|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2006 : 23:11:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Neptune and Uranus much thicker atmosphere, Saturn a huge atmosphere, and Jupiter the greatest accumulated mass in its atmosphere of the planets. Do you recognise a pattern here? The larger body, the greater fraction of the planet's mass is light elements.
The 'pattern' I recognize is that according to a heliocentric/gravity only based sense of reality, bigger bodies *seem* to be less dense.
Not only that they *seem* to be less dense. They are measured to be less dense. The average density of Saturn is less than that of water at 20°C at normalised pressure. It's easily calculated from it's mass and volume, both which can be measured.
quote:
You are essentially "guessing" at the actual composition of these bodies based on this faith in a heliocentric/gravity only sense of reality.
Is this where I have to insert your standard "acceleration by Birkeland currents and dark matter" into the equations?
If that case, I will not accept your explanation, because you have not provided the extraordinary evidence necessary to throw out standard astro-physics.
quote:
It turns out however that when we dropped a probe into the Jupiter atmosphere, it was both hotter *and* more dense than predicted.
http://astro.sci.muni.cz/pub/galileo/first_science_summary.html
quote:
Initial results include the detection of upper atmospheric densities and temperatures that are significantly higher than expected. An additional source of heating beyond sunlight appears necessary to account for this result.
Ok, so a prediction of the atmospheric composition was a bit off, and that made the expected numbers deviate from what was measured. It does not in any way affect the average density of Jupiter. Are you suggesting that the solid iron surface of Jupiter has a greater radius than astronomers think, and that Jupiter just like the sun is a hollow globe?
quote:
So far all I see is a lot of faith in a heliocentric/gravity only model of reality that doesn't seem to jive with other observations at NASA. It doesn't jive well in terms of what forces draw stars together, nor does it jive with the atmospheric predictions vs. actual observations of Jupiter. That's the only pattern I see.
What I see is you jumping to conclusions as to the reason for the anomalous observation of the forming star you linked to. I for one prefer to withhold my judgement until more data is collected. Obviously, the NASA scientists feel the same way, since they didn't name the source of that extra force (which could be dark matter, couldn't it? You're the one claiming that 90% of the universe is dark matter. That is 10 times the gravity of the matter that can be seen, which leaves no room for Birkeland Currents what-so-ever). |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/21/2006 23:16:13 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 08:12:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There's simply no point in doing a point by point reply to this post. We're hung up on two issues.
I would not presume to answer for Dave, but I think actually there is only one main issue that people are hung up on. That would be the completely unsupportable conjecture that the sun has a solid surface. The issue is that your model is absurd.
There is no point even discussing it with you because there is NO amount of evidence or reasoning that will EVER change your mind. It is you against the world. NASA is wrong. The astrophysics community is wrong. JPL is wrong. Lockheed is wrong. Everybody is wrong except you (well, you and few other nuts and flakes). You will go to your grave convinced that you are right. This is why you get banned from different sites. I assume that as time goes on fewer and fewer people will respond to your fantasies until you fade away.
Here's to hoping...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 10:37:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I would not presume to answer for Dave, but I think actually there is only one main issue that people are hung up on. That would be the completely unsupportable conjecture that the sun has a solid surface. The issue is that your model is absurd.
What is "absurd" is the fact you personally won't bother explaining even a *single* solar satellite image (the first one on my website) but you'll trash anyone and everyone who shows any confidence in a Birkeland solar model. Oh well.
quote:
This is why you get banned from different sites. I assume that as time goes on fewer and fewer people will respond to your fantasies until you fade away. Here's to hoping...
You obviously don't know me very well if you think I'm going to go away. :)
Only the Bad Astronomy forum (very appropriately named IMO) has seen fit to do a cyber crucifiction routine on my handle. Evidently if you aren't an expert in light penetration through plasma, and you don't jump when the moderators say "jump", this is considered grounds to be crucified at the Bautforum. I was not banned based on the use of vulgar language, or for lack of presenting a cohesive scientific case.
Even Dave agreed that Lockheed Martin made a mistake on their labeling system, yet I was banned in that very thread at the Bautforum. Evidently Dave has a lot more going for him scientifically than anyone on the Bautforum. It's also pretty clear that no one here is so afraid of Birkeland's solar model that they have an emotional need to crucify me for my "heresy". These are the main reasons I've continued to post here for the last few months. I enjoy the debates, and I enjoy the scientific scrutiny, and I appreciate the objections raised. However, I can't simply close my eyes to what I see in satellite images. In over 9 months of debating these ideas in cyberspace, I've yet to once hear a cohesive scientific explanation of the first image on my website using gas model theory that was even remotely attentive to detail. This image is easily explained using Birkeland's solar model (another of those scientists you would label a 'flake' I presume?) but it is evidently not so easily explained using gas model theory.
