|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2006 : 20:33:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Well, technically these particular currents would tend to push or pull bodies against one another. I do however agree, I need to get busy with some balkpark OOM figures. It won't happen this weekend since I'm helping a friend move, but I will work on it for you. I'll most likely use the "air bubble/water shell" analogy since that's the one you prefer and it would likely require a much smaller current flow to explain it's acceleration.
Well technically what is it, push, or pull? And shall we go back and find all the other places where you've claimed you'll work on something then let it completely slip your mind? So this time, for once, how about you don't forget the question, "Then why don't you produce some numbers on how much these currents are accelerating planets and the sun?" And don't worry, we'll remind you when you ignore it over and over again like you always do.  quote:
Well, I'm frankly a little skeptical about the skeptic's perogative in this case. :)
Well frankly you'll eventually need to get over that, Michael. You certainly seem too stupid to understand this, because it's been explained over and over again, but on the off chance that you can, just for a moment, rise above the intelligence level of a moron, here goes again: Unless you can show clear, quantitative, calculated, and/or properly referenced evidence of a claim, that claim will be rejected outright. Without your supporting it with legitimate evidence, it is only a string of words you've pulled out of your ass. And if you continue to make a claim without backing it with solid, legitimate evidence, then you're lying.quote:
We already know that there are Birkeland currents we must account for, large and small, both inside and outside of our solar system. These forces remain uncounted for in simplistic concepts of "density". We can all clearly see that.
Actually that's not true. We can't all see that. You continue to claim that, but have yet to demonstrate by way of evidence that your claim is valid. Note my comments above where I explained how if you continue to claim something as true without providing legitimate evidence, that makes you a liar.quote:
The problem here in a nutshell is that none of us have a clue how much current might flow through the sun and Jupiter and the smaller bodies of our solar system. About the only thing I can really do is "speculate" mathematically. Even still, I think I'm getting closer to finally understanding how I might represent these forces mathematically, even if it's really a "guestimate", no matter what figure I pull out my back pocket. :)
It's very doubtful that you'll ever come up with anything mathematical to support your claim. You've sidestepped that sort of work repeatedly. Most of the time your threads got closed on the BAUT forum it was because you claimed to be working on an answer to such a problem. Then instead of ever providing an answer, you simply opened new threads and continued your babbling. You're very consistent about avoiding your responsibility to support your fantasy.
And by the way, you've tried to sidestep your responsibility to explain running difference images, too. You're racking up quite a score on refusing to back your silly fantasy, Michael. Remember?...If you do believe those "structures" are solid, you'll have to explain it. You explain specifically and quantitatively how those running difference images are created, and how, of all the running difference images of the Sun, those thousands that look a little like light and shadow but clearly aren't showing physical structure, you explain how those tiny few of yours are made differently. You explain exactly, in detail, the programs used to create those videos. You explain why hundreds of thousands of people understand running difference images, yet not a single one of them believes those graphs and charts actually show structure. That's your job, and until you do it, running difference images, every last one of them, can be simply discarded from your pool of "evidence". Oh, and while we're on the subject of your ignoring pertinent issues, there are these other details you've been trying so hard to avoid for so long...
Since about 18:30 on 02/22, you have blatantly and intentionally ignored the following basic concerns 12 times: If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. If you can't define the solid surface which you believe exists on the Sun, any of your continued claims about that solid surface will be accepted as nothing more than your own nonsensical fantasy. 
|
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 21:08:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Since about 18:30 on 02/22, you have blatantly and intentionally ignored the following basic concerns 12 times:
LOL! Sometimes you peg the irony meter and really tickle my funny bone! You have yet to address *any* of the details of even the very *first* image on my website, yet you seem to think I personally owe you something? Get over yourself.
You stated that *everyone* understood running difference images but me. When I asked you to explain just one single solitary little solar running difference image, you began with a denial campaign straight out of The Wizard of OZ. "Pay no attention attention to that structure in the image". Come on! Do you really think anyone is really buying this BS?
You are so far out of your comfort zone at this point, all you can do is hurl pointless insult after pointless insult and hope like hell that nobody notices how childish are you acting right now. Grow up. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/24/2006 21:20:24 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 21:33:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
LOL! Sometimes you peg the irony meter and really tickle my funny bone! You have yet to address *any* of the details of even the very *first* image on my website, yet you seem to think I personally owe you something? Get over yourself.
