|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2006 : 22:23:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Your point?
That I've stopped taking you seriously awhile ago.
Is that supposed to be news to me? I assure you that the feeling is mutual. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2006 : 22:46:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Lies on top of lies. I never defended any politicization of science, and I never defended anything about helioseismology.
You know Dave, you have this really bad habit of tossing out the L word and tossing out the F word just for the effect. It's annoying, and it's counterproductive to a serious scientific discourse. Even if you feel I've misrepresented you in some way, you've done it to me a million times. I don't whip out the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" routine with you over it. I don't swear at you. I don't pull any of that crap on you. Knock it off.
quote:
I asked you, many times, to provide evidence for your assertion that helioseismologists assumed a density value, and you failed to provide any such evidence.
And I asked you many times to provide any evidence it was actually "meauured" directly and you failed to do so as well.
quote:
You seem to be under the impression that the standard solar model is "all other models." It is not, especially since there are several different versions of the "standard" solar model to begin with.
Show me one that accounts for that stratification subsurface at .995R.
quote:
The RD images only falsify the gas models if you deny what the RD images show.
You have that backwards. They falsify the gas model if you observe what the RD images show.
quote:
For example, I measured the differential solar rotation in the SOHO RD movie you've got, and you utterly failed to address that point.
You did not. What differential rotation are you talking about?
quote:
That doesn't make your model correct.
Maybe not, but it makes it "more correct" than the current solar theory.
quote:
None of that makes your model correct. You don't seem to understand that first you've got to show that your model is correct, and then show that it is better than all the other models.
No one has ever demonstrated that the gas model theory is correct Dave. You are "assuming" this to be true, and then expecting me to do what has not been done with other solar theories. I can only show you the direct evidence that supports a Birkeland solar model to the exclusion of the current gas model since those are the only two model that have been presented. I have presented a comprehensive explanation that includes a detailed explaination of the RD images. That's never been done for gas model theory. Demonstrate that gas model theory is viable as it relates to these images.
quote:
Which is completely backwards from what you need to do to support your model.
Man, I'm damned if I do, and I'm damned if I don't around here. I can and have shown you evidence that both supports a Birkeland solar model with a rigid crust while falsifying contemorary solar theory in form of RD and Doppler images. I've presented them and explained them in great detail, whereas you ignored these images, you didn't explain them in any detail using any other solar model. Still you sit there and and claim it's "not enough". Anyone can play that game Dave.
The rest of this looks to be a rehash, and this thread is getting hijacked into solar theory which is far from the authors original intent. I didn't come here to discuss my solar model. 7 or 8 threads of this juvenile abuse was plenty for me thanks. I've been posting on the livescience forums more recently. You are welcome to join the discussion, but you'll probably be asked to check your surly attitude at the door.
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=468660&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=
If you wish to defend BB theory in this thread, go right ahead Dave. Start by showing any evidence that favors a bang over a slam. You might notice that I'm not asking you to "prove" BB theory first *before* trying to compare it to other options. If I held you to your standards, you'd never get off the ground. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/15/2006 22:48:49 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 05:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
How about the sun having a solid iron surface at 6,000C? That I believe violates some laws.
Yes, that probably would. Luckily I never suggested any such thing.
Oh, excuse me I should have said iron ALLOY. Gee, that changes everything.
quote:
quote:
How about a shell of this iron in equilibrium around a neutron star? Don't know of any physical laws that would allow that.
You've never heard of magnetic fields and pressurized plasma?
Er, yes I have heard of these things. Your iron alloy shell is still just absurd bullshit.
quote:
quote:
How about energy from neutron to neutron repulsion? That is a new madeup law.
No. It's not a law, it's technically a theory with some observational support. It violates know known laws of physics.
Yes, it is not a law and it is not a theory it is unsubstantiated conjecture like the rest of your 'ideas'.
quote:
quote:
Then there is your theory about photons having mass. That pretty muchly violates relativity.
They certainly do have "relativistic mass" and carry momentum from one place to another, not that has anything at all to do with the solar theory I've presented.
