Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Astronomy
 Surface of the Sun (part 11)
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 16

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  21:18:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

How is his quote suddenly my fault?
Where does the standard model use blackbody calculations to predict X-ray emissions, Michael? It doesn't. You just made it up, and expect other people to clean up your mess. It takes longer to explain to you why you're wrong than it does for you to dream up these imbecilic things, and I'm not going to bother anymore.
quote:
You are trying to equate total "work" with absolute "truth", and that is simply not possible, and ultimately it's a popularity arguement.
More made-up crap from you.
quote:
I'm not asking for your pity Dave. I am asking you to be reasonable and rational and logical.
I was, and you rewarded me by building strawman after strawman after strawman. In other words, you answered my rationality with illogical garbage.
quote:
There are several hundred papers a month published on Arxiv related to something in astronomy. I, as one individual, could never hope to put in that much time and effort into publishing that many papers per month. It's simply not humanly possible.
Nobody expected that of you personally, Michael, but the fact that you think that someone did is a sure symptom of your persecution complex.
quote:
From my point of view, it's a little hard to tell when it's ok to use the BB emission routine to calculate something related to solar activity, and when it might be "over the top".
That's because you refuse to make the effort to try to understand the model that you claim is wrong, and you also refuse to attempt to understand blackbody radiation. Just like with Big Bang theory or neutrinos, your refusal to make the attempt at understanding the actual theories (instead of your hopelessly flawed caricatures of them) leads you to make these huge scientific gaffes that completely undermine your ability to reach your own goal: making your own theory better.
quote:
Afterall, black body emission theory it's used to calculate or explain everything from the total energy output of the sun, to explaining why sunspots are relatively dark, to rationalizing why coronal loops don't have to be included in total output calculations.
The only thing you got right was the "why sunspots are dark" bit, and I'm sure you don't know why you're wrong about everything else in that sentence. Perhaps someone will take pity on you and explain it all, but even if they do, you'll still reject their explanations in favor of your delusion that you were correct all along.

Maybe you'll figure out this "science" thing someday, but since you think that architects, chip designers, programmers and mathematicians are scientists, I very much doubt it. Just four more ridiculous mistakes on your part, but you've got every confidence that you're correct, and you'll probably even try to defend your goof-ball position by claiming that some of the people in each field really are scientists.


[Edited to add a "Big" in front of "Bang" - Dave W.]

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2998 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  21:46:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
Awww, since I write software for a living I thought I was a computer scientist since I studied computer science (I actually have a degree in Political Science, does that make me a politicial scientist?)

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 08/31/2006 21:46:17
Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  09:24:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...

With all the backpeddling you've been doing recently, you really pegged the irony meter on that one. Like I said Geemack, you're the only individual I've met here that is simply incapable of engaging in intelligent and mature dialog. Everyone else here is able to have an adult discussion without all the "fruitcake" and "idiot" comments in every single post. Only an immature, self centered asshole who completely lacks any self confidence would act as you do. Grow up.
We don't wonder in the least why you always get so outraged when someone brings up the sources of your running difference images and how they come from tens of thousands of kilometers above your allegedly solid surface, Michael. We don't wonder in the least why you refuse to address that issue. You won't touch it. You can't touch it because it proves you're wrong. So time and again you try to create your typical distraction with the name calling and crying. But it's a pretty safe bet you don't have anyone's sympathy here on that count. Wahhh.

Okay, where were we before you so futilely tried to avoid the issue and sidetrack the discussion? Oh, yeah. Since the original 171Å images which were used to produce the running difference output undeniably come from the corona of the Sun, between a couple thousand and tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, how will you go about demonstrating that they show a solid surface which you claim exists thousands of kilometers beneath the opaque surface of the photosphere? Could we get a cogent response and a hearty "thanks for asking" this time perhaps? Or will we just get, as I predict, more avoidance of that issue and another round of whining and insults?
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  10:10:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Maybe you'll figure out this "science" thing someday, but since you think that architects, chip designers, programmers and mathematicians are scientists, I very much doubt it.


This is pretty typical of your "put down" type of commentary. Sure Dave, Andy Grove is obviously no scientist, certainly not of your magnificent calibur. What the hell does a mere chip designer know about science anyway?
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/01/2006 10:15:34
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  11:34:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
We don't wonder in the least why you always get so outraged when someone brings up the sources of your running difference images and how they come from tens of thousands of kilometers above your allegedly solid surface, Michael.