You stated that *everyone* understood running difference images but me. When I asked you to explain just one single solitary little solar running difference image, you began with a denial campaign straight out of The Wizard of OZ. "Pay no attention attention to that structure in the image". Come on! Do you really think anyone is really buying this BS?
You're a liar, Michael. Here's where I provided a thorough, detailed, comprehensive analysis of your running difference images. Not only are you a bald faced liar, you're too stupid to have understood my analysis or any of the several others that have been provided in these threads. By now it's pretty clear to everyone reading these postings that you're the only one who can't explain them. After all, you've completely ignored your responsibility to address the issue in any legitimate way...If you do believe those "structures" are solid, you'll have to explain it. You explain specifically and quantitatively how those running difference images are created, and how, of all the running difference images of the Sun, those thousands that look a little like light and shadow but clearly aren't showing physical structure, you explain how those tiny few of yours are made differently. You explain exactly, in detail, the programs used to create those videos. You explain why hundreds of thousands of people understand running difference images, yet not a single one of them believes those graphs and charts actually show structure. That's your job, and until you do it, running difference images, every last one of them, can be simply discarded from your pool of "evidence". So have at it, dumbshit.quote:
You are so out of your comfort zone at this point, all you can do is hurl pointless insult after pointless insult and hope like hell that nobody notices how childish are you acting right now. Grow up.
You're a deluded fool, Michael. You've developed a ridiculous fantasy about some solid surface on the Sun, and you've been so incapable of providing evidence that all you can do now is whine and cry. You're not mentally healthy. I'm not the first to suggest you probably need some serious help.
But, in the spirit of good sportsmanship, let's try one more time to see if you can offer anything more than another little bitchy whining tantrum and actually address some of these issues of concern...
Since about 18:30 on 02/22, you have blatantly and intentionally ignored the following basic concerns 13 times: If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- 0.01 g/cm3.
Describe the material composition of your surface, listing each element that makes up any more than 5% of the solid layer, and state each one's proportion to the whole within a range of +/- 5%.
Calculate the density, composition, pressure, and thermal properties of the materials that must make up the interior of your Sun in order to support the solid surface you defined according to the above specifications.
Create a solar model and present it here in this forum.
Show where Birkeland postulated an iron shell surface on the Sun. In other words, present Birkeland's solar model as a mathematical scientific description. Provide specific relevant quotes, cite the reference source(s), and include page numbers. If you can't define the solid surface which you believe exists on the Sun, any of your continued claims about that solid surface will be accepted as nothing more than your own nonsensical fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2006 : 13:27:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5675&whichpage=2#86265Here's where I provided a thorough, detailed, comprehensive analysis of your running difference images.
Your so called "detailed, comprehensive analysis" amounts to nothing more than a denial routine that sounds like something straight out of the Wizard Of OZ. "Pay no attention to those structures in the image". Get real!
Just as I predicted, you did not address even a single specific detail of the image, not one. You never even addressed or even ackowledged the structures in the image! You didn't explain what caused them, or why they are there, how they got there, ect. You never addressed the material drifting right to left, or the peeling affect on the right. You never explained why these structures remain relatively stationary compared to the structures of the photosphere, etc. All you did is toss out someone else's software subroutine, flaunt your precious little ego, and go headlong into a pure denial routine. If that is your best effort at satellite image analysis, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself. You can't explain even the basics of these images, even with the help of a whole planet full of folks to help you that you claim understand this image. Who do you think you're fooling anyway?
If you won't give us any real explantions for anything in the image, give your ego a rest now and let the grown ups have a "scientific" conversation in peace. Your behavior is just juvenile at this point and everyone can see it but you. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/25/2006 13:28:59 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2006 : 15:20:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Your so called "detailed, comprehensive analysis" amounts to nothing more than a denial routine that sounds like something straight out of the Wizard Of OZ. "Pay no attention to those structures in the image". Get real!
First of all, it's not my fantasy, it's yours. I'm not the one with the delusion, you are. I'm not the one who made a totally stupid, totally unsupportable claim, you did. I don't have any obligation to explain your idiotic fantasy, you do. And your continued refusal to do so only shows you're a lazy lying asshole.
And, although it was never my responsibility to explain your piss poor excuse for evidence, I have explained it, in detail, several times now. I explained how running difference images are made. I showed examples of the source images and the results of the running difference comparison. I described the time, date, and approximate location of the particular images about which you're throwing the tantrum. I provided a sample of the programming code used to create the graphs. And I showed, to any sane, intelligent, clear thinking person, that running difference images do not show any of the "structure" that you think you're seeing. That's far, far more than you've done.
