:42:08 [Permalink]
|
Pure denial on your part.....Yawn.....
The surface is solid GeeMack as I have said all along. The surface of that sphere in Birkeland's photograph on the first page of my website is also solid GeeMack. You're the one talking out of your backside, not me. |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:52:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Pure denial on your part.....Yawn.....
The surface is solid GeeMack as I have said all along. The surface of that sphere in Birkeland's photograph on the first page of my website is also solid GeeMack. You're the one talking out of your backside, not me.
Okay, it only took you about 50 postings to answer that question. Now, give us the answers to the following questions, or we can only reasonably assume that you don't have them.
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.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 17:57:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Okay, it only took you about 50 postings to answer that question.
BS! I have answered that question consistently since day one. The fact you THINK I might have said or implied anything else only shows me how out of touch with reality you've become. You seem to be buying your own propoganda at this point.
When you deal HONESTLY with the isotope analysis, I'll be happy to address your other questions. Since this is a core and central issue involving anything remotely related to "density", it's crucial you get honest with this data at this time.
Keep in mind that Manuel is but one of *several* nuclear chemists that provided this data, and he is not the only chemist to suggest that the sun is mass separated by atomic weight. When you get "real" with that bit of information, we'll take an honest look at the density numbers. Until you get real with the mass separation issue, we can't continue in a scientifically credible way.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 18:08:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
BS! I have answered that question consistently since day one. The fact you THINK I might have said or implied anything else only shows me how out of touch with reality you've become. You seem to be buying your own propoganda at this point.
I asked directly, several times, dozens of postings ago, whether you still claimed the surface of the sun was solid. You refused to answer. Stop lying.quote:
When you deal HONESTLY with the isotope analysis, I'll be happy to address your other questions. Since this is a core and central issue involving anything remotely related to "density", it's crucial you get honest with this data at this time.
You've already acknowledged that the isotope analysis does not support your wild conjecture that the surface of the sun is solid. I've dealt with it. Stop lying.quote:
Keep in mind that Manuel is but one of *several* nuclear chemists that provided this data, and he is not the only chemist to suggest that the sun is mass separated by atomic weight. When you get "real" with that bit of information, we'll take an honest look at the density numbers. Until you get real with the mass separation issue, we can't continue in a scientifically credible way.
To suggest that a system could form by gravitational aggregation and have the very lightest element in existence - hydrogen - settle to form the core while the heavier elements spin out towards the periphery is absurd. The Earth does not have an iron mantle with the atmosphere inside. Why? Because gravitation doesn't work like that, that's why.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 18:16:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
I asked directly, several times, dozens of postings ago, whether you still claimed the surface of the sun was solid. You refused to answer. Stop lying.
I may have refused to answer "you" personally at some point, but I've consistently answered that question exactly the same way, on my website, in my first paper (before meeting Manuel) and in every post I've ever made. I have never once deviated from this position...*ever*....at least not since making up my own mind about it back in April of last year. The fact that you even think I've not answered this, or refused to answer that "question" shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You evidently believe your own propoganda. That is the only way I can even conceptually understand how you can figure I didn't already answer that question a billion times already. Face it, you don't want to deal with reality, so you bend reality to suit yourself. You want to believe I've not already answered this (even though it's plainly stated on my website and in my first paper), so you make up some "story" about me somehow being vague about this in some way. I have not ever been vague. You evidently can't discern between reality, and your own BS anymore. You evidently believe your own propoganda, and sort of convince yourself as you go.
quote:
To suggest that a system could form by gravitational aggregation and have the very lightest element in existence - hydrogen - settle to form the core while the heavier elements spin out towards the periphery is absurd.
Ya, so? When did I suggest that? This sounds like you're buying into your own propoganda again......
quote:
The Earth does not have an iron mantle with the atmosphere inside. Why? Because gravitation doesn't work like that, that's why.
