|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:15:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Really, I was unaware that the inflationary field was scalar (unlike Einstein's tensor field of General Relativity, which doesn't correspond to particles). It's an interesting theory, and I am waiting to see where it goes from here.
And if it'll make a difference to you, Michael: you were right about inflation being associated with particles, and I was wrong. It took you lots of posts to finally demonstrate your idea, though, and since you claim it's all metaphysics anyway, I don't see why it mattered so much to you.
This was *huge* step forward between us Dave. I acknowledge that it takes a lot of inner strength to admit when you're wrong about something. I respect that in someone, and I respect this step.
I believe that Michael has progressed from 'ass' to 'ass hole' with this post. IMO
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 07/10/2006 13:16:53 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:30:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Wow, it is all BS as well as dogma that is not allowed to be questioned, and if it is questioned they send attack dogs to silence you! Golly, how conspiratorial!
No more consiratirorial than being ostricized at church for not accepting all the dogma. It's just human nature furshur. You can't help being an attack dog. :)
quote:
Michael has also demonstrated disagreement with General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and most other mainstream theories (though he probably isn't aware that he has).
Where? I've copped to the line about gravitons and GR, so what are you whining about now?
quote:
Why would he feel this way? I think the answer is right here:
quote:
It personally took me 15 years of analysing satellite images to even "begin" to put together a working model of the sun.
What happened is he presented his 'life's work' and of course real scientist laughed off his ideas as silly.
You missed a few thing. First of all, I spent almost 14 years of that time having "faith" in gas model solar theory. During all that time, I could grasp some aspects of what I saw, but I could never put together any kind of a "working model" to explain anything I was looking at. Within month of seeing the SOHO RD images, and using a solid surface model, I could explain nearly everything I'd been looking at for the last 14 years, including the cause of the coronal loops, the cause of CME's, the cause of the sun's 11 year solar cycle, the cause of solar moss and solar rain, all of it. That's what convinced me furshur. It's not like I "set out" for 15 years ago to find evidence for a Birkeland solar model. It's just fell on my lap, and I didn't have a clue at the time that Birkeland have ever even played with solar models at the time, or that Dr. Manuel had been proposing a iron sun theory for 3 decades. At the time, I thought it was "my model".
Not everyone has laughed at the ideas I've presented over the past year. In fact I get emails and phone calls every week from people all over the world that take these ideas quite seriously. When the STEREO data comes in, then you can talk to me about what is "silly" and what is not.
quote:
The poor bastard has so much of himself invested in this "the sun is a hollow metal ball" idea that he had to invent a great conspiracy.
I'm simply being realistic, that I'm proposing a very different model of the sun, than the one I was taught in school. It would be silly to think that people like you won't pop up their head to spew, regardless of whether you have ever studied satellite images, heliosiesmology or QM.
quote:
He has deluded himself to the point that he comes up with 'new' theories all of the time, like his light is a 'wave front of particles'.
They didn't teach you in school that light travels as both a particle and a wave?
quote:
Michael cannot conceive of science as simply a methodology to discover truth.
Ya right. I'm sorry, but "truth" through metaphysics isn't my idea of science.
quote:
If he did then he would realize that if there is a new theory then we have simply discovered a new truth or at least we are closer to the truth about some aspect of our universe. Would I care if a better model or theory was proposed than a current one? You bet I would care - I would welcome it!
Just like you've welcomed and been open to "slam theory" or alternative solar models?
quote:
The thing I won't do is substitute a current theory with an inferior one.
How can a theory based on metaphysics be "superior" to anything?
quote:
I also won't elevate an inferior theory to put it on par with a current theory.
In what way is a slam theory "inferior" to a metaphysical BB theory? For that matter, in what way is BB theory superior to an "Arp-centric" static unviverse model? Qauntify "superior" and "inferior" in some tangible way, and explain to me why metaphysical ideas are "superior" to non metaphysical explanations?
quote:
This is exactly what Michael wants us to do, and it just ain't going to happen.