But just for the record, let me explain one more time. There are no structures in those images, therefore your incessant demand that other people explain them is simply a dishonest tactic on your part. Unless you recognize that, you'll always be wrong and everyone else will always be right. There, you've had sand kicked in your face once more. Get used to it because it will happen again and again, for the rest of your life, as long as you cling to your stupid delusion.
All you've done so far is repeat how there's something in that video that looks like a solid structure to you. That's it. That's all you've done. You haven't explained in quantitative detail how it can, in fact, be determined as structure. You've failed completely to support your claim, yet you continue to stick to it. That makes you a liar. You're a lazy, dishonest, smart mouthed prick. And obviously you still can't get it through your head that it's your claim, therefore it's your responsibility to prove it.quote:
Just as I predicted, you did not address even a single specific detail of the image, not one. You never even addressed or even ackowledged the structures in the image! You didn't explain what caused them, or why they are there, how they got there, ect. You never addressed the material drifting right to left, or the peeling affect on the right. You never explained why these structures remain relatively stationary compared to the structures of the photosphere, etc. All you did is toss out someone else's software subroutine, flaunt your precious little ego, and go headlong into a pure denial routine. If that is your best effort at satellite image analysis, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself. You can't explain even the basics of these images, even with the help of a whole planet full of folks to help you that you claim understand this image. Who do you think you're fooling anyway?
The more appropriate question would be, who do you think you're fooling? Once more, with feeling: It's your claim. It's your responsibility to prove it. You explain the images, idiot. Not my job. You haven't done it yet and probably won't.
You've claimed massive flaws in all areas of contemporary astrophysics, yet haven't spent a moment trying to explain those "flaws" or how they might be corrected. You've badmouthed all the people at NASA and all the people LMSAL. You've lied to everyone here, dishonestly accused everyone of not considering your "evidence". In essence, you've treated everyone here like shit. Nobody owes you any more diplomacy, respect, or consideration after your badgering, belittling tantrums. We've all been extremely patient, certainly way more indulgent than you deserve.
You've been stomping around here for over 500 posts, mostly just whining and bitching. You've spent hundreds of those postings doing nothing but crying and complaining, and all because you've got shit for evidence, you're a bald faced liar, and not just me, but everyone here keeps busting your sorry ass. Think about how many people have called you a liar. Do you really think Baby Mikey is right and the whole rest of the world is wrong? Think about how many people have accepted even a mote of your "evidence". Doesn't that tell you anything about how badly you've failed? You're an idiot, Michael, a total loser. quote:
If you won't give us any real explantions for anything in the image, give your ego a rest now and let the grown ups have a "scientific" conversation in peace. Your behavior is just juvenile at this point and everyone can see it but you.
It's your job to prove your claim. It's your job to explain the things you consider "evidence". Unless you're too stupid, too lazy, or maybe you've simply bailed out on your nutty claim, you can cover these details...If you do believe those "structures" are solid, you'll have to explain it. You explain specifically and quantitatively how those running difference images are created, and how, of all the running difference images of the Sun, those thousands that look a little like light and shadow but clearly aren't showing physical structure, you explain how those tiny few of yours are made differently. You explain exactly, in detail, the programs used to create those videos. You explain why hundreds of thousands of people understand running difference images, yet not a single one of them believes those graphs and charts actually show structure. That's your job, and until you do it, running difference images, every last one of them, can be simply discarded from your pool of "evidence". You've shit on Dave W. several times now by expecting him to explain your lack of evidence. And you've still got Dr. Mabuse's question, "Then why don't you produce some numbers on how much these currents are accelerating planets and the sun?" hanging over your lazy head. You've shit on him already and my bet is you'll shit on him, again. You must have a serious problem that drives you to fish for all that indulgence, revel in all that yackety-yak about your stupid fantasy, and keep trying so hard to string everyone along playing your little entertain-Mikey's-fantasy game. I'm sure you've noticed I'm not willing to indulge your insanity. I'm calling you stupid because you haven't shown us otherwise. I'm calling you lazy because you are. I'm calling you a liar because you are. And I'm calling you an asshole because there's not a more succinct way to describe a lazy, lying, contemptible jerk like you.
