|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2006 : 19:09:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You seemed to have missed my point entirely. All we see in relative abundance are the things in the atmosphere. If we tried to used spectroscopic measurements of earth from a distance, we would think it was composed of mostly the things we see in the atmosphere, and we would not know the abundance of elements that are located under the crust.
If we through remote spectroscopy of earth saw nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbondioxide we would conclude that the photosphere of Earth was mostly gasseous.
Next step is measuring Earth's radius, and calculating its volume, then calculating its mass with the help of the lunar orbit, we would have to conclude that there's more to earth than just some gasses.
Now, unfortunately the density calculations could not possibly indicate a rocky planet, because we have not factored in that 90% of the universe is dark matter. Also, the Birkeland currents as well as Sun's gravitational pull (using Einstein's Equivalence Principle) would accelerate the earth. After all, using a geocentric model while calculating earth's desity is based on "realtive" measurements of density. The magnetic field of earth shifts polarity once in a while, wich clearly indicate that the planet cannot indeed be "rocky". So clearly anyone who think they can say anything about earth's interior being "rocky" is clearly delusional. |
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. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 19:45:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
By "atmosphere" in this case I meant everything from the crust up.
When I was little, my family used to vacation in this quaint hotel down by the atmosphere.
No, doesn't work, Michael. Sorry, you can't just make up new definitions of words and expect people to take you seriously.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/14/2006 20:30:35 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 19:45:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Are you suggesting that the net charge of the sun is particularly negatively charged, or that other large sections of the universe are positively charged? This is what would be required for that statement to make sense. I'm not discounting the possibility, but I've seen no model or evidence to support this propostion.
I'm suggesting that the sun is "relatively" negatively charged, yes. Birkeland produced radically different results when the sphere was positively charged.
The term "realtivity" is useless unless you have a frame of reference. If you mean it has a "net" (frame of reference is just the sun itself) negativity, what is the source of the extra electrons or the drain for all the missing protons?
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Manuels work suggests that mass separation occurrs under some conditions and that it is a mechanism which explains some of the isotope abundances we see in meteorites. Nowhere does it imply that the entire sun is "mass separated", especially to the extent you seem to be suggesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Sure it does. Every kind of element shows evidence of mass separation. This isn't limited to "some" gasses.
I'm sorry, but "sure it does" isn't a valid argument. I've read Manuels work. He talks about mass fractionation in the solar atmosphere and as part of a possible explaination for the formation of our solar system. This is not support for your suggestion that the entire sun is mass fractionated.
I think you're getting confused over your own terms here. "Every kind of element shows evidence of mass separation" does not make sense. Firstly, what is a "kind" of element? Secondly, in what context does every element show this evidence, and what is the evidence in the first place?
Much of Manuel work described how mass separation processes in the past may have led to the observed relative isotopic abundances in meteorite and moon rock samples. The contents of the samples are no longer mass separated (and were not at the time of the analysis). This does not imply that anything in particular is mass separated now.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Both your and Manuels' work depend to some degree upon mass separation. Really, that's about as far as the direct support goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Both of us "observed" mass separation. I did so via satellite technology. Manuel observed this in mass fractionization patterns of various elements. These are not simply "models", these are "observations" of mass separation, and I would be happy to show you evidence of mass separation at the chromosphere/penumbra/umbra delineation layers.
Manuel did not "observe" mass separation. He measured relative isotopic and elemental abundances and proposed mass separation as a part of the explaination for these measurements. I could study the same samples and suggest an alternative theory that aliens put the mixtures together that way because thats the order they should be in according to their alphabet. This does not mean that I have "observed" alien atomic sorting.
Your observations are different. You are observing something more directly, namely satellite imagery of certain parts of the solar atmosphere. You have analyzed difference imagery (which shows what is changing / moving) at a very specific wavelength and interpreted it as showing what is unchanged for a bulk material, posited as a solid.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Apart from the fact that it works quite well,
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It doesn't "work well" IMO. It is mostly a "theory" that has "some" very limited support, but is mostly based on special pleading and assumptions that go against the mass fractionization evidence, and the satellite images.