Who cares what you do or which ideas you put faith in furshur? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:32:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
When I think QM or GR, I think "quantum GR".
Good God, that is so stupid it is unbelievable, and you don't have a clue as to why.
Un-freaking-beleivable
Ya, furshur, everyone who's ever tried to find or postulate a grand unified field theory is evidently "stupid". This is the kind of pointless crap that makes the discussions here about as much fun as going to the dentist. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:33:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I believe that Michael has progressed from 'ass' to 'ass hole' with this post. IMO
WTF? |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 14:02:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Michael has also demonstrated disagreement with General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and most other mainstream theories (though he probably isn't aware that he has).
Where? I've copped to the line about gravitons and GR, so what are you whining about now?
quote:
Michael
thank you for puting the evidence in the very post you wrote this so I didn't have to go searching.
quote:
quote:
He has deluded himself to the point that he comes up with 'new' theories all of the time, like his light is a 'wave front of particles'.
They didn't teach you in school that light travels as both a particle and a wave?
I know that this will come as a shock to you but the idea that light is a wave front of particles is NOT Quantum Mechanics, or any other current scientific theory.
Bark, bark
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 14:08:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael thank you for puting the evidence in the very post you wrote this so I didn't have to go searching.
Are you even reading this thread? I already acknowledged the point quite some time ago. FYI, quantum gravity is more or less the holy grail of quantum theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
quote:
I know that this will come as a shock to you but the idea that light is a wave front of particles is NOT Quantum Mechanics, or any other current scientific theory.
Bark, bark
I know this may come as a shock to you, but that is exactly how they behave in two slit experiements. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 14:24:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In fact I get emails and phone calls every week from people all over the world that take these ideas quite seriously.
How sad...
quote:
When the STEREO data comes in, then you can talk to me about what is "silly" and what is not.
We both know that no matter what the STEREO data shows you will interperet the data as supporting your model or at worst the data will be inconclusive.
quote:
quote:
The thing I won't do is substitute a current theory with an inferior one.
How can a theory based on metaphysics be "superior" to anything?
If you don't understand it then it must be metaphysics and yet you propose an universe sized anti-matter black hole and that is physics?? Give me a break
quote:
quote:
If he did then he would realize that if there is a new theory then we have simply discovered a new truth or at least we are closer to the truth about some aspect of our universe. Would I care if a better model or theory was proposed than a current one? You bet I would care - I would welcome it!
Just like you've welcomed and been open to "slam theory" or alternative solar models?
Michael they aren't better, they are simplistic, non-mathematical, pseudoscience conjecture. Your ideas sound like something that a student with one physics or astronomy course under his belt would come up with after dringing bong water. I am not kidding; I think I may have heard some of these theories in just a setting back in the 70's.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 14:41:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
When I think QM or GR, I think "quantum GR".
Good God, that is so stupid it is unbelievable, and you don't have a clue as to why.
quote:
Ya, furshur, everyone who's ever tried to find or postulate a grand unified field theory is evidently "stupid".
Here is the problem Michael, many physicist are looking for GUT, but you don't need to find a GUT because you just look at QM & GR and think "quantum gravity". Well gee that was easy!! What is the big deal with this whole GUT anyway? There is no problem just because the 2 theories conflict with each other. It is just mind over matter - if you don't mind that they cannot be simply combined it doesn't matter!
You know lets apply that wonderful logic to the Middle East. When I see Israel or the West Bank I think "West Isreal". Thank God! peace in our time.
Spendid just splendid - pass the bong water
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 14:53:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
How sad...
How pointless. Do you have anything meaningful to add?
quote:
We both know that no matter what the STEREO data shows you will interperet the data as supporting your model or at worst the data will be inconclusive.