Now, unless you've abandoned your claim that the Sun has a solid surface, and it certainly looks like you have, because all you seem to have left now is your incessant bitching, how about we |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2006 : 16:04:03 [Permalink]
|
You won't find "enlightenment" by burying your head in the sand GeeMack. You won't understand why I favor a Birkeland solar model over the gas model, unless you are willing to actually analyse the images that I have analysed, and pay attention to detail. Like all observation, you won't find enlightenment by ignoring the observation altogether. That is all you've done. By not explaining the structures, or the details of this image, you only demostrate quite conclusively that your supersized ego bit off *way* more than it could chew. You can't handle the truth so you hide from it. Yawn. All your ego huffing and puffing only demonstrates to me what a child you are, and that your ego is motivated by a desire for gratification at other people's expense. Oh well. I've never been intimidated by blow hards. I've learned that when the gloves come off (in this case scientifically) they never have much to show. That's exactly what happened here. The curtain has been pulled back from your little show, and you keep trying to pull the curtains closed again and yelling louder. You're making a fool of yourself at this point, and lots of people see it. In fact, you're really only fooling yourself. As far as I'm concerned, your whole show is totally busted. You can't explain even the first *detail* of the very first image on my website. Of course you can't understand me, or why I favor Birkeland's solar model. You are simply ignorant of how I came to that conclusion and damn determined to remain ignorant for all time. Be my guest. I'm totally unimpressed with your best efforts at solar satellite image analysis.
It would be a "rational" thing to suggest that my "interpretation" of the *cause* of these "structures" was wrong because......
It is not rational to say "Structures? What structures"?
Your actions are no longer rational, but driven by emotion. Your whole show just got busted. You're just bound and determined to be the last one to realize it because you think by closing the curtains again, nobody will notice you did just what I said you would do, and ignored every important observation that can be made from that image.
Ok, great Oz of the ego, you go right ahead and pretend no one pulled back the curtains on your show, and you keep hurling the childish insults if that is what you ego needs to feed itself. It's a pity you can't have an honest or scientific conversation, but when you begin the denial routine with "Pay no attention to observation", no enlightenment can occur. You seem intent on remaining in the dark for all time. If you won't look at these images honestly, and consider these observations carefully, I really can't help you. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/25/2006 16:10:17 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2006 : 17:27:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You won't find "enlightenment" by burying your head in the sand GeeMack. You won't understand why I favor a Birkeland solar model over the gas model, unless you are willing to actually analyse the images that I have analysed, and pay attention to detail.
No, dipshit, you're wrong again and you're lying again. First, you are absolutely not favoring a Birkeland model of the Sun, mainly because you don't have the slightest idea what Birkeland's model was. And second, it's your job to do a proper scientific analysis on what you claim as evidence, and so far that only amounts to your misunderstanding how running difference images are created, for what purpose, and what they represent. Your pitiful excuse for an "analysis" has been shown time and again to be incorrect. And all your stomping around and insisting isn't going to change that. quote:
Like all observation, you won't find enlightenment by ignoring the observation altogether. That is all you've done. By not explaining the structures, or the details of this image, you only demostrate quite conclusively that your supersized ego bit off *way* more than it could chew.
You've demonstrated, fairly conclusively, that you're too stupid to understand that it's your job to support your own wacky fantasy. Your constant demand that everyone else explain it is pure bullshit. You explain it. You sure haven't yet.quote:
You can't handle the truth so you hide from it. Yawn. All your ego huffing and puffing only demonstrates to me what a child you are, and that your ego is motivated by a desire for gratification at other people's expense. Oh well. I've never been intimidated by blow hards. I've learned that when the gloves come off (in this case scientifically) they never have much to show.
You haven't presented anything scientifically yet. Not a single thing. 100% of your "evidence" is based on some pictures you looked at for a long long time, absolutely don't understand, and refuse to explain in any quantitative, scientific way.quote:
That's exactly what happened here. The curtain has been pulled back from your little show, and you keep trying to pull the curtains closed again and yelling louder. You're making a fool of yourself at this point, and lots of people see it. In fact, you're really only fooling yourself. As far as I'm concerned, your whole show is totally busted. You can't explain even the first *detail* of the very first image on my website. Of course you can't understand me, or why I favor Birkeland's solar model. You are simply ignorant of how I came to that conclusion and damn determined to remain ignorant for all time. Be my guest. I'm totally unimpressed with your best efforts at solar satellite image analysis.