It's a pity you won't deal with the first image on my website and prefer instead to label scientists like Birkeland, Bruce and Manuel, "flakes". Clearly that is just a self defense mechanism so you can avoid dealing with the actual issues (and images) presented. Again, "Oh Well!". |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 10:57:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Not only that they *seem* to be less dense. They are measured to be less dense. The average density of Saturn is less than that of water at 20°C at normalised pressure. It's easily calculated from it's mass and volume, both which can be measured.
You are "measuring" this desnity using a gravity only/heliocentric concept of "absolute density". While we both agree that works fine in "relative" terms, you have no idea what external factors might influence these "measurements", including Birkeland currents and electromagnetic influences.
Even if this "measurement" turns out to be relatively accurate, as that air bubble inside the water sphere demonstrates, there is no guarantee that a relatively "light" body can't have a solid surface.
Each and every one of these bodies is expected to have heavy elements in it's core. The sun however is considered the single exception to a mass separated rule. Again, it's pure special pleading, and there is nothing about density that automatically precludes the possibility of a 'surface'.
quote:
Is this where I have to insert your standard "acceleration by Birkeland currents and dark matter" into the equations?
It's where I believe Birkeland currents need to be accounted for. As I've said several times now, I find the whole concept of "dark matter" to be rather dubious. It's another of those "mystical" make-believe concepts that 'gravity only' theorists try to throw into the equations when the gravity only model doesn't seem to work right. Since Birkeland currents have been documented both inside and outside this solar system, it's a lot more likely that these affects are related to electromagnetic currents rather than "dark energy" (whatever the *$&%# that is).
quote:
If that case, I will not accept your explanation, because you have not provided the extraordinary evidence necessary to throw out standard astro-physics.
I'm not "throwing out" physics, just heliocentric/gravity only concepts that are clung to by "some" astro-physicists despite growing evidence of a universe that has to be expained in terms of plasma cosmology and Birkeland currents.
quote:
Ok, so a prediction of the atmospheric composition was a bit off, and that made the expected numbers deviate from what was measured. It does not in any way affect the average density of Jupiter.
But the atmosphere was both hotter *and* more dense than expected. Again, you can't rule out the air bubble in a water shell analogy, so even the premise of your objection is not valid IMO. There is still a major problem with both the density and the temperatures are higher than expected. If one was higher and one was lower, you might convince me that blind math forumulas are useful. As it is, the blind math forumulas told us nothing useful about Jupiter as it relates to atmospheric density that we have actually "meausured" by some other means other than a blind math formula.
quote:
Are you suggesting that the solid iron surface of Jupiter has a greater radius than astronomers think, and that Jupiter just like the sun is a hollow globe?
If the sun is a relatively hollow globe, then perhaps any body that reaches a certain size can take on that "structure". I can't rule that possibility out altogether, and neither can you.
quote:
What I see is you jumping to conclusions as to the reason for the anomalous observation of the forming star you linked to. I for one prefer to withhold my judgement until more data is collected.
But the data collected so far, suggests that only 10% (a very small amount) of what goes on in star formation can be attributed to "gravity" alone. The mass is moving at ten times the expected rate in a gravity only model.
quote:
Obviously, the NASA scientists feel the same way, since they didn't name the source of that extra force (which could be dark matter, couldn't it?
What exactly *is* "dark matter" in your opinion? Quantify dark matter for me in some 'tangible' way that isn't ultimately a metaphysical force?
quote:
You're the one claiming that 90% of the universe is dark matter.
No, I used that analogy to make a point only because "dark matter" is an "accepted" concept of current thought, whereas Birkeland currents still seem to be treated as a step child. I don't personally believe in "dark matter" or "dark energy". I believe in dust and light, but I think most of the "missing mass" is not missing at all, it's just that Birkeland currents affect our universe.
quote:
That is 10 times the gravity of the matter that can be seen, which leaves no room for Birkeland Currents what-so-ever).
You'll first have to give me a non metaphysical explanation for dark matter and dark energy that shows some sense of "reality" as it relates to atomic/subatomic particles, and Birkeland currents, things I know actually exist in reality. As far as I know, "dark energy" is nothing more than light, and it's not the main reason we see the formations we see in space. I would assume that Birkeland currents permiate space and affect our sense of "absolute mass". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 12:04:27 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 11:19:11 [Permalink]
|
I dealt with the first image on your website. I find it interesting that only YOU have the power to decern that these pictures and movies show a solid surface. This is not far from the individual who wears a aluminum foil hat because only they can detect the alien signals from outer space.