Do you have a mouse in your pocket or something? Since when did "you" become "we"?

First of all, I'm never "outraged" when someone "alledges" that there is some type of percieved problem with my model from a scientific point of view. My "problem" with you stems from your attitude, not the information you are trying to discuss.

quote:
We don't wonder in the least why you refuse to address that issue. You won't touch it. You can't touch it because it proves you're wrong.


I have addressed it a number of times now. I've even presented images to support my case. If you refuse to acknowledge these images, or discuss these images, then there is little I can do to help you. This image however is one of many that demonstrates that *you* are wrong about the placement of the base of the coronal loops:



The blue region is located *under* the photosphere, which is why the x-rays are being absorbed in this region. The yellow tops are where the loops come up through the photosphere and tbey glow brightly in the x-ray spectrum, and these wavelengths are coming from a lighter corona, and are therefore not absorbed. NASA even created an animated movie that I posted here a while back:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/Sunspots.mpg

quote:
So time and again you try to create your typical distraction with the name calling and crying. But it's a pretty safe bet you don't have anyone's sympathy here on that count. Wahhh.


This is the sort of childish nonsense that has no place in our conversation. If you want to have an adult conversation like the rest of us, you can drop the 'tude' anytime you wish. As long as you continue to act like a child, don't expect any respect from me.

quote:
Okay, where were we before you so futilely tried to avoid the issue and sidetrack the discussion? Oh, yeah. Since the original 171Å images which were used to produce the running difference output undeniably come from the corona of the Sun, between a couple thousand and tens of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, how will you go about demonstrating that they show a solid surface which you claim exists thousands of kilometers beneath the opaque surface of the photosphere?


We use the STEREO data as I suggested, and that is in fact why I made these predictions in the first place.

quote:
Could we get a cogent response and a hearty "thanks for asking" this time perhaps?


How about a "thanks for answering" response from you?

quote:
Or will we just get, as I predict, more avoidance of that issue and another round of whining and insults?


The only person that seems to feel the need to be insulting in every post is you. Most folks here have acted in a mature and intelligent way, and have responded in kind to my attempts to keep things civil. Only you feel the need to be personally insulting in every single post. That is very childish behavior on your part, and it's why you and I can't seem to have a decent conversation. How many more personal insults do you intend to hurl my way?

Now if you'd like to do something useful, try sceintifically demonstrating that *every* coronal loop begins and ends in the corona/chromosphere. Be my guest. Just as you would not accept me showing you one image that suggests a loop might begin below the surface of the photosphere, as proof that *every* loop begins and ends under the photosphere, so too, I will expect you to demonstrate more than one image to make your case expecially since in a Birkland model, loops can "start" about anywhere in the solar atmosphere.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/01/2006 11:51:48
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  11:43:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
Michael said:This is pretty typical of your "put down" type of commentary. Sure Dave, Andy Grove is obviously no scientist, certainly not of your magnificent calibur. What the hell does a mere chip designer know about science anyway?

Dave, it is so strange to see you predict that Michael will say something stupid like 'so and so' and then he goes ahead and says it! Either he doesn't actually read the posts or doesn't understand them.
He is so odd....




If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  11:46:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
So in your opinion, it is "stupid" for me to point out that a chip designer that revolutionized the microprocessor industry also has a PhD in chemical engineering? Are astronomers the only "scientist" on the planet?
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/01/2006 11:48:32
Go to Top of Page

upriver
New Member

22 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  13:36:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send upriver a Private Message
quote:

black body emission theory it's used to calculate or explain everything from the total energy output of the sun



BB emission is where a body that is colder(or not) than a ambient radiation is heated by(absorbs) the ambient radiation(could be any source of thermal energy)to a (any)temperature where it begins to radiate at emission level/spectrum characteristic of the temperature of the body. If you were to introduce an object into the universe with no temperature, it would go through this process until equilibrium, or depending on the rate of absorbtion and radiation intensity, meltdown. In the (mainstream)case of the sun it is that the heat from the interior heats the photosphere at a rate such that the energy that is radiated away leaves the photosphere with temperature of 6000K.
The other explanation is that the depth(opacity) of the photosphere produces that spectrum. See below.

From wiki.