No Duh. Your point? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/04/2006 18:17:34 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 18:22:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I may have refused to answer "you" personally at some point, but I've consistently answered that question exactly the same way, on my website, in my first paper (before meeting Manuel) and in every post I've ever made. I have never once deviated from this position...*ever*....at least not since making up my own mind about it back in April of last year. The fact that you even think I've not answered this, or refused to answer that "question" shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You evidently believe your own propoganda. That is the only way I can even conceptually understand how you can figure I didn't already answer that question a billion times already. Face it, you don't want to deal with reality, so you bend reality to suit yourself. You want to believe I've not already answered this (even though it's plainly stated on my website and in my first paper), so you make up some "story" about me somehow being vague about this in some way. I have not ever been vague. You evidently can't discern between reality, and your own BS anymore. You evidently believe your own propoganda, and sort of convince yourself as you go.
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.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 18:33:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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...[bq]Specify the thickness of the surface within +/- 5000 km.
Reality to GeeMack, come in GeeMack....
When you get real with the isotope analysis, I will address the rest of your questions. Until then, we cannot continue in a scientifically credible way. Once you have addressed this issue, then we can move on. Until you do, all these questions are but distractions from the data I've already presented. Embrace reality GeeMack. The critical data is sitting right under your nose. Look at it. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 18:48:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
When you get real with the isotope analysis, I will address the rest of your questions. Until then, we cannot continue in a scientifically credible way. Once you have addressed this issue, then we can move on. Until you do, all these questions are but distractions from the data I've already presented. Embrace reality GeeMack. The critical data is sitting right under your nose. Look at it.
You just don't have any answers, do you? You'd rather dodge and weave and in general simply refuse to answer legitimate questions about your wild fantasy.
One more time, and this is for you Michael, because you obviously weren't able to understand it any of the several previous times I've answered. You've already acknowledged that the isotope analysis does not support your wild conjecture about the sun having a solid surface. There, for the fifteenth time, eighteenth?, twenty third?, I've dealt with it.
Let's try again... 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.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 02/04/2006 18:49:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2006 : 19:06:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, I've answered this question directly at least twice already. The fact is, you don't understand the answer because you're completely uninterested in the science of helioseismology, except where you can twist its results to serve your needs, and spew lame "questions" about it where it doesn't.
That is utterly false. I brought up this issue because it's a key piece of evidence that Kosovichev's density numbers are normalized to a "theoretic" value, it is not measured directly.
Why do you continue to refuse to provide evidence that Kosovichev "normalized" anything?quote:
His assumption is based on a gas model theory that suggests the sun's photosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium...
Prove it by quoting the sentences from Kosovichev's paper(s) where he says he's making any such assumption.quote:
...but this assumption has not been proven true...
Except it has, you just refuse to understand the proof.quote:
...particularly in light of the isotope analysis that suggests mass separation.
Since you refuse to show that a mass-separated atmosphere would result in different helioseismology results, you objection is baseless.quote:
Since the photosphere has at least one more layer on top of it, in a mass separated model, this layer cannot be predominantly hydrogen, though hydrogen does "run through" all the layers since the hydrogen is released in the arc and rises to the surface.
You're still contradicting yourself, because an article with your name as co-author says that the photosphere is mostly hydrogen.quote:
quote:
The fact of the matter is that whether I - personally - can or cannot explain Kosovichev's methods to your personal satisfaction is completely irrelevant to whether or not those methods assumed anything.
That is also false. Kosovichev himself was extrememely reluctant to deal with this issue as well.
I have little doubt that he would be reluctant to teach you basic helioseismology via email.quote:
The whole model in that paper is question...
Which paper?quote:
...is "normalized" to theoretical value that involves a mostly hydrogen/helium photosphere.
You've been asked to demonstrate this assertion five times now, but you continually refuse to offer even a single quote from any Kosovichev paper which shows that you're correct that anything has been "normalized." I believe it's because you're making it up.quote:
Since that has not been established...