It doesn't work well if you are right which is definately special pleading. Be careful with words like "mostly" and "some". Apart from being vague, they seem to be inappropriate in the context of all the evidence. I'm not trying to prove a point by popularity, but I think "some" support is more than a little biased.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
and explains the scientific, empirical measurements routinely made by astronomers/chemists/physicists.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Most of these "measurements" are predicated on "faith" in the "belief" that the sun is not mass separated.
No, the measurements are based on the actual data from the instruments that recorded them. Based upon the measurments (not faith) a model was developed and further measurements were taken and an iterative process of model refinement begins. Do you really believe the model was developed with the direct assumption that "the sun is not mass separated"? This conclusion was reached (if at all) after observational confirmation, not as a precursor to theoretical develomkent and observsation.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
These mass fractionization patterns, and these satellite images suggest that this basic assumption was incorrect right from the start.
Which mass fractionization patterns? (Be specific, these threads have covered a lot of ground, and I honestly have no idea here if you're talking about your imagery observations, Manuels meteoritite sampling, |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 20:16:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've shown you running difference images of fixed structures that don't move even over the span of many hours.
I'm going to post some more imagery related stuff later, but the above comment highlights what I believe is the major flaw in Michael's imagery analysis.
That which is highlighted in a running difference image is the difference (whod've thunk it?). What remains the same from image to image (like say, a solid surface) is [b]removed[b].
I'm posting a link to some software I whipped up to illustrate this. Anyone is more than welcome to download it and have a play with it. It kept me amused for a couple of hours putting it together this morning.
You can get the software here.
Below is an screenshot from my software. (There's a bigger version here) Lets say everything in image 1 is solid, except for the 0, which is an opaque cloud floating some unknown height above the surface. It has moved very slightly in image 2. Never mind, our running difference imagery ought to get rid of that pesky cloud and show us those lovely letter shaped mountains on the surface...
Hang on, what happened? It looks like only the cloud has been highlighted.
I'm nowhere near vain enough to believe that my miniscule effort posted here is anywhere near as sophisticated as those of the TRACE program, but I believe the principles are the same. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 20:48:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
It looks like only the cloud has been highlighted.
It looks to me like only the edges of the cloud have been highlighted.
But of course, you're neglecting the "fact" that there are all sorts of "lighting changes" occuring within the RD images, not to mention "erosion," which somehow go into the "correct" interpretation of those images (which seems to begin by assuming that they're from 3,480 km - or 4,800 km depending on mood - below the photosphere).
On a more serious note, it's always seemed to me that Lockheed's description of the "gold" video as an RD movie is incorrect, due to the "glow up" of the background in the beginning and the long duration of transient instrument artifacts throughout. Due to those particular facts, I'm left with the impression that it's actually a running average movie. (Since Michael claims that Lockheed has disclaimed all knowledge of how the movie was put together or by whom, it's quite easy to see that their description might be wrong.)
Michael also posits that he knows which raw images went into making that movie, but hasn't seen fit to share those data with us. The date and time given here (under heading "Coronal Mass Ejection") gets us in the ballpark, but not close enough to attempt to duplicate the movie using various algorithms. Especially since Michael claims the movie covers only three hours, but many of the same gross features appear in the raw data more than six hours before and after the times in the description. |
- 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 - 02/14/2006 : 21:22:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
All I was pointing out Dave is that most of the hydrogen on earth is molecularly bonded to a heavier element.
Then why didn't you say so?quote:
By "atmosphere" in this case I meant everything from the crust up...
H. is correct: if you're going to redefine terms, you've got to let people know about it. Same thing with "penumbral filament layer," "umbra layer" and "solar moss layer." Along those lines, this sentence from your website:That visible layer we see with our eyes is more commonly known as penumbral filaments. is simply false, as the only person calling the great majority of the photosphere the "penumbral filament layer" is you, Michael. One out of six billion does not make something "more commonly known." Such redefinitions do little but confuse things.quote:
...and most of the hydrogen on earth is found in the ocean, bonded to oxygen molecules.