Again, I certainly won't take any responsibility for the fact that you're too stupid to understand my analysis. But everyone else did, so that suits me just fine. Oh, and what you consider to be less than adequate analysis, beats the crap out of your total and complete lack of analysis, now doesn't it? quote:
It would be a "rational" thing to suggest that my "interpretation" of the *cause* of these "structures" was wrong because......
It is not rational to say "Structures? What structures"?
It would be rational for you to explain those "structures", since after all it's your crazy fantasy you're trying to support. How about you do just that?If you do believe those "structures" are solid, you'll have to explain it. You explain specifically and quantitatively how those running difference images are created, and how, of all the running difference images of the Sun, those thousands that look a little like light and shadow but clearly aren't showing physical structure, you explain how those tiny few of yours are made differently. You explain exactly, in detail, the programs used to create those videos. You explain why hundreds of thousands of people understand running difference images, yet not a single one of them believes those graphs and charts actually show structure. That's your job, and until you do it, running difference images, every last one of them, can be simply discarded from your pool of "evidence". As much as you try to push the burden of proof off onto other people, at least some of us are going to throw it right back where it belongs, in your lap. And we still await your explanations of the above issues.quote:
Your actions are no longer rational, but driven by emotion. Your whole show just got busted. You're just bound and determined to be the last one to realize it because you think by closing the curtains again, nobody will notice you did just what I said you would do, and ignored every important observation that can be made from that image.
Ok, great Oz of the ego, you go right ahead and pretend no one pulled back the curtains on your show, and you keep hurling the childish insults if that is what you ego needs to feed itself. It's a pity you can't have an honest or scientific conversation, but when you begin the denial routine with "Pay no attention to observation", no enlightenment can occur. You seem intent on remaining in the dark for all time. If you won't look at these images honestly, and consider these observations carefully, I really can't help you.
I don't want your help. I never asked for your help. You're the one who is asking everyone for help, demanding that everyone else do your work for you. Why don't you get up off your lazy ass and learn to help yourself? You keep forgetting you're the one who made the unsupportable claim. You're the one who's supposed to do the work necessary to prove it.
Now where were we? Oh yeah, you were crying like a little girl and refusing to prove your claim. Here's a thought, you stop shitting on Dr. Mabuse and answer this question, "Then why don't you produce some numbers on how much these currents are accelerating planets and the sun?" After that perhaps you'll stop ignoring some of the other important details...
Since about 18:30 on 02/22, you have blatantly and intentionally ignored the following basic concerns 15 times: If the Sun has a solid surface, it has specific, clearly describable properties. It has a thickness, a temperature, a material composition, and a density, among other characteristics. Specify the thickness of your surface within a range of +/- 3000 km.
Specify the temperature of your surface within a range of +/- 2000°K.
Specify the density of your surface within a range of +/- |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2006 : 19:22:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yawn....
Indeed. I go away for a few days, and there's six new pages of thread to be read, none of which have anything from you in terms of actual support for your model (but quite a bit of griping and demanding that others explain something or other for you). I'll just hit some lowlights...quote:
You've never demonstrated that this massive amount of light *cannot* penentrate a plasma you've yet to even identify.
It's your damned model, Michael, so it's up to you to identify the plasmas and their densities. Besides which, I've already demonstrated that EUV light cannot penetrate even 100 km of thinner Earth atmosphere, which is why TRACE is in orbit and we can't just point an EUV camera at the Sun from the ground.quote:
Your arguement about making me prove we can see the light through the photosophere is a bit analogous to both of us seeing lightning from a distance. You refuse to believe it's lightning until I can demonstrate personally and mathematically demonstrate that visible light will propagate the air molecules from that distance.
Your analogy is false. My asking for evidence that the plasmas in your model are transparent to EUV light is analogous to us having an EUV photo of a lightning strike, and you claiming that there is a cloud of neon and silicon plasmas between the camera and the lightning strike, but refusing to provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of the cloud, the first step towards which might be to demonstrate that the plasmas in the cloud you posit are transparent to EUV light. If the plasmas in your model are not transparent to EUV light, Michael, then the TRACE images cannot be from below them.quote:
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.
Then tell us how those external factors influence the measurements, or quit talking about it as if you know they're capable of changing the measurements by orders of magnitude. You can't have it both ways.quote:
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...
No, you're simply ignoring the fact that in the standard model, the heavy elements do sink towards the core. It just takes them a hell of a long time to get there.quote:
...and there is nothing about density that automatically precludes the possibility of a 'surface'.