You're absolutely correct that it has not been established that Kosovichev normalized anything.quote:
...and there is evidence of mass separation, that assumption looks rather dubious.
Except that you can't tell us how mass separation would affect the helioseismology results, so your objection is dubious.quote:
The affect in this case is that Kosovichev could have easily began with a "lighter than reality" number for the surface of the photosphere, and all results from there on down are incorrect as it relates to actual density.
Except that if he assumed a "lighter than reality" number, all of his results would be wrong (not just the density, but the speed of sound and the compressibility and the temperature and everything else dependent upon those numbers), so you can't use any of them to support your model. But I don't see any evidence that he assumed anything in his measurements.quote:
The implication here in a mass separated model is that this material is most likely a heavier element than is theorized in non mass separated models, and the sound transition between the transitional layer and the layer above it may be indicative of a change from thicker plasma to a true solid.
Except that you refuse to even attempt to describe a solid in which sound travels just 10% faster than in a "thicker plasma." If there is no such solid which matches the rest of your model, then the change in sound speed cannot be due to such a transition, and your model must be wrong.quote:
You are trying to use Kosovichev's work to PROVE that the sun's photosphere is what gas model theory suggests.
Utter nonsense. I am only pointing out that you are cherry picking the helioseismology results to suit your personal agenda, instead of applying all of the results to your model and seeing what happens in an honest inquiry.quote:
It's therefore up to you to show me some evidence that it is. I do not see any such evidence in the paper from Kosovichev...
I've cited three papers from Kosovichev, and another paper from independent researchers, so you'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "the paper."quote:
|
- 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 - 02/04/2006 : 19:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This is such nonsense! Over the past 25 years of programming, I've written programs to do a wide variety of commercial applications, in a number of different computer languages, including assembly language, C, C++, Pascal, Fortan, Dbase, and most recently C#. I've written real time games, accounting programs, loan mortgage analysis, and a variety of custom applications on CPM, Unix, Dos, and Windows platforms.
None of which demonstrates that you are a computer scientist. I've been programming now for 29 years, I've forgotten more languages than you've learned, I've written my own compilers, along with real-time multiplayer games, 3D microwave and RF analysis software, real time communications, mapping and personal safety software for prisons, and a boatload of other applications for Kit 2000, Apple ][, a variety of different CP/Ms, two different flavors of Unix, Linux, OS/2, MS-DOS (2.0-6.0), Windows (2.0 through XP) and Macintosh (I forget which, it was years ago), including software used by actual PhD scientists in both the RF and materials fields who said they couldn't have done their jobs without my software, and I still won't call myself a computer scientist because it doesn't take science to do any of that stuff, only technology. I don't even call myself a software engineer out of deference to actual certified public engineers, and instead go with "software developer."quote:
This whole arguement a pure appeal to authority falacy in the first place.
No, we're simply discussing whether the term "computer scientist" is an apt one for you, it has nothing to do with whether your solar model is correct or not, though since you don't boast about your astrophysics or nuclear chemisty training, it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to support every one of your assertions.quote:
Get on with your refute of Manuel's work, and Birkeland's work and leave me the heck out of this conversation.
Sorry, but you're the one who is here claiming that Manuel and Birkeland are correct, so you should be able to demonstrate that they are.quote:
I have as much right to interpret satellite images as any "scientist" on the planet...
Who said you didn't?quote:
...and I'll bet I have more experience at satellite image analysis that you do.
If you do, I wouldn't know it, since you've attempted to use a methodology which you say rests on incorrect assumptions in order to prop up your conjecture that some of those images come from deep underneath the photosphere, without even being able to demonstrate that said photosphere is transparent to the extreme UV light captured by the imaging systems. In other words, your "satellite image analysis" seems to be based upon nothing more than your guesses about what's in those images, and not upon any valid scientific premise.quote:
I can prove that too since you cannot and will not explain that RD image from Lockheed in a way that makes scientific sense.