Well, since you've got such strange ideas about what spectroscopy is capable of, I suppose it's obvious in your private universe that aliens would completely miss the huge "water" signal in their spectroscopy of the Earth.quote:
You seemed to have missed my point entirely. All we see in relative abundance are the things in the atmosphere. If we tried to used spectroscopic measurements of earth from a distance, we would think it was composed of mostly the things we see in the atmosphere, and we would not know the abundance of elements that are located under the crust.
Which is why we don't rely on spectroscopy alone to tell us the contents of the Sun, just like we'd never rely on it alone to tell us the composition of the Earth.quote:
All these emission and absortion lines tell us is what elements are present in the upper atmosphere.
You're quite wrong here with respect to Earth, and for evidence of your mistake I can provide several photos of the Earth taken from space and even the Moon which clearly show that light does, indeed, penetrate all the way down to the surface, interact with molecules there, and bounce all the way back through the atmosphere changed by what it's interacted with. For example, the logo in the upper-left hand corner of this Web page has one such image as its background. Or are you going to tell me that the brown and green markings in that photo are only "present in the upper atmosphere?"quote:
None of that tells us anything about what is underneath the photosphere.
Oh, good! Then because SERTS is a spectrometer ("Solar Extreme Ultraviolet Research Telescope Spectrograph"), you will agree that its readings of iron ions do not come from below the photosphere, and only comes from the "upper atmosphere" of the Sun.quote:
But the problem here is still not addressed. You can't use spectroscopy from a distance to determine what the earth is actually made of, or it's relative abundance of elements (in total). It won't work to show the relative abundances of element because of the crust and the fact that nothing is going to shine from under the crust. If you can't determine the makeup of a planet using this technology, then it's quite a leap of faith to believe you can tell anything about the relative abundances of elements in a sun.
You apparently missed the point, which is that spectroscopy is only one of many tools which, working together, allow us to find out anything about the interior of the Sun. But, since you've committed scientific sepuku by calling into question the statements in an article you co-wrote, and further by saying that SERTS can tell us nothing about what's below the photosphere, I'm more than happy to let you wallow in ignorance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 23:07:29 [Permalink]
|
Holy crap... this is still going on?
And here I though Bill was the most delusional recent addition to the SFN.... I think mozina is going to kick Bill's ass in this contest though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 06:35:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Holy crap... this is still going on?
And here I though Bill was the most delusional recent addition to the SFN.... I think mozina is going to kick Bill's ass in this contest though.
Nope. Bill has Gawd on his side. Mike seems to have some grasp of the subject he's talking about. Based on the analysis that I can do, I don't believe his conclusions are supported. I will have to defer to others here on the nuts and bolts of the thing as I am no expert in cosmology or astrophysics. Mike truely believes that Sol is mass seperated. There has been some talk of a solid surface, but his evidence is tenative at best. His coining of new terms is most disturbing as it takes quite a while to determine what he actually means by the term. Almost malapropism of the highest order. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 08:01:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Holy crap... this is still going on?
"Surface of the Sun" has now pretty-much tied "Did Jesus Really Exist" for long, multi-thread topic contention.
However, I'm not sure they're the tops. There were some "Humor" threads which went pretty long in terms of total pages, and if I remember correctly, the "Bad Astronomy Bitch Board" threads were popular, as well. Both of those were prior to @tomic's 15-page limit edict for a single thread, so proper comparisons would require page counts, really. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 08:14:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
According to Dr. Manuel, the magnetic field is generated by the sun's nuetron core. It could also be caused by large quantities of metals in the presense of cosmic scale Birkeland currents.
Question is... Do you subscribe to this theory? How important is the neutron core to your model? If it isn't a neutron core, then what? |
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. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 08:59:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Question is... Do you subscribe to this theory? How important is the neutron core to your model? If it isn't a neutron core, then what?
I think his theory is as good as any theory of what is inside the crust. Since I can't see inside the crust, and there is a "iron shell" around this "star", it could very well be a small neutron star with an iron shell. It certainly has a rotating magnetic core as one might expect in such a model, and there are many reasons to believe that is a valid option.