You said your theories don't violate physical laws. You have stated that the 'missing mass' in the universe is to be found in photons, this would violate relativity, understand?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 07:27:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They certainly do have "relativistic mass" and carry momentum from one place to another, not that has anything at all to do with the solar theory I've presented.
You'll note that objects moving at relativistic speed have not shown any evidence of behaving like heavier bodies. The increase in energy of an object moving at relativistic speed can be related to mass. The object does not actually undergo some sort of structural change.
Also, regarding iron. IIRC, iron has the highest binding energy of any element. Once we hit iron, it becomes more profitable to extract energy by fission. This is why stars extinguish. As more fusion occurs, it becomes less and less profitable and eventually the stop fusing. This would occur long before we create large amount of iron in stars, I suspect, as a fusion reaction needs to be better than break-even to sustain itself.
Iron in stars? Probably. Lots of iron? hmm ... evidence? |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 08:01:11 [Permalink]
|
| Didnt you hear, MM told us that the iron was already in the stars to begin with as he claimed that the first stars in the universe also had iron shells. It didnt require fusion you silly goose. |
"...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 - 06/16/2006 : 12:00:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Oh, excuse me I should have said iron ALLOY. Gee, that changes everything.
BZZZT. Strike two. Try again.
You know the real "psuedo-science" going on here is your failure to pay attention. Did you even read my first paper? Do you want to guess again at the surface temperature?
quote:
Er, yes I have heard of these things. Your iron alloy shell is still just absurd bullshit.
It's these little juvenile comments that make this place annoying.
quote:
Yes, it is not a law and it is not a theory it is unsubstantiated conjecture like the rest of your 'ideas'.
Evidently you never read any of the four papers I've published. I suppose that is hardly surprising.
quote:
You said your theories don't violate physical laws. You have stated that the 'missing mass' in the universe is to be found in photons, this would violate relativity, understand?
Hello? What part of moving and flowing "relativisic mass" don't you understand? What physical "law" have I violated by observing this moving and flowing "relativistic mass" that carries momentum and moves energy from one area of the universe to another? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/16/2006 12:02:30 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 13:12:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
MM said:
It's these little juvenile comments that make this place annoying.
This is really annoying:
quote:
What physical "law" have I violated by observing this moving and flowing "relativistic mass" that carries momentum and moves energy from one area of the universe to another?
Listen, dumb ass, you said that the 'missing mass' in the universe is photons.
So are you now stating that photons do not have any rest mass, and that you were wrong?
I am going to go out on a limb here but my guess is you will not. I suppose you will start babbling on about Birkeland, mass separation, or dark energy. You have been shown over and over that you are just plain wrong but you will never believe it will you...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 13:18:09 [Permalink]
|
It turns out that Stephen Hawking and Pope John Paul II had a discussion about the beginning of the universe, and that the Pope had warned scientists not to study that beginning: quote:
The physicist, the pope and the birth of the universe
Stephen Hawking describes discussions with John Paul II
Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 4:30 p.m. EDT (20:30 GMT)
HONG KONG, China (AP) -- Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.
The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn't realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.
"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.
Galileo ran afoul of the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century for supporting Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun. The church insisted the Earth was at the center of the universe.
In 1992, John Paul issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."
Hawking said the pope told the scientists, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."
The physicist, author of the best seller "A Brief History of Time," added that John Paul believed "God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand."
John Paul insisted faith and science could coexist. In 1996, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he said that Darwin's theories were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."
But Hawking questioned whether an almighty power was needed to create the universe.
"Does it require a creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe determined by a law of science?" he asked.
Hawking's groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe has made him one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end.
The scientist uses a wheelchair and suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a neurological disorder. But he said people shouldn't let physical disabilities limit their ambitions.
"You can't afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically," he said. "People won't have time for you."
Hawking must communicate using an electronic speech synthesizer, and he was asked why he used a voice with an American accent.
"The voice I use is a very old hardware speech synthesizer made in 1986," Hawking said. "I keep it because I have not heard a voice I like better and because I have identified with it."
But the 64-year-old Hawking said he's shopping for a new system because the hardware is large and fragile. He also said it uses components that are no longer made.