Yes Dr. Manuel is a flake, quite intelligent but a flake none the less. You should leave poor Mr. Birkeland out of your discussion. His discoveries with relation to the earths aurora were great, so lets just leave it at that.
quote:
You obviously don't know me very well if you think I'm going to go away. :)
Actually, I know you quite well. You are the same as the moon landing hoax people. You are the same as the crop circle people. Like I said it was a hope, unrealistic but a hope none the less.
Facts won't get in the way of the Religion of the Metal Sun.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 11:36:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I dealt with the first image on your website. I find it interesting that only YOU have the power to decern that these pictures and movies show a solid surface.
No, you didn't deal with the image with any attention to any sort of detail. As I recall I got a handwave of an argument that didn't explain squat about that image.
quote:
This is not far from the individual who wears a aluminum foil hat because only they can detect the alien signals from outer space.
Pure smear by association. What a pitiful debate tactic.
quote:
Yes Dr. Manuel is a flake, quite intelligent but a flake none the less.
You know this because????? The fact he's a Dr. of Nuclear chemistry and spent many years teaching nuclear chemistry at the University of Missiouri at Rolla suggests your statement is simply false and based on an emotional need to trash individuals so you don't have deal with the issues scientifically.
quote:
You should leave poor Mr. Birkeland out of your discussion.
Why? It's his model in the first place!
quote:
His discoveries with relation to the earths aurora were great, so lets just leave it at that.
His great "discoveries" were based on the model that you now reject! Get real!
quote:
Actually, I know you quite well. You are the same as the moon landing hoax people.
That just proves my statement. I was nine years old when we landed on the moon, and that was the event that interested me in space in the first place. You just demonstrated that you don't know me at all, just as I stated. You evidently have a need to pigeonhole Birkleand solar model into the "flake" category so you'll smear and trash everyone and anyone who puts faith in Birkeland's solar model. Yawn.
quote:
Facts won't get in the way of the Religion of the Metal Sun.
That's funny. I feel exactly the same way about gas model theoriests. The Bautforum demonstrates that gas model proponents treat the gas model as a "religion". They have a strong need to burn any and all heretics at the stake rather than address the satellite images.
That Lockheed RD image is one of those "facts" you keep trying to wave away with a handwave. Don't lecture me about dealing with "facts" and religious-like zeolotry until you've at least made a real effort to explain some of the details in that first image. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 11:44:12 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 12:14:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What is "absurd" is the fact you personally won't bother explaining even a *single* solar satellite image (the first one on my website) but you'll trash anyone and everyone who shows any confidence in a Birkeland solar model. Oh well.
Comprehensive explanations for your ridiculous misinterpretations of the running difference images have been provided several times by several people in this discussion and in similar discussions on other forums around the internet. There are no structures in those images. The simple, complete explanation is that you're just too stupid to understand what running difference images actually are. The fact that you ignore or reject that much better explanation does not mean it hasn't been provided, many many times in fact.
Also, you haven't once described Birkeland's solar model in a legitimate scientific way. Until you can do that, nobody has any obligation to believe your stupid idea even is related to Birkeland's model.quote:
Even Dave agreed that Lockheed Martin made a mistake on their labeling system, yet I was banned in that very thread at the Bautforum.
You're too stupid to understand that Lockheed didn't mislabel those images, and perhaps the good folks at the BAUT forum just got tired of your inane refusal to learn the simplest thing about it.quote:
These are the main reasons I've continued to post here for the last few months. I enjoy the debates, and I enjoy the scientific scrutiny, and I appreciate the objections raised.
You enjoy posting here because a few people are willing to indulge your silly fantasy. You don't enjoy the scientific scrutiny. You haven't offered anything scientific to scrutinize. And when anyone shows you beyond any reasonable doubt just how poorly you've presented your fantasy or how poorly you've misunderstood all those pictures you've looked at for a long long time, you lie again and claim they haven't addressed the issue. You ignore the objections raised.quote:
However, I can't simply close my eyes to what I see in satellite images. In over 9 months of debating these ideas in cyberspace, I've yet to once hear a cohesive scientific explanation of the first image on my website using gas model theory that was even remotely attentive to detail.
Again, you've seen dozens of excellent explanations of running difference images. And again I'll remind you that you're just too stupid to understand the explanations.quote:
It's a pity you won't deal with the first image on my website and prefer instead to label scientists like Birkeland, Bruce and Manuel, "flakes". Clearly that is just a self defense mechanism so you can avoid dealing with the actual issues (and images) presented. Again, "Oh Well!"