You refused to allow me to explain things to you fully, instead jumping to wild and unsupportable conclusions about what I might have meant by any of a number of statements. It's your problem that you refuse to understand the science, not mine. You, who despite being listed as a co-author on a paper about the abundance of various elements within the Sun, cannot do a simple calculation of the abundance of one of them.quote:
I expected a lot more from you in terms of a scientific refute than I got from you.
I don't know why you expected me to "refute" something when I've been asking you for evidence of your claims. Actually, in light of the fact that you refuse to provide evidence for many of your claims, I consider them to be self-refuting.quote:
This is not a scientific disproof of Manuels' work.
You're right, because I still don't really care about Manuel's work since you have failed to demonstrate that it necessarily means that there's a solid surface within the Sun.quote:
This is not a scientific disproof of Birkeland's work.
You're right, because you have failed to demonstrate that Birkeland's work means that there's a solid surface within the Sun.quote:
This is not a scientific refute of Bruce's work.
You're right, because you have failed to demonstrate that Bruce's work means there's a solid surface within the Sun.
Mozina, the solid-surface part of this is yours, and yours alone. I have seen nothing which indicates that Birkeland or Bruce or Manuel (before you came along) suggested that their work means that there is a solid surface anywhere near 0.995R. Quit trying to blame them for your failures of logic, evidence and science.quote:
This is pure appeal to authority fallacy, plain and simple.
You're right, since you're appealing to the authority of Birkeland, Bruce and Manuel instead of providing the requested evidence yourself. |
- 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 - 02/04/2006 : 19:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Talk about not being attentive to detail, sheesh. From what I've read, Birkeland's model was of a conductive cathode sitting in a gas. Since the standard solar model posits that the Sun is a plasma, then it is, necessarily, a conductor, and it's surrounded by a plasma of much lower density. In other words, where it's important, the standard solar model is no different from Birkeland's model (except where he thought his model also explained the rings of Saturn).
quote:
It's sitting right next to a Yohkoh image that look very similar.
Bananas look similar to plantains, but they're not the same thing. |
- 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 - 02/05/2006 : 15:03:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You just don't have any answers, do you?
Actually, a few of them I do have answers for, but first I'd like an answer from you about the isotope analysis. Creationists tend to ignore isotope analysis. I've noticed that gas model theorists, and those with no scientific background also ignore the isotope analysis. This however is unacceptable in a serious scientific debate about competing theories. If you intend to continue this debate in a scientific manner, you'll have to address the isotope analysis. Otherwise this is really just denial on your part, plain and simple.
If the sun is mass separated as isotope analysis suggests (keep in mind that Manuel's analysis of the isotope evidenceis not isolated to an individual) then current gas model theory that insists the sun is not mass separated is falsified. We can quibble about mass separated plasmas vs. solids after you address this issue. Is the isotope analysis valid, or can you find fault in the analysis that insists the sun is mass separated?
If you won't answer this *single* question I keep putting to you over and over again, what in the world makes you think I personally owe you anything?
The fact you fail to accept that fact that *all* of Birkeland's experiments involved a solid metal sphere is pretty indicative of the denial process that is going on inside your head at the moment. I can't make you acknowledge the fact that *every single image* he took involved solids and gases. That is however a fact.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 15:14:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
None of which demonstrates that you are a computer scientist.
Yada, yada, yada. If this wasn't such an *obvious* appeal to authority fallacy, followed by a lot of personal huffing and puffing, it wouldn't be so sad. Is this the best arguement you have Dave? Somehow you've gone back to attacking the messenger and appeal to authority fallacies rather than answering any direct questions put to you.
You claimed that Kosovichev demonstrated that the gas model predictions were accurate to within 2%. That was your claim. I asked you two very specific questions about this claim that you have avoided like the plague, just like you have avoided the mass separation issue entirely. I've even shown you how these two issues are directly related, and I asked you two very specific questions that demonstrate exactly *how* they are related. Specifically I asked you how Kosovichev determined what the material is made of, and how he determined this. You have steadfastly refused to answer these two simple questions. Why? They are two very straight forward questions that related *directly* to the density issue. You were the one making the claim that Kosovichev demonstrated all this. You now need to provide evidence of how he did that. Can you do this or not, yes or no?