No, the relative density of the Sun precludes the idea of a neutron-star core or a fissile-material core.quote:
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.
So what? The alleged failure of another model does nothing to support your model.quote:
His beliefs, and the images he produced in his lab, were produced with an iron terella in a vacuum chamber.
You've got evidence that it was made of iron? Again, as far as I was able to tell, his model was of a conductor in a thin gas, which is exactly what the Sun is, even without an iron surface.quote:
This solar model is absolutely a Birkeland solar model.
Where in Birkeland's model is there a neon plasma?quote:
The ignorant laughed at Birkeland in his day as well furshur.
They also laughed at the Bozo the Clown (thank you, Carl Sagan).quote:
Maybe it will be another 50 years before the mainstream astronomy community embraces his solar model as well, but eventually, it will happen.
So the veracity of your model isn't up for debate after all. Knowing that no amount of evidence will convince you that your model is wrong takes a load off my mind, Michael. Since I now know that there isn't a chance in hell of getting through to you in a scientific manner, I don't need to bring any science to this discussion. I need do no more research, since you know that whatever I might find will either agree with Birkeland's model or it will be wrong. This, coupled with your refusal to define your terms or use them consistently, demonstrates concretely your inability to take part in an actual scientific discussion.quote:
But unlike the structures in the photosophere, these aren't moving around every 8 minutes. How do you explain that? Why don't we see obvious movement in these structures over such extended time frames?
I was on an airplane earlier today which went throuhg a nice patch of turbulent air. The captain, on the intercom, explained to us that cloud-tops (where we were) tended to be turbulent, and just a thousand feet above them was smooth air. In other words, your insistence that if the photosphere is turbulent then the lower corona must be, also, is an unsupported assertion which you must demonstrate to be true.quote:
That is the only legitimate objection I've heard to a Birkeland model. Period...
The rest of what I've heard amounts to zip in the way of a scienfic rebuttal or a scientific explanation of either the isotope analysis or the satellite images.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 15:10:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I'm the only one on earth I've personally heard explain these images in any detail using any solar model...
No, you didn't explain *THE* as in Lockheed's running difference image *at all*...
I agree that Dave did some interesting initial analysis, but he didn't offer much in the way of explaining the structures of the running difference image, or the light source, and you haven't either for that matter...
John's starting to discuss the image now as well. We'll see how he does and Dave does and you do...
All of your responses quoted above come from this thread, so it's more than fair to say that a number of us have attempted to explain the gold RD video.
It would seem that there are only 2 options:
1. Agree with you that there are mountains in the Lockheed gold RD video.
2. Have arguments ignored, or be accused of not explaining things to your satisfaction.
If this is the case, that's fine, I can accept that, please just openly admit that you have an unshakeable faith in your "model" which nothing can change because you "see" the mountains and we can stop discussing it and wasting everyone's time all round. Be honest, is it conceivable to you that there exists a possibility that the Lockheed gold video shows something other than a 2 dimensional "picture" of 3 dimensional physcial structures on a solid surface?
Because I have a masochistic streak, I'm going to address your specific responses to our imaging discussion in my next post. I guess we'll see "how I do" then. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 02/27/2006 15:21:44 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 16:33:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote: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?
Sure I can explain this. The RD images tend to remove all the arcs (or most of them) since we are subtracting one image from another. What tends to be left are the lighting changes from the surface itself. You won't typically see the arcs in running difference images, though as you can see, you will see these arcs in the raw imges.
So the arcs move enough to cause differences in the reflected image allowing us to "see" your mountains, but they stay still enough to be removed by the difference algorithm. To borrow a scientific phrase you've used in the past "that doesn't jive".
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You need to understand the scales of things in this image. That "localized flare took place over a very large surface area in terms of distance, but in terms of total screen shot, it's a very 'small' area. That is in essense a "localized" event, that occurs in arc we see in the first image. Most of the light we see in these images comes from "relatively" small areas of the surface in much smaller events than the arc we see in that area during the solar flare.
I believe I understand the scale quite well. In fact I pointed out some quantitative scale related information very early in our discussion. If the flare is localised as you suggest we should see it in both the raw and difference images. It may disappear from the difference image if it's fixed, but then it can't be the shifting light source you've proposed that it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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.
But these various areas of this "plasma surface" you've described are structured exactly the same (or nearly so) after many hours (in fact days), whereas "structures" in the photosphere come and go every 8 minutes or so. Your plasma surface certainly doesn't move around like the surface of the photosphere.