And what if it shows that the coronal loops begin *underneath* of the photosphere, and STEREO demonstrates the layers are mass separated by weight? Then will you consider the idea seriously, or will you look for some way to rationalize away the evidence?
quote:
If you don't understand it then it must be metaphysics and yet you propose an universe sized anti-matter black hole and that is physics?? Give me a break
No, the fact that no evidence exists to demonstrate the existence of infaton fields or particles, and the fact that QM, particle theory and GR do not predict such particles makes this "metaphysics". It has nothing to with what I do or do not know. The "metaphysics" is a direct results of the fact that there is exactly no observervational evidence to support an "inflaton field".
quote:
Michael they aren't better, they are simplistic, non-mathematical, pseudoscience conjecture.
Oh bull. You're the one supporting psuedoscientific conjecture involving particles and fields that have never been evidenced. There is nothing in slam theory that is "pseudoscience".
quote:
Your ideas sound like something that a student with one physics or astronomy course under his belt would come up with after dringing bong water. I am not kidding; I think I may have heard some of these theories in just a setting back in the 70's.
These are the juvenile types of ad homenem comments that are used to intimidate the naive into believing that you might actually posess some sort of superior knowledge or intellect. What a joke.
The moment we looked at the inflation stage of BB theory however, the whole theory fell apart immediately, particles, fields, bong water and all. I think you must be snorting something if you're still seeing inflaton fields furshur. Let me clue you in here. They don't actually exist. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/10/2006 14:54:47 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 14:58:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Here is the problem Michael, many physicist are looking for GUT, but you don't need to find a GUT because you just look at QM & GR and think "quantum gravity".
Of course I need to find one furshur, I simply have faith that one will eventually be found.
quote:
Well gee that was easy!! What is the big deal with this whole GUT anyway? There is no problem just because the 2 theories conflict with each other. It is just mind over matter - if you don't mind that they cannot be simply combined it doesn't matter!
The whole idea of looking for a GUT is because we *have faith* that they can be combined under one roof. For crying out loud furshur, what a goofy strawman you've created.
quote:
You know lets apply that wonderful logic to the Middle East. When I see Israel or the West Bank I think "West Isreal". Thank God! peace in our time.
Spendid just splendid - pass the bong water
I think you've had plenty already.
 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 15:36:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
But I didn't ask about your solar ideas. My point was that red shift fits with Big Bang, but-- if my understanding of your Big Slam is correct-- doesn't fit with that.
There are two types of phenomenon here that are "kinda" related but a bit different. I need to make sure were clear here so bear with me a bit.
We have observed "galactic" redshift, meaning most all of the galaxies we see are redshifted, suggesting they are moving away from us if we assume that Hubble is correct. Both a bang and a slam theory would predict that observation.
This is the redshift I'm talking about, though perhaps I have my information wrong. My understanding from redshift was that is was the same in every place in the universe. Thus, regardless of whether I'm on earth or on some planet orbiting Vega, Hubble's Law will apply.
Conversely, if I understand your Big Slam correctly (and redshift!), this wouldn't be the case. That is, since matter came from a small point (when the galaxies "slammed" together) and then spread out all into an already-existing universe, than the shift of light would differ depending on where you are in the universe in relation to where the "point" (or general area) of the "slam"-- correct?
I mean, if I'm in a car sitting next to two police cars, and then we all pull off in different directions-- and with the police cars with their sirens blaring loudly-- the sound of those sirens after a few seconds of driving will be different, right? A car driving in my general direction, but perhaps moving away at a slight angle, will more or less sound the same. There will be little shift. But a car going the opposite way will have a much different sound.
At least, that's how I understand things. Perhaps I'm mistaken!
quote:
quote:
But back to inflation. In general, my reading suggests that there are big problems that the Big Bang doesn't solve. The "horizon problem" is one of them. The idea that the universe expanded exponentially for the tiniest fraction of a tiny fraction of a second can solve a number of these. Of course, it introduces a new problem-- namely the one you propose: how did this happen?
Exactly. The solution proposed by inflation theory is based upon a "particle" and a field that has never been demonstrated to exist. Furthermore, unlike the neutrino (which has been demonstrated now) or the graviton, an inflaton field and/or particle has never been predicted in particle theory, GR or QM.