"I have been trying to get a software version, but it seems very difficult," he said. "One version has a French accent. I said if I used it, my wife would divorce me."
. . .
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2006 : 19:58:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
...it's counterproductive to a serious scientific discourse.
What's counterproductive to a serious scientific discourse is your misrepresentations of current scientific theories, your redefinitions of scientific terms, your denials of facts, your refusal to present an actual solar model, your inability to answer questions which follow directly from your "theory," your revisionist histories of prior statements and your overall inability to engage in scientific discourse to begin with.
Case in point: you wholeheartedly accept Kosovichev's measurement of "density stratifications" just below the Sun's photosphere, but reject Kosovichev's measurement of density just below the Sun's photosphere. It's a clear case of cherry-picking the data to match your preferred conclusion and thus an anti-scientific attitude.
A second case in point: without using the word "liar," you call me a liar when I said I measured differential solar rotation in the SOHO RD movie you present as evidence of "uniform motion" of your alleged "solid surface." Being accused of lying doesn't bother me at all, since the evidence that I'm not lying resides right here in the SFN forums. What's interesting about this is that after claiming that I did not measure differential solar rotation, you - in the very next sentence - ask me what I meant by that. So it really doesn't matter what I say (because you clearly don't understand), you'll just deny that I said it. Do you get this, Michael? I'll say it again: you didn't know what I was talking about, but you were sure that I didn't do what I said I did. How stupid do you think I am, Michael, that I'd miss that? For the record, I'm referring to this:quote:
quote:
[I said:] For example, I measured the differential solar rotation in the SOHO RD movie you've got, and you utterly failed to address that point.
[You replied:] You did not. What differential rotation are you talking about?
And you're again telling me that I am assuming things which I am not. This seems to be a simple case of projection, since you appear unwilling to even attempt to understand the current theories that you dismiss, and instead shred strawmen of your own creation. You're the one who assumes that Kosovichev didn't measure density. You're the one who assumes that current solar theory makes no successful predictions. You're the one who assumes that everything acts as a blackbody radiator. You're the one who assumes that "Z-axis motion" might have a significant effect on our avergae solar density measurements. You're the one making tons and tons of incorrect assumptions, Michael, and so you also assume that everyone else, just like you, makes tons of incorrect assumptions. It isn't true, but you'll also assume I'm just blind to my own biases (just like you are).quote:
I've been posting on the livescience forums more recently. You are welcome to join the discussion, but you'll probably be asked to check your surly attitude at the door.
So, after praising the SFN staff for allowing a massive open dialog to take place, you invite me to a forum where just my attitude may get me censured? Riiiiight. I looked at the thread over there that you linked, and found plenty of people calling you an idiot, (mostly) just not using the word "idiot" to do so. You still aren't engaged in a serious scientific discussion over there, either, due to the same problems I listed at the start of this post. Running from the problems in your "theory" doesn't make them go away, Michael, even if your critics are more polite to you than they were here.
And so, due to all of the above, I'm not going to make the attempt to engage you in a disucssion of the merits of the Big Bang Theory. You have proven yourself to be unable to discuss any matter scientifically, and so all available evidence tells me that whatever effort I might make will be for naught (though being a proper skeptic, new and compelling evidence may change my mind). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 08:16:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Iron in stars? Probably. Lots of iron? hmm ... evidence?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
I read some of it. Seems like you just assume you are right and everyone else is wrong. The few pages I read had no compelling evidence. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 11:55:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Listen, dumb ass, you said that the 'missing mass' in the universe is photons.
It is precisely this sort of juvenile behavior, based on willful ingnorance that makes this place boring, predictable, and a complete waste of time.
You won't even be bothered to try to understand the solar model I've actually presented. Instead you build strawmen that stem from your own ignorance and you throw in ad hominems just for the effect. Instead of trying to listen to what I've said, or attempting to grasp the concepts I'm trying to present, you go right for the ad hominems. You're essentially a one trick pony furshur. Yawn....
quote:
I am going to go out on a limb here but my guess is you will not. I suppose you will start babbling on about Birkeland, mass separation, or dark energy. You have been shown over and over that you are just plain wrong but you will never believe it will you.