"Opacity broadening: Considerable reabsorption of emission line photons, an effect known as opacity, often causes line broadening. The line is broadened since photons at the line wings have a smaller reabsorption probability than photons at the line center. Indeed, the absorption near line center may be so great as to cause a self reversal in which the intensity at the center of the line is less than in the wings. "

Opacity broadening: Its distinguishable from BB by the shape of the curve, specifically the shape of the "wings".
Only condensed matter has a true BB curve.


Plasma spectrum under a magnetic field is called the Zeeman effect.
"The result is that, where there were several configurations with the same energy, now there are different energies, which give rise to several very close spectral lines."
It does not change a BB curve to lines.
So it doesnt change the spectrum enough to invalidate my comparison.


Here is a web page to caculate solar spectral absorbtion. To bad it doesnt go down to 171A.
http://bass2000.obspm.fr/solar_spect.php?step=1
My reasoning is, if the 171A picture is above the photosphere, then there will be absorbtion at 17 to 50nm in the UV spectrum of the photosphere, since in the 171A picture that band is opaque. Any body have photosphere spectrum at those wavelengths?

Interesting paper:
"This paper describes a simplified method for approximating the air-transported
x-ray spectrum from nuclear detonations in the atmosphere.* The early fireball of
a nuclear detonation emits intense x-ray radiation that can be approximated by the
spectrum from a black-body
at a temperature of around 107-108 K.'"
http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1988/3445602805098.pdf#search=%22black%20body%20x-ray%22

Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  13:51:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
quote:
Originally posted by me...

We don't wonder in the least why you always get so outraged when someone brings up the sources of your running difference images and how they come from tens of thousands of kilometers above your allegedly solid surface, Michael.
I have addressed it a number of times now. I've even presented images to support my case. If you refuse to acknowledge these images, or discuss these images, then there is little I can do to help you. This image however is one of many that demonstrates that *you* are wrong about the placement of the base of the coronal loops:
I can't imagine why you continue to completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what other people say. Well, I actually do have a few pretty good ideas. Whenever I mention them you get all whiney and defensive, but as I've explained before, if we knew exactly why you have such a hard time understanding, or if you're just being dishonest on purpose, we would have likely saved hundreds of the comments in these threads. So, relevant? Yes, at least a little. But onward...

No place have I ever made any claims at all about "the placement of the base of the coronal loops". I've stated several times that the light source in the original 171Å images used to make your running difference output "evidence" comes from the corona, a region of the solar atmosphere which exists far above the photosphere. The light source in those images likely spans from a few thousand up to perhaps hundreds of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. I was very specifically talking about those source images. I didn't say anything about your pretty blue and yellow composite, so your response was, in your usual style, a feeble attempt to divert the subject, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But, since you brought it up, your ability to know specific altitudes by looking at two dimensional images has been called into question several times, most recently by Dave if I recall correctly. So it's reasonable at this point to have you prove that we can know the specific altitude of anything by looking at a two dimensional image. There are four pixels inside each of the six tiny green squares in the following image. At what altitude above or below the top of the photosphere are each of these groups of pixels. How do you know that's where they are? And how can we independently use your method to determine the specific altitudes of various pixels in other two dimensional images?


Here is a similar image, also with six small areas outlined in green. At what specific altitude above the top of the photosphere are each of these groups of pixels.


Once you've demonstrated that you can indeed know these altitudes by looking at these images, and explained how your method can be independently applied to other images, then your claim of the image being evidence will carry some weight. Until then, all you have is your statement that it looks like it to you therefore it must true. And that's not evidence. It's an unsubstantiated opinion.
quote:
Now if you'd to do something useful like sceintifically demonstrating that *every* coronal loop begins and ends in the corona/chromosphere, be my guest. Just as you would not accept me showing one image that suggests a loop might begin below the surface of the photosphere, as proof that *every* loop begins and ends under the photosphere, so too, I will expect you to demonstrate more than one image to make your case expecially since in a Birkland model, loops can "start" about anywhere in the solar atmosphere.
And there you go again expecting other people to do the work necessary to support your claim. Once more, because you've only been told this probably a hundred times, and obviously that's not enough times for you to actually understand: You're the one making a claim, Michael. It's your responsibility to prove it. It is not the responsibility of other people to disprove you or to prove the status quo. Oh, and you've also been told dozens of times already, Kristian Birkeland never had a solar model. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders how many times that needs to be explained before it sinks in.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  14:28:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

So in your opinion, it is "stupid" for me to point out that a chip designer that revolutionized the microprocessor industry also has a PhD in chemical engineering?
You said it, Michael: he's got a PhD in engineering. Architects, chip designers and programmers are all primarily engineers, not scientists. Engineers use the information discovered by scientists to try to make life better for everyone. They tend to not be engaged in actual scientific pursuits.