But does GR or QM have to predict inflation? I'm confused.
quote:
quote:
So it seems that at this point, there are several possibilities. First, scientists can spend some time trying to explore the idea of inflation.
How?
I linked to a rather technical paper where a rather smart person speculated on different ways that, once we get a handle on the super-complex math and physics involved, this sort of thing can be searched for or investigated. Again, I am in no way an expert in this, so it's a little unfair to ask me to provide answers. It's also a little disingenuous to flatly state, as you did above, "well, it doesn't matter how trained you are, you just can't blah blah blah"-- because obviously there are people doing that. As I noted, a Google search pulls up all sorts of university web pages of really smart and dedicated people thinking about this. Just because they haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean it can't be done-- else your various proposals proving things about the surface of the sun, or the Big Slam, etc., would be out there! No?
quote:
quote:
Alternatively, you can scrap inflation and look for another way to neatly explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and so on. Finally, you can reject the Big Bang altogether and then go back to trying to explain red shift, CMBR, etc.
I fully agree with your assessment. I've chosen the second alternative. I've chosen to go back two steps and acknowledge other possibilities are viable, such as a static universe theory, and a slam type event. I'm simply suggesting that since no such inflation field or particle has ever been demonstrated or predicted by GR or QM, that we should consider other viable alternatives.
Obviously. I'm just confused as to why you've so quickly abandoned not just inflation theory, but the Big Bang, too. I mean, didn't Einstein abandon the static universe ideas because of redshift and its implications?
quote:
quote:
This seems logical, since inflation can solve a lot of problems.
Assuming it actually exists, "maybe" it might solve some problems, but I would bet it would probably cause as many problems as it actually solved. Assuming it does exist, is the "particle" physically "large", or physically "small"?
Don't all new answers in science cause new problems? And as for the second part-- I couldn't even begin to answer you, as you know... |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 16:34:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
This is the redshift I'm talking about, though perhaps I have my information wrong. My understanding from redshift was that is was the same in every place in the universe. Thus, regardless of whether I'm on earth or on some planet orbiting Vega, Hubble's Law will apply.
Well, that concept is essentially correct, but the redshifted galaxies would be a necessary prediction in slam theory as well as bang theory. The basis of this kind of observed redshift according to Hubble is the fact that everything is moving away from each other as though expanding and/or accelerating away from one another. That kind of redshift does not actually favor a bang over a slam. The only criteria that applies is movement away from a point in spacetime and both slam and bang theory suggest this is the case.
I should note here that Arp's work suggests that redshifting may not be as "simple" as being defined *only* by movement alone. In fact there could be "movement" aspects to redshift according to Arp, but there's more to it than simply movement. Arp's observations of unusual objects suggest that redshifting may be at least partially "intrinsic" to the item being observed, as though it's mass or warp of spacetime may influence this redshifting process. That is the basis of a "static universe" type model. That model does not presume that redshift is directly related to movement, whereas a band and slam theory require that at least a majority of the redshift is related to movement.
quote:
Conversely, if I understand your Big Slam correctly (and redshift!), this wouldn't be the case. That is, since matter came from a small point (when the galaxies "slammed" together) and then spread out all into an already-existing universe, than the shift of light would differ depending on where you are in the universe in relation to where the "point" (or general area) of the "slam"-- correct?
Not really. As long as every galaxy in the system expands outward from that "general visinity", every galaxy (except galaxy groups) will move away from one another and be redshifted away from one another, regardless of which one you happen to be standing on at the time. If the galaxies are moving in a "cluster", then local influences can also play a role in the movements of this small group, but still, redshifted galaxies would still be the "norm" regardless of your point of view.
quote:
I mean, if I'm in a car sitting next to two police cars, and then we all pull off in different directions-- and with the police cars with their sirens blaring loudly-- the sound of those sirens after a few seconds of driving will be different, right? A car driving in my general direction, but perhaps moving away at a slight angle, will more or less sound the same. There will be little shift. But a car going the opposite way will have a much different sound.