I've seen no argument showing that this "surface" plasma must move on the same time scale as observed in the photosphere. It could also be "moving" on spatial scales of tens to hundreds of km and this movement would not be shown, let alone resolved.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:By "intense electrical activity" to you mean smaller arcs?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yes, I mean smaller, more active arcs near the surface itself. Again, most of the light is coming from relatively small arcs near the surface, particularly on the "windward" side of these structures. I would deduce from these images that charged plasma moving over these surfaces makes these regions more electrically active.
If "most" of the light comes from these smaller arcs, we should expect "local" lighting conditions to vary much more widely than they do over the surface. If these arcs are so small as to be unable to be resolved by the system, what evidence to you have that they exist at all?
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
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?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Becuase during 3 and 4, there is a *major* flare eruption that drowns out the "local" lighting. Even still, the light from this flare is relatively limited in size, at least in these specific images. As I said, SOHO has a more interesting view of the massive eruptions as it relates to lighting up huge surface areas.
How can this "*major*" flare eruption wash out some "local" lighting, but leave other, adjacent local" lighting unaffected?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But unlike the structures in the photosophere, these aren't moving around every 8 minutes. How do you explain that? Why don't we see obvious movement in these structures over such extended time frames?
Again, why should I expect to? Apart from the fact that I do see differences in features of the image which are inconsistent with a solid surface. The fact that some other plasma in some other region displays gross features on this time scale is no reason to assumethat this entire plasma must be the same. You can't observe a hurricane in one part of the earth's atmosphere and conclude that all parts of the earth's atmosphere must be equally turbulent.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Have a closer look at the region in the new green circles. The changes in these areas are not at all consistent with a solid surface and changing illumination conditions. There are numerous other inconsistencies, but these are quite obvious.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I disagree. Look again. They are quite consistent with the arc we see in the first image I mentioned. The other structures on this surface, and their "rigid like" behavior is entirely consistence with a Birkeland model that emits arcs from it's surface.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 20:38:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
All of your responses quoted above come from this thread, so it's more than fair to say that a number of us have attempted to explain the gold RD video.
What *specifically* (as it relates to detail) have you explained about *this* running difference image? What are the structures? Why are they there? Why are they stationary?
quote:
It would seem that there are only 2 options:
1. Agree with you that there are mountains in the Lockheed gold RD video.
You need not explain these structures as solid mountains, but you will have to explain them in a way that is reasonably attentative to detail. A handwave of "Pay no attention to the structures in this image" simply isn't going to pass for any sort of "analysis" of the image.
quote:
2. Have arguments ignored, or be accused of not explaining things to your satisfaction.
If you were to explain the existence and persistance of these structures some other way, it may not be to my "satisfaction", but at least you will have offered a rational alternative. Unless however we get into the details of these images, there isn't really an adequate way for me to explain *why* I favor a Birkeland solar model. It was in fact the satellite images that convinced me personally that the sun has a crust. I can't adequately explain that without getting into the nitty-gritty details of these images.
quote:
If this is the case, that's fine, I can accept that, please just openly admit that you have an unshakeable faith in your "model" which nothing can change because you "see" the mountains and we can stop discussing it and wasting everyone's time all round. Be honest, is it conceivable to you that there exists a possibility that the Lockheed gold video shows something other than a 2 dimensional "picture" of 3 dimensional physcial structures on a solid surface?
Sure John, these structures and these images *could* be caused by something *other than* solid mountains, but then you'd need to offer something that makes logical sense, and also explains the images down to the tiniest detail. They say that the "devil is in the details." That is certainly the case here. If you wish to offer a comprehensive explaination for the existence and persistence and behaviors of the structures on this image, I'm all ears. Your explanation will however have to relate to *this specific* image, and it will have to explain all the little visual details of the image. That's all I'm suggesting here. The *details* of these images is important.
quote:
Because I have a masochistic streak, I'm going to address your specific responses to our imaging discussion in my next post. I guess we'll see "how I do" then.
Ok. :) |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 20:46:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Sure John, these structures and these images *could* be caused by something *other than* solid mountains, but then you'd need to offer something that makes logical sense, and also explains the images down to the tiniest detail. They say that the "devil is in the details." That is certainly the case here.
Coming from you, Michael, that's pretty hilarious, since you refuse to detail anything about your model and expect us to be content with your vague conjectures. (Geemack has been repeatedly asking you for some hard numbers for awhile now, and you continue to ignore him.)