And then there's that poor mathematician you included in your examples. He's sitting there working his formal logics in which things can actually be proven to be 100% true or false, and you claim he's a scientist? His entire world is nothing but abstract definitions. There isn't anything this guy has to do regarding the collection and organization of knowledge of the natural world in order to be a successful mathematician. Science uses mathematics. Mathematics is not a science.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  16:00:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
We


When did you personally become a "we", Sybil? Do you always have to posture for the crowd in every post as well as be rude in every post? Is it rule with you or something?

quote:
don't wonder in the least why you always get so outraged


What 'outrage' are you talking about? The only thing that you do that bugs me is your endless personal attacks in absense of a scientific arguement. It certainly isn't your "science" that bothers me because you have never present any real science to begin with. Your MO Is *bold* accusations, followed by a full retreat when asked to back up your claims. You never back up anything you say with any sort of evidence.

quote:
when someone brings up the sources of your running difference images and how they come from tens of thousands of kilometers above your allegedly solid surface, Michael.


Prove it Geemack. You keep prattling on about the location of these emssions without so much as a shred of evidence to support your case. It's pure huffing and puffing at this point Geemack. You've provided zip in the way to support your claim. Put some evidence on the table and *then* tell me again where the location of these emssions begin, and why you think *all* the light we see in these images can only come from far above the photosphere.

quote:
I can't imagine why you continue to completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what other people say. Well, I actually do have a few pretty good ideas.


Pure trite and utterly unnecessary ego posturing. Feel better now that you've slipped in some underhanded insults into a supposedly "scientific" discussion? That's the juvinile behavior thing in you rearing it's ugly head again.

quote:
Whenever I mention them you get all whiney and defensive, but as I've explained before, if we knew exactly why you have such a hard time understanding, or if you're just being dishonest on purpose, we would have likely saved hundreds of the comments in these threads. So, relevant? Yes, at least a little. But onward...


More juvenile "put downs" that are totally unrelated to our conversation. Like I said, you seem to be incapable of having an adult scientific discussion without the personal attacks. This is another perfect example of you going "personal" in every single post. You don't know the meaning of intellectual honesty, and you don't know how to play fair. You're just a bully with a bad attitude and you're full of hot air. But onward...

quote:
No place have I ever made any claims at all about "the placement of the base of the coronal loops".


Why not? Where does solar moss orginate in relationship to the photosphre and how do you know that this activity occurs at that point in the atmosphere?

quote:
I've stated several times that the light source in the original 171Å images used to make your running difference output "evidence" comes from the corona, a region of the solar atmosphere which exists far above the photosphere.


Prove that *all* of it comes from above the photosphere. Even I claim *some* of it comes from the corona.

quote:
The light source in those images likely spans from a few thousand up to perhaps hundreds of thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.


Why do we only see these emisions above the photophere, and how do you know all of these emissions originate above the photosophere?

quote:
I was very specifically talking about those source images. I didn't say anything about your pretty blue and yellow composite, so your response was, in your usual style, a feeble attempt to divert the subject, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.


Pure boloney. As usual, you're trying to run like hell from the direct observational evidence that blows your ideas out of the water. I picked a very specific image that is specifically related to this issue and I explained how it directly relates to this issue and how I know that it relates to this issue. Deal with my comments and observations like a man, or don't bother me Geemack.

quote:
But, since you brought it up, your ability to know specific altitudes by looking at two dimensional images has been called into question several times, most recently by Dave if I recall correctly.


And? Is that a supposed to be news to me or something?

quote:
So it's reasonable at this point to have you prove that we can know the specific altitude of anything by looking at a two dimensional image.


Bzzt! When did I claim I could do that? I only said I could tell the relationship between the base of the loops, the surface of the sun and the surface of the photosphere by the emission patterns in this image. Nothing like a good strawman to really get things going in the *wrong* direction....

quote:
There are four pixels inside each of the six tiny green squares in the following image. At what altitude above or below the top of the photosphere are each of these groups of pixels. How do you know that's where they are?