Try envisioning a ring of police cars pointing outward in a circle with their trucks touching. All the cars are pointing outward in different directions. When the drivers all step on the gas and they speed away from each other, the distances between one car and any other car in the group will always be increasing, and the sounds from other vehicles are "redshifted" accordingly.
quote:
At least, that's how I understand things. Perhaps I'm mistaken!
I believe that you have the right idea about redshifting actually, but I don't think you quite grasp the slam model I'm proposing. The interaction of the matter and antimatter singularities is going to "push" all the materials outwards. Furthermore the electromagnetic fields of "greater space" are going to continue to influence the expansion rate and continue to separate the galaxies and cause them to continue to accelerate. The galaxies will all necessarily be redshifted away from one another in both a slam and a bang scenario. Only a static universe needs a "new" definition of redshift. Both the bang and the slam models are predicated on Hubble being at least "mostly" right.
quote:
But does GR or QM have to predict inflation?
No. GR is really a theory about gravity and mass. You can't have gravity without mass and you can't have GR theory without mass and gravity. GR makes no specific prediction related to any particles that have not been demonstrated via particle physics, and inflaton fields have never been demonstrated or even theorized in particle physics. It only exists in BB theory. QM is really a "quantum" realm of bumper cars where "subatomic particles and waves" interact with one another in more or less an "ocean of interacting energy". It tends to be more focused on "subatomic particles, waves and interactions", whereas GR is more of a theory that is designed to explain the existence of gravity, and the influence of gravity on time. QM does not predict inflaton fields, in fact QM doesn't predict anything besides that which exists in particle physics or is predicted to exist in particle physics. Inflaton fields are not a part of particle physics, and are not predicted in particle physics, so they aren't a part of QM or a part of GR. In fact I suspect the only reference you will ever see to "inflaton field" is going to be directly related to the inflation phase of BB theory, and nowhere else. Such a field and particle has never been observed in nature. It therefore cannot "yet" be a part of QM or GR, or particle physics. By "yet", I mean it's possible that someone will need to posit an "inflaton" field in particle physics to explain some behavior of particles, but to date that has not yet occured. Until it does, such a field cannot be a part of GR or QM or particle physics.
quote:
I linked to a rather technical paper where a rather smart person speculated on different ways that, once we get a handle on the super-complex math and physics involved, this sort of thing can be searched for or investigated. Again, I am in no way an expert in this, so it's a little unfair to ask me to provide answers.
Well, the thing is, until we have observed evidence to support the idea, the best it might be at the moment is a mathematical theory of some sort. While math might be helpful in explaining the theory, unless and until there is evidence to support the idea, and a way to test the idea, then it's really a mental exersize. Without observed evidence to support it, I simply see no way to actually "study" it.
quote:
It's also a little disingenuous to flatly state, as you did above, |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/10/2006 16:45:46 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 17:13:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Try envisioning a ring of police cars pointing outward in a circle with their trucks touching. All the cars are pointing outward in different directions. When the drivers all step on the gas and they speed away from each other, the distances between one car and any other car in the group will always be increasing, and the sounds from other vehicles are "redshifted" accordingly.
Only if you remain stationary in the center of the circle of cars. That's the "privileged position" Dave was talking about. For your model to be accurate, you need to explain why the Earth would form dead center in the middle of the slam site. If the Earth was speeding away from the site of the slam with all the other exploded material (riding in one of the police cars), then all the other galaxies would not be red-shifted the same wavelength.
So, no, Michael, BS doesn't even come close to explaining the data.
|
"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 07/10/2006 18:58:09 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 17:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Well, I clearly we're having problems with redshift, then. I don't think I explained my understanding correctly-- and if anyone else understands and wants to jump in, please do!-- so I'll try again.
First off, I get your idea of the police cars. The problem I see with it is that it only fits the data if we assume that we are right at that center point from where all the police cars are speeding off. Then, yes-- I think it would fit. (Though not really, since two cars next to each other would be moving apart at a different rate than two cars moving apart at right angles.)