I'll believe you the first time you or anyone else comes up with a serious gas model explanation for RD images that isn't essentially "Those consistent patterns are all an optical illusion". I'll believe you when someone explains how coronal loops can be more brightly lit than every other part of the corona, and still be "cooler" than the material outside the coronal loops. I'll believe you when you can explain to me what heats the corona. Then I'll believe you.
I can explain what I see in satellite images using a Birkeland model. No one yet, in over a year of debating these ideas with people from all over the world has anyone explained even the first image on my website using gas model theory that has been even remotely attentive to detail.
Instead, I end up discussing these issues with juvenile individuals like you that won't even take the time or make the effort to understand the solar model I've presented, including the actual surface temperature in a Birkeland model before "yanking a guess out of thin air", building a strawman, and then stuffing in some ad hominems for the effect. That isn't science furshur, that's teenage behavior and ignorance at it's worst. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 12:00:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
I read some of it. Seems like you just assume you are right and everyone else is wrong. The few pages I read had no compelling evidence.
You'll find plenty of compelling evidence on my website, including that first RD image by Lockheed Martin. If you disagree with my assessment, how about explaining that image and be attentive to detail. What is the lighting source for instance? Why are the patterns in the image consistent over the length of the video? Why are these patterns consistent over such a long timeline even though the granuals of the photosphere boil and cycle themselves out of existence in roughly 8 minutes? What is the cause of the CME? What is the effect of the CME on the patterns, and why wouldn't an "equal and opposite reaction" be seen in the patterns of the image?
It's easy to dismiss evidence as less than "compelling" if you never attempt to explain the images in question using gas model theory. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 12:39:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What's counterproductive to a serious scientific discourse is your misrepresentations of current scientific theories, your redefinitions of scientific terms, your denials of facts, your refusal to present an actual solar model, your inability to answer questions which follow directly from your "theory," your revisionist histories of prior statements and your overall inability to engage in scientific discourse to begin with.
You know Dave, the more we talk, the less impressed with you I become. Your whole "show" amounts to bullying in the final analysis. I guess you figure that if you hurl enough insults at me that others will think that you might be right. Your strategy may even work with some percentage of ignorant individuals. Skeptics however come in all flavors. Most aren't nearly as egotypical and personal in their approach as you and furhur and HH. I think some will even be offended by your "style".
I'm frankly insulted by the last part of that comment. I've enjoyed some of our discussions and I've learned some things along the way. I'm not sorry that I went through this process here because I did learn what I needed to learn along the way to be able to "take it to the next level". It was also "stimulating" for awhile. Now however it's pretty clear that you simply insist on "ruling the roost", by insults, rude comments, lies, strawmen and intimidation. You need to make sure everyone knows you're in charge, and you'll be as insulting as you wish, swear out of the blue just for the effect, hurl ad hominems galore in paragraph after paragraph, even when I'm trying to "play nice" and you continue to ignore the data altogether.
Note for the record that you never once had the balls to stand up and offer a comprehensive explaination for the very first image on my website using any other solar theory. Never. Don't think that act of pure cowardace went unnoticed by me Dave. It stuck out like a sore thumb in fact.
I think I'm pretty much done here now. If anyone wants to discuss these issues or any other astromomy questions with me "scientifically", without all the ego posturing and insults, I recommend that you join one of the "grown up" discussions over at uplink.
http://uplink.space.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2006 : 13:33:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
It turns out that Stephen Hawking and Pope John Paul II had a discussion about the beginning of the universe, and that the Pope had warned scientists not to study that beginning: quote:
The physicist, the pope and the birth of the universe
Stephen Hawking describes discussions with John Paul II
Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 4:30 p.m. EDT (20:30 GMT)
HONG KONG, China (AP) -- Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.
The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn't realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.
"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.
The Vatican Briefing was held before Hawking wrote A Brief History of Time, because the story of the lecture is in there. It's been a while since I read ABHoT, I don't recall if the book says when it happened. |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