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 15:22:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Actually, a few of them I do have answers for, but first I'd like an answer from you about the isotope analysis. Creationists tend to ignore isotope analysis. I've noticed that gas model theorists, and those with no scientific background also ignore the isotope analysis. This however is unacceptable in a serious scientific debate about competing theories. If you intend to continue this debate in a scientific manner, you'll have to address the isotope analysis. Otherwise this is really just denial on your part, plain and simple.
We already answered the issue of the isotope analysis. You said it does not support your wild speculation about the sun having a solid surface. Or were you lying when you said that?quote:
If the sun is mass separated as isotope analysis suggests (keep in mind that Manuel's analysis of the isotope evidenceis not isolated to an individual) then current gas model theory that insists the sun is not mass separated is falsified. We can quibble about mass separated plasmas vs. solids after you address this issue. Is the isotope analysis valid, or can you find fault in the analysis that insists the sun is mass separated?
No, you said solid. "Quibbling" about plasma vs. solid is this: Plasma is not solid. If it's plasma, you are just plain wrong about it being solid. No quibbling involved. And since you've already acknowledged that the isotope analysis does not provide evidence of a solid surface, then we've all already dealt with that, and we can put it behind us and move on. Or, were you lying when you said that?quote:
If you won't answer this *single* question I keep putting to you over and over again, what in the world makes you think I personally owe you anything?
It's not other people's job to answer questions about your silly wildass guess. It's your claim. It's your job to prove it. If you weren't so lazy and unwilling to do that you wouldn't have to keep trying to shift the burden of proof back to other people. Get off your lazy ass and prove it or admit you can't. Simple as that.quote:
The fact you fail to accept that fact that *all* of Birkeland's experiments involved a solid metal sphere is pretty indicative of the denial process that is going on inside your head at the moment. I can't make you acknowledge the fact that *every single image* he took involved solids and gases. That is however a fact.
You haven't shown that Birkeland believed the sun had a solid surface. You've been asked to do that and you've refused. Until you provide a Birkeland quote and indicate your source, maybe a link to your specific reference, and include a page number or other method for us to verify that a solid surface sun was indeed Birkeland's conjecture, nobody in the world has any reason to accept your constant unsupported claim that it was. Now, are you going to do your job and provide those references, or are you going to continue to demonstrate that you're just too damned lazy to prove your silly guess?
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 15:27:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Yada, yada, yada. If this wasn't such an *obvious* appeal to authority fallacy, followed by a lot of personal huffing and puffing, it wouldn't be so sad. Is this the best arguement you have Dave? Somehow you've gone back to attacking the messenger and appeal to authority fallacies rather than answering any direct questions put to you.
No evidence there, other than more evidence that Mozina is a whiner.quote:
You claimed that Kosovichev demonstrated that the gas model predictions were accurate to within 2%. That was your claim. I asked you two very specific questions about this claim that you have avoided like the plague, just like you have avoided the mass separation issue entirely. I've even shown you how these two issues are directly related, and I asked you two very specific questions that demonstrate exactly *how* they are related. Specifically I asked you how Kosovichev determined what the material is made of, and how he determined this. You have steadfastly refused to answer these two simple questions. Why? They are two very straight forward questions that related *directly* to the density issue. You were the one making the claim that Kosovichev demonstrated all this. You now need to provide evidence of how he did that. Can you do this or not, yes or no?
And not a speck of evidence there either. Again Mozina has the unmitigated gall to believe that it's the responsibility of other people to support his silly fantasy. You do the work, Michael. Prove the sun has a solid surface. Stop your ridiculous tactic of trying to pass it off on other people. If you can't do it, bail out and shut up. If you can, then get up off your lazy ass and do it.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