With every post you sound more and more like the creationists, who expect evolutionary biologists to explain every detail to their personal satisfaction before they'll ever consider abandoning their completely unevidenced position.
|
"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 02/27/2006 20:47:38 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 20:53:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Coming from you, Michael, that's pretty hilarious, since you refuse to detail anything about your model and expect us to be content with your vague conjectures. (Geemack has been repeatedly asking you for some hard numbers for awhile now, and you continue to ignore him.)
There is no way for me to explain my motivation for choosing a solid surface model if the best GeeMack has to offer is "pay no attention to the structures in the image". That isn't going to cut it. I'm talking about being *attentive to minute detail*. That is how real analysis of real images is done. It is not done with a handwave and denial routine.
I'll be happy to get more interested in answering GeeMack's questions when he get serious about dealing with the satellite images.
quote:
With every post you sound more and more like the creationists, who expect evolutionary biologists to explain every detail to their personal satisfaction before they'll ever consider abandoning their completely unevidenced position.
From my perspective, you sound just like a creationist. I'm the one with isotope analysis to support my belief in a Birkeland model. I'm the one with lab images that look very similar to actual satellite images. I'm the one with visual confirmation of *FIXED AND RIGID* structures in a variety of solar satellite images. I'm the one subscribing to a solar model put forth by an astronomer that was already 60 years ahead of his time by predicting Birkland currents before we could demonstrate their existence. From my perspective, you're the one who is acting like a creationist here since you're literally handwaving away every issue of consequence that I have presented in this debate.
Not a single one of you has offered a viable alternative to explain the minute detail of these images. Unless and until you can, I have to believe you're just living on "faith" in gas model theory, since you can't seem to apply that theory to even explain one single satellite image. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/27/2006 20:56:18 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 21:08:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
What *specifically* (as it relates to detail) have you explained about *this* running difference image? What are the structures? Why are they there? Why are they stationary?
He explained that running difference images, all of them in general, and *this* image in particular, do not show structure, shape, solid stuff, at all, in any way, period. He explained the issue thoroughly, again. To your question, "What are the structures?", he gave the same answer as everyone else who has addressed the issue. There are no structures. You asked, "Why are they there?" They aren't. It just looks like something solid to those who don't understand what running difference images are or how they're assembled. You asked, "Why are they stationary?" They aren't. Since they aren't structures, they aren't stationary. Again, it just looks like that to people (or in this case the one person) who can't understand how the images are created.
Now why on Earth do you continue to ignore your responsibility to support your claim? Your "analysis" of that video is simply that it looks like something three dimensional to you, therefore you believe it must be so. That's a pure leap of faith, a completely unevidenced, unsupported claim. Why don't you stop being so lazy and actually explain the images yourself?quote:
Sure John, these structures and these images *could* be caused by something *other than* solid mountains, but then you'd need to offer something that makes logical sense, and also explains the images down to the tiniest detail.
Wrong again. You need to prove they represent something solid. You need to offer something that makes logical sense, something other than your incessant claim that they must be solid because you're too ignorant to believe otherwise.quote:
They say that the "devil is in the details." That is certainly the case here. If you wish to offer a comprehensive explaination for the existence and persistence and behaviors of the structures on this image, I'm all ears.
The explanation is this: There are no structures in the images. They're graphs, charts, representations of change. They aren't pictures. quote:
Your explanation will however have to relate to *this specific* image, and it will have to explain all the little visual details of the image. That's all I'm suggesting here. The *details* of these images is important.
No, Michael. it's your claim. You need to prove it. You need to provide the explanation. It's your job. You haven't even demonstrated that you have the slightest idea how running difference images are created, by what method, or for what purpose. Now that everyone else has taken a shot at doing your job, since so far you've been simply too lazy or otherwise incapable of doing it yourself, how about you take your turn? Remember this...If you do believe those "structures" are solid, you'll have to explain it. You explain specifically and quantitatively how those running difference images are created, and how, of all the running difference images of the Sun, those thousands that look a little like light and shadow but clearly aren't showing physical structure, you explain how those tiny few of yours are made differently. You explain exactly, in detail, the programs used to create those videos. You explain why hundreds of thousands of people understand running difference images, yet not a single one of them believes those graphs and charts actually show structure. That's your job, and until you do it, running difference images, every last one of them, can be simply discarded from your pool of "evidence". Get on it, Michael. You're still evading. You've got a lot of work to do.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