Personally I'm not as emotionally attached to the idea as Dr. Manuel, and I began with (and still defend) a fission based core. If there isn't either such core at the middle of our star, maybe it has something to do with the odd behaviors we see in spheres in space and maybe there's even a high pressure plasma of some kind that is very thin in comparison to the shell area:
http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/2005/911509phflong.mov
This kind of model has advantages in that you don't need much in the way of electromagnetic influences to explain "absolute density". :)
As I said, I'm not really emotionally attached to anything under the crust since I can really only see from the crust through the atmosphere, not what is beneath the visible crust. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/15/2006 09:00:19 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:01:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Holy crap... this is still going on?
"Surface of the Sun" has now pretty-much tied "Did Jesus Really Exist" for long, multi-thread topic contention.
However, I'm not sure they're the tops.
Ya, but I'm just getting started. We haven't even seen the STEREO data yet. :)
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:03:24 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer said:
quote:
Mike seems to have some grasp of the subject he's talking about.
Please don't say Michael knows what he is talking about; he has no clue as to what he is talking about. Here is a short list of his completely unsubstantiated conjectures. When I say unsubstantiated I mean his ‘evidence' is along the lines of; “I believe” or “IMO” or “maybe”. The concept of using data, math or evidence to support a claim is completely foreign to Michael. The list could be huge but I don't feel like wasting that much of my time. Almost every post he has shows a lack of knowledge about astronomy, physics, math, and science in general.
The short list.
1. Dark matter interferes with our ability measure the mass of the sun.
2. The sun is accelerating and so we cannot measure it's mass
3. Dark matter is photons
4. Electric arcs are going from one area of the sun to another.
5. The oceans are part of the earth atmosphere
6. Most of the hydrogen and helium signature come form the chromosphere and corona of the sun
7. He can ‘see' mass separation in satellite images of the sun.
8. If the relative amounts of metals in the earth is different than the relative amounts of metals in the sun, then these two bodies may not be accelerated equally in the z axis.
9. The sun is negatively charged
10. You cannot determine the density of an unknown material without touching it.
Michael can use terms like: heliosiesmology, plasma, spectroscopy, and chromosphere, however when he tries to use these words in a sentence it usually is nonsensical. Don't mistake the use of these terms with any level of understanding. He has been shown by many people on this site (and others) that his conjectures and guesses are wrong, yet he completely dismisses them and continues to repeat them without a shred of evidence.
A student with 1 semester of astronomy FAR surpasses the sum total knowledge that Michael has about this subject.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:05:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Nope. Bill has Gawd on his side. Mike seems to have some grasp of the subject he's talking about. Based on the analysis that I can do, I don't believe his conclusions are supported. I will have to defer to others here on the nuts and bolts of the thing as I am no expert in cosmology or astrophysics. Mike truely believes that Sol is mass seperated. There has been some talk of a solid surface, but his evidence is tenative at best. His coining of new terms is most disturbing as it takes quite a while to determine what he actually means by the term. Almost malapropism of the highest order.
Wow Valiant Dancer. Thank you. That's not exactly a resonding "he's right", but I truely appreciate the fact that you "defended me" none the less. :) Thanks.
When we get more into the images themselves, I'll show you plenty more evidence of a solid surface, and show you evidence that the arcs come from that solid surface. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:13:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think his theory is as good as any theory of what is inside the crust.
Except there is no evidence of a crust and that theory does not explain where the suns energy comes from.
quote:
Since I can't see inside the crust, and there is a "iron shell" around this "star", it could very well be a small neutron star with an iron shell.
There is no evidence of a crust. There is no evidence of an iron shell. A small neutron star would mean the sun would have to have a mass of at least 1.4X more than is indicated by it's gravity. Having a neutron star surounded by gas and/or and iron shell would violate several phyical properties.
quote:
It certainly has a rotating magnetic core as one might expect in such a model, and there are many reasons to believe that is a valid option.
The magnetic field of the sun clearly does not indicate a neutron star. This is not a valid theory.
This is a theory that I would expect a group of 18 year olds to develope at 4:00am in conjunction with a bong.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