You're a flake. Dr. Manuel is a flake. The images have been dealt with. You believe if someone agrees with you they've dealt with it, but you'll dishonestly claim they haven't dealt with it if they don't accept your silly presentation as evidence. Rejecting your ignorance as evidence isn't a lack of dealing with your silly fantasy. Rejecting your ignorance is good science. You're just too stupid to understand that.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 12:27:08 [Permalink]
|
Well it only took 75 pages to break down to the proper insults, congrats MM you've outlasted many people in this regard. Your theory is lame in every way though.
I have proof that God is trying to fool you in this regard, its all in my image if you know how to interpret it. ALL EVIDENCE FALLS BEFORE THE GREAT IMAGE!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44986 |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 14:28:30 [Permalink]
|
| Well BigPapaSmurf, I don't take any of these pointless insults personally. Birkeland was also ridiculed 100 years ago for his solar model and for his belief in Birkeland currents. It only took 60 years to prove he was right about the current flow in our own solar system and about a hundred years to confirm they exist outside of the solar system as well. It might even take another 100 years to prove he was right about the solar model, but I already have ample visual confirmation of the accuracy of his model, and isotope analysis that confirms that the sun is mass separated as a Birkeland model predicts. I can't ignore isotope analysis because creationists don't "trust" science, nor will I ingore isotope analysis only because gas model theoriests can't handle the data without resorting to ad hominem. All these pointless insults simply demonstrate the irrational nature of some people's faith in the absurd. Some folks can simply ignore isotope analysis when it goes against their faith, but I'm just not one of those kind of folks. I'm just not that emotionally attached to gas model theory, and I can't ignore what I see only because some people are rude and irrational. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 14:38:04 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 15:10:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
His great "discoveries" were based on the model that you now reject! Get real!
Birkeland currents have nothing to do with your hollow spheres floating around in space your mind.
Is the earth hollow too?
Or just the sun? And of course the Gas giants which are improperly named because they have a solid surface which can't be detected because dark matter which is dust and dark energy which is light in conjunction with Z axis acceleration make determining their mass impossible.
Are you Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs(tm)?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 15:22:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Birkeland currents have nothing to do with your hollow spheres floating around in space your mind.
Birkeland used this very model to explain the presense of Birkeland currents in our solar system furshur. For some reason you'd rather ignore the obvious here. His beliefs, and the images he produced in his lab, were produced with an iron terella in a vacuum chamber. This solar model is absolutely a Birkeland solar model. The ignorant laughed at Birkeland in his day as well furshur. It only took us 50+ years to actually demonstrate the existence of Birkeland currents in our own solar system. Maybe it will be another 50 years before the mainstream astronomy community embraces his solar model as well, but eventually, it will happen. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/22/2006 15:24:44 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 15:32:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Are you seriously suggesting that an arc with this sort of geometry:
Is the illumination source for the following images:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes. Then again the arcs in the top image are only the largest arcs, the ones that stick out of the photosphere. Most of these arcs are much smaller and closer to the surface itself.
If the bulk of the major electrical activity is localized to a specific area, then the lighting from the surface will reflect this localized light.
Where is this "localized" arc you're talking about? Why can't we see it in these images? If it's the illumination source as you purport, it should be quite visible. If it's "out of shot" then it's going to have to be some sort of laser beam of iron ions with a beam profile nearly exactly the same shape as your "mountain" in order to achieve the lighting effect of parts 1 and 2 of the collage above. Can you explain this?
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:2. Why does the illumination not grow/move uniformly over the visible frame (don't forget the relative scale differences between the first image and my collage).
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Why would you expect it to grow uniformly in the first place? The local conditions near the surface will dictate when and where the light changes.
Why would I expect it to grow uniformly? You claimed that it was an arc producing iron ions which are reflected from the surface. These arcs (unless you are going to redefine the term) are distributed point sources. "Local conditions near the surface" have nothing to do with when and where the "light" changes. Explain how local conditions near the surface affect the light source itself, which is so far away it can't be seen.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You'll notice that all the lit areas are along the right hand sides of these structures. This is because the plasma covering the surface is moving from right to left and the plasma flowing over the surface features causes greater electrical activity on the "windward" side of the mountain ranges.