Anyhow, all of this is to say that my understanding of redshift sees everything moving away from everything (on a cosmic level) at a rate put forward by Hubble. This is what we observe, but not how I imagine things according to the Big Slam. As least, as I understand the Big Slam. (I almost wrote 'Big Blam'-- has anyone come up with a Big Blam model of the universe?  )
And again, about inflation-- you write:
quote:
Well, the thing is, until we have observed evidence to support the idea, the best it might be at the moment is a mathematical theory of some sort. While math might be helpful in explaining the theory, unless and until there is evidence to support the idea, and a way to test the idea, then it's really a mental exersize. Without observed evidence to support it, I simply see no way to actually "study" it.
But that's my point-- before you can get to the point of studying something, you have to work out ideas about how you can test it! I don't think it works like "we can explain the horizon problem and the flatness problem with this new thing called inflation, which we'll test by doing X..." Instead, it seems that people see problems, and work through various means of explaning how to resolve them, and then spend time fine-tuning this explanation (looking for flaws, asking how it works, etc.) and along the way, and coupled with ever-advancing technology, etc., devise a way to test it. It seems clear that we're in an early stage in this process and we're probably a ways away from actually testing it.
Later, you said:
quote:
There is a distinct difference between supplying observational evidence to support a new idea vs. creating mathematical presentations of something that has never been evidenced and lacks observational support. My solar model is based on direct observation, and my "interpretation" of direct observation. You might argue about the interpretation, but I am providing observation support of my postion, at least in my opinion. A slam theory is to a lesser degree based on "observations" like the redshifting phenomenon, but it's based on a lot less "observational evidence" when it comes to the idea of an "antimatter black holes". Furthermore it is predicated on the notion that redshift is always and only directly related to movement.
But my point wasn't to highlight this dichotomy you've presented. Rather, it was to stress the time factor. And not time in any abstract sense, but in the very human sense. It takes time to work things out. I brought your solar theories up because I seem to recall that in some thread you stated something to the effect that "well, when such-and-such telescope returns its data, we'll see..."-- in other words, in time, we'll be able to test my idea. But we can't just yet.
Why can not inflation be the same way? Why can not some people be thinking that if some new avenue of X-- where X is a branch of math or physics or whatever-- is developed, they could test for inflation, and then have them spend years (+) developing X?? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 07/10/2006 18:16:23 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 19:54:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
You don't seem to grasp the distinction between suggesting that the surface crust has a predominance of metals and claiming that the entire crust is composed of metals. You need to keep your strawmen straight GeeMack. There's a huge distinction between these two ideas, and you can't stick words in my mouth.
If you can't grasp the distinction between these two concepts, I suggest you get some help from John, Dr. Mabuse or Dave. I think they can probably clue you in. They seem to have been paying attention to the deals of my model a bit better than you have.
You've spent months here making regular references to a solid surface and an iron shell on the Sun, Michael. I called it a solid metal surface to give you the benefit of the doubt. Birkeland's terrella was made from brass, and your notion of "Birkeland's solar model" apparently has a surface of some combination of generally metallic materials you usually refer to as iron, often claim contains some amount of nickel (and sometimes other usually unnamed elements), but which you've never stated includes any brass.
But the point is, Kristian Birkeland never suggested "the entire crust is composed of metals", nor did he ever suggest "the surface crust has a predominance of metals". Whether there is a difference in those concepts is irrelevant to the fact that Birkeland didn't say either such thing about the Sun, nothing of similar meaning or intent, not one word about a crust or solid surface of any sort. He didn't actually present any solar model at all, and for that matter, neither have you, Michael.
We all understand that your communication skills are grossly deficient which prevents you from being able to make a cogent point. But you could avoid a lot of ambiguity and misunderstanding by creating and presenting an actual solar model, a mathematical description of the Sun which describes its luminosity, material composition, opacity, etc. Obviously after all these months you'd still rather just whine and complain than do the necessary work. Without presenting any solar model, as you never have, you can't honestly claim to be presenting Birkeland's solar model.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