Beats the hell out of me. Your squares amount to "tubes" as far as I can tell, extending from the surface and going all the way through the solar atmosphere.

quote:
And how can we independently use your method to determine the specific altitudes of various pixels in other two dimensional images?


No,
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/01/2006 16:03:01
Go to Top of Page

Michael Mozina
SFN Regular

1647 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  16:30:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Michael Mozina's Homepage Send Michael Mozina a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You said it, Michael: he's got a PhD in engineering. Architects, chip designers and programmers are all primarily engineers, not scientists.


Oh, I see. This is another technical "lingo" thing with you. Never mind the fact that the computers most of us are sitting in front of today use microprocessors that are powered by Intel or AMD and these machines are thousands to times more powerful today than a couple of decades ago.

quote:
Engineers use the information discovered by scientists to try to make life better for everyone. They tend to not be engaged in actual scientific pursuits.


So Intel and AMD are not engaged in any scientific persuits of any sort? I'm sure this logic somehow means something to you. Do you mean that engineers are automatically disqualified from being "scientists"?. Is Dr. Manuel a "scientist"? Bruce? Birkeland? Alfven?

quote:
And then there's that poor mathematician you included in your examples. He's sitting there working his formal logics in which things can actually be proven to be 100% true or false, and you claim he's a scientist? His entire world is nothing but abstract definitions.

There isn't anything this guy has to do regarding the collection and organization of knowledge of the natural world in order to be a successful mathematician. Science uses mathematics. Mathematics is not a science.


Whatever you say Dave. You seem to have your own private definitions of "science". When I went to college I studied "computer science" as my major, with a minor in math, but evidently no programmer on earth is actually a bona-fide "scientist" at all. Evidently it's all one giant conspiracy of word play, perpetuted by the colleges and universities of the world to take everyone's money, and confuse the hell out of everyone but you.

You can sit there preaching from your ivory tower if you like Dave, but I'm not buying it.

My point was that science and business thrive on competition. In contrast, astronomy today has become weak, tired and frail because it can't stand any kind of competition, be it EU theory, plasma cosmology or iron sun theories. The astronomical community today doesn't foster competition, rather it does it's very best to stifle any real competition and never let new ideas see the light of day. If you don't buy the dogma, you don't get funded. Even if they hand someone a Nobel Prize, that doesn't mean they'll listen to a damn thing this personal says anyway. Whatever it takes, EU theory, plasma cosmology and iron sun theory have to be discreditied or all the funding channels go up in smoke and the status quo would never be the same again.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/01/2006 16:36:54
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  19:37:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

Oh, I see. This is another technical "lingo" thing with you.
No, it's the English language, Michael. Words have widely-accepted meanings. Engineering is not science. But just like your three meanings for the word "photosphere," you don't give a damn.
quote:
Never mind the fact that the computers most of us are sitting in front of today use microprocessors that are powered by Intel or AMD and these machines are thousands to times more powerful today than a couple of decades ago.
I have little doubt that Andy Grove has some highly skilled semiconductor scientists in his employ, but he wouldn't be where he is without engineers like himself to make use of what the scientists discover.
quote:
So Intel and AMD are not engaged in any scientific persuits of any sort?
Nice false dichotomy you've created there, either "chip design" is a science, or Intel isn't "engaged in any scientific persuits of any sort." I subscribe to neither falsehood, and instead focus upon reality, Michael.
quote:
I'm sure this logic somehow means something to you.
Your illogic means very little to me, actually.
quote:
Do you mean that engineers are automatically disqualified from being "scientists"?.
Way to ignore what I said, Michael, which was that some people in those fields really are scientists - it is your attempt to paint engineering professions as scientific ones which is laughable. Just what is one of the theories of architecture, anyway?
quote:
Is Dr. Manuel a "scientist"? Bruce? Birkeland? Alfven?
Yes, yes, yes and yes, but now you're just trying to distract from the point, which is that you don't know enough about science to name actual scientific professions in a point you were trying to make about science. You failed miserably, and are making an even bigger fool of yourself by using logical fallacies and personal attacks in an attempt to save what little face you've got left.
quote:
Whatever you say Dave. You seem to have your own private definitions of "science".
Hardly, since the definition I'm using is number one on this page.
quote:
When I went to college I studied "computer science" as my major...
Then you should know already that there is still active debate over whether computer science is a science. As Stan Kelly-Bootle is said to have said, "Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing." Just programming is obviously engineering, though. Since the act of coding has nothing to do with learning about the natural world, how could it possibly be a science, Michael?