I won't notice structures lit from the right hand side because I don't see structures at all. I see a the result of a plasma surface with varying levels of iron ion emission in a runnning difference image. You are the only one "seeing" actual solid structures. Now you've introduced the "wind" effect. Explain how you know there is a wind moving from right to left in these images, what this "wind" is, and how it affects the iron ions coming from the arc light source which we can't see.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
It would seem that the "rays" from the illumination source must be directed in a beam the same shape as the "mountain" itself. It's bright enough to saturate the detector on the mountain peak (which is usually angled and therefeore less reflective than flat parts around it) section of the image, but leave relatively untouched a section directly in between some of the saturdated regions.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I get the feeling that you are expecting only the largest arcs to illuminate the surface. More likely based on what we see it is the smaller, but more intense electrical activity near the surface itself that affects most of the lighting differences from on frame to the next.
By "intense electrical activity" to you mean smaller arcs? It would make life easier if you could use consistent terminolgy. If these arcs are nearer the surface, why don't we see them directly? Can you provide a model for an arc that directs its light (or iron ions) only in a direction which happens to co-incide directly with 3D structures below it?
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
None of these observations make sense for the external, overhead illumination source of being "reflected" off the solid surface as you have proposed.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You neglected to notice all the shadowing going on along the left side.
No I didn't. If they are shadows, why aren't there shadows in the bright arc region of collage sections 1 and 2 corresponding to those that are visible in 3 and 4? There would have to be a directly overhead source in frames 1 and 2 which somehow disappears at exactly the same time as a new source, with the same effective intensity appears somewhere out of frame to the right, producing shadows as in 3 and 4.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I can imagine all of these features being produced quite easily by a plasma surface with varying iron ion emission properties, be it though local temperature, geometry or other methods.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You have a serious problem trying to explain this as plasma, since these structures remain in fixed relationships to one another throughout this multi-hour long video.
Only if you assume they are solid structures in the first place. If I assumed that they were solid, and then tried to explain them as a plasma, then the serious issue I would have would be insanity. I don't "see" solid structures, so none of this is a problem for my explaination , serious or otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The structures of the photosphere are created and destroyed every 8 minutes on average.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:04:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Birkeland used this very model to explain the presense of Birkeland currents in our solar system furshur. For some reason you'd rather ignore the obvious here. His beliefs, and the images he produced in his lab, were produced with an iron terella in a vacuum chamber. This solar model is absolutely a Birkeland solar model.
I have a model of the RMS Titanic on a shelf in my living room, but it's pretty certain that the real Titanic wasn't made from plastic like my model is. People at research labs grow Tinea pedis on a culture base of agar all the time. Not a single one of those researchers believes the flesh and skin of a human foot is made from agar. Of course if you weren't so stupid, or so resistant to understanding legitimate scientific processes, you'd know this. You haven't once presented Birkeland's solar model. You haven't once presented your own. What you have done is to make yourself look too stupid to understand what, in scientifically descriptive, mathematical terms, a solar model actually is.quote:
The ignorant laughed at Birkeland in his day as well furshur. It only took us 50+ years to actually demonstrate the existence of Birkeland currents in our own solar system. Maybe it will be another 50 years before the mainstream astronomy community embraces his solar model as well, but eventually, it will happen.
Your silly fantasy isn't Birkeland's solar model. And your silly fantasy will likely never be embraced by the mainstream astrophysics community. Certainly not if you never actually develop and present a solar model. A solar model is a mathematical description and has nothing to do with your ignorant guessing about a bunch of pictures which you clearly don't yet have the ability (or willingness) to properly understand.
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:07:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It might even take another 100 years to prove he was right about the solar model, but I already have ample visual confirmation of the accuracy of his model,
Your personal interpretation of running difference images at specific wavelengths does not constitute confirmation of a Birkland's model.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
and isotope analysis that confirms that the sun is mass separated as a Birkeland model predicts.
Isotope analysis does not confirm that "the sun" is mass separated. At best some parts of the solar atmosphere would seem to be mass separated. You're solid surface itself isn't mass separated.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I can't ignore isotope analysis because creationists don't "trust" science, nor will I ingore isotope analysis only because gas model theoriests can't handle the data without resorting to ad hominem. ... Some folks can simply ignore isotope analysis when it goes against their faith, but I'm just not one of those kind of folks.
I haven't ignored it either. It has nothing to do with "faith". I simply don't see how it directly supports your model. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:47:42 [Permalink]
|
| GeeMack, are we on for that bet I proposed? Your comments are utterly pointless, pure insult, and they are just plain boring at this point. I thought my proposal for us simply not participating on the same boards was a fair and reasonable proposition. How about we agree to that right now so I don't have to deal with your nonsense for any longer than I have to? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