In my 28 years as a software developer, I've actually written programs for use in real scientific studies, but that didn't make me a scientist. I was just engineering solutions to problems, not creating explanations of observed phenomena. It's funny, but in one of those studies, the scientist running the show tried to write his own code before asking me to help. He really sucked at programming.
quote:
...with a minor in math, but evidently no programmer on earth is actually a bona-fide "scientist" at all.
There's another false dichotomy.
quote:
Evidently it's all one giant conspiracy of word play, perpetuted by the colleges and universities of the world to take everyone's money, and confuse the hell out of everyone but you.
Not at all. It's a mistake of history that things like information services and programming are widely known as "computer sciences." Does that situation need to be fixed? Sure, but I've never known any college to offer a computer sciences degree with the notion that the student will be a scientist after graduation. Heck, anyone who gets only a four-year degree in any science is more likely than not to never be a scientist afterwards.
quote:
You can sit there preaching from your ivory tower if you like Dave, but I'm not buying it.
Your incredulity doesn't much matter to whether architecture is a science, Michael.
quote:
My point was that science and business thrive on competition.
And your point was lost with your assertion that the sciences tend to teach more than one theory. Where is the competition for General Relativity? Where is the competition for particle physics? Where is the competition for electron theory? Where is the competition for evolution? Where is the competition for quantum theory?
quote:
In contrast, astronomy today has become weak, tired and frail because it can't stand any kind of competition, be it EU theory, plasma cosmology or iron sun theories.
Apparently, if it's not competition by things you favor, then it isn't competition. Competition within the astronomical community happen all the time, Michael. Your ignorance of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
quote:
The astronomical community today doesn't foster competition, rather it does it's very best to stifle any real competition and never let new ideas see the light of day.
Oh, so now you're saying that there is a conspiracy.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  19:42:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
We
When did you personally become a "we", Sybil?
Actually, I feel quite comfortable having GeeMack speak for me on these issues. If I don't agree with something he says, I'll let him (and you) know. Until then, you can assume that his "we" includes at least himself and me.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  21:25:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You said it, Michael: he's got a PhD in engineering. Architects, chip designers and programmers are all primarily engineers, not scientists.


Oh, I see. This is another technical "lingo" thing with you. Never mind the fact that the computers most of us are sitting in front of today use microprocessors that are powered by Intel or AMD and these machines are thousands to times more powerful today than a couple of decades ago.

Great way to completely miss the point. Show me how your definition of scientist is any better than Dave's, or any definition from any world class repository of knowledge.

Michael, I have a science degree(*), but I don't call myself a scientist. I use scientific principles all the time, but 98% of what I do is engineering. You make it sound like calling someone an engineer instead of a scientist is somehow demeaning. It's not a hierarchy. I don't feel inferior to scientists, and I doubt most scientist feel superior to engineers. (Of course there will be individuals in both camps who do feel this way, but that's beside the point). Personally I think we'd be stuffed without either group.

Which group do you think most of your "personal heroes" who designed and built the various solar satellites fall into?

BTW, to echo Dave's point, when it comes to the image analysis discussions, I too have no problem with being thrown into the "we" group GeeMack has mentioned.

Before we have to deal with another conspiracy theory, let me point out that I have no personal bias towards nor particular requirement for allegiance with, Dave, GeeMack or anyone else at SFN for that matter. I assure you I would have no hesistation in pointing out any disagreement I may have with any points made by others here. That's what I like about this place.

(*)Edit:
Actually, it's not. I realised I am a science charlatan, my degree is actually a Bachelor of Technology (Optoelectronics), or "B Tech(Opto)" as it's usually abbreviated, to the confusion of almost everyone. (I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has said "oh, so you make glasses".) My class was actually the first to do this particular degree, so we were guinea pigs in many respects. All things considered, "technologist" is probably a much better description for me than "scientist".

John's just this guy, you know.
Edited by - JohnOAS on 09/01/2006 22:01:28
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 16 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.88 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000