|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
22nd June 2009, 01:01 PM | #121 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Um, is there a prize for shooting oneself in the foot?
If there is, you certainly deserve it MM! Birkeland's terrella model of Saturn's rings were photographed using emulsions of the time. AFAIK the active ingredient was a silver halide. Silver halides are (most) sensitive to light in the blue part of the spectrum, with significant sensitivity from the near UV into the mid-visual (they are particularly insensitive to red light, which is why dark rooms of old had red lights). In the photographs reproduced in his publication, Birkeland's 'Saturn' terrella clearly shows a self-luminous (set of) rings ... the rings shine by their own light, not by light reflected from the (model) Saturn (and certainly not by the light reflected from the Sun). The real Saturn rings shine, in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that Birkeland's photographs were sensitive to, by light reflected from the Sun, and, to a considerably lesser extent, by light reflected from Saturn itself (which is just light reflected from the Sun). IOW, Birkeland's model of Saturn's rings fails (the source of the rings' light, detected by us here on Earth and space probes near and far, is the Sun, not electrical activity in, or around, the rings themselves). (It also fails in terms of the theory - you know, equations, numbers, that sort of thing - but as you, MM, are functionally incompetent wrt this sort of thing, you cannot be expected to even understand the failure of Birkeland's ideas in this regard, much less be able to discuss it). |
22nd June 2009, 01:08 PM | #122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
That is ignorant of you MM.
A couple of seconds on Google gives: Hydrostatic stratification. Or read some of the 10,000 papers on 'stratification of the stellar structure' found in Google Scholar. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 01:20 PM | #123 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
This forum...
This is the kind of stuff that annoys me no end. You intentionally cite my website, but none of you actually ever read the content. Why should I have to duplicate myself here to you and in every single forum where we have talked? You've been aware of my website now for 4 years now or so, and the link to Bruce's work has always been there. If you intend to criticize my website, you should at least avail yourself of the information it contains *BEFORE* you starting running with the pack from a place of pure ignorance. Are you actually ignorant of Bruce's work or just looking for some way to skirt the subject? You *NEVER* address the data head on. Instead you fixate on the trivial, and ignore the whole issue entirely. What's wrong with Bruce's work DRD?
If you are ignorant of his work, is that your fault or mine? |
22nd June 2009, 01:33 PM | #124 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Well, if he did, then his model is inconsistent with subsequent observations (including solar wind in situ ones), and so it failed.
Quote:
You see he spent quite a few pages in his published work estimating the speed of the electrons (as we'd call them today), and there's no wiggle room for doubt here ... ... except, of course, if you don't understand that part of his published work, because you are ignorant of the physics and math it is built upon ... ... and we all know that you, MM, are that ignorant. Perhaps the only open question is why you refuse to acknowledge your own gross ignorance ... why is it that you are so proud of your ignorance, MM?
Quote:
Quote:
Remember the egg you got on your face wrt the Casimir effect? Do you really want to go through that humiliation again?
Quote:
Dare I ask how you define "rigid"? And how may an independent third party verify your "rigid" conclusion? Let me guess .... by looking at the pictures! But wait! ... I can see a horsie over here!! Oh, and look!!! There's a cute little bunny wabbit!!!!
Quote:
Reference please. And if the 900+ page document, page number(s).
Quote:
Why? Because you don't understand what Birkeland wrote MM, and you don't understand the images, and you can't accept that a scientific understanding requires you to acquire a certain minimal competence with some parts of math.
Quote:
The only person who thinks this is you, and you have been unable - despite several years' of trying - to provide a quantitative demonstration of your claims. 'I think this looks like a duck (in this image), therefore it is a duck' is not physics, it is not astronomy ... when you can demonstrate that you have left this kind of nonsense behind, we may be able to start to have a meaningful discussion. |
22nd June 2009, 01:34 PM | #125 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Which specific one or more of these papers *PREDICTS* (not postdicts later on) a "stratification subsurface" to exist at exactly the depth it was found via heliosiesmology? All current solar models "predicted" this to be an open convection zone. What are those "rigid features" seen in Kosovichev's Doppler image and in the LMSAL RD images doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone?
|
22nd June 2009, 01:47 PM | #126 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
A relatively recent paper which knocks much of MM's hero Bruce's work for six (i.e. it shows, in great detail, that Bruce's models are inconsistent with the relevant observations): Radiative MHD simulation of sunspot structure (link is to the abstract of the preprint).
Now for MM to appreciate just how devastating this paper, and the ones it cites, and the ones which cite it, are to Bruce's ideas (per what's on MM's website), he (MM) would need to understand MHD, and to understand that he'd have to understand some math that we all know is way beyond him (today) ... oh, and having read and understood some of Alfvén's papers, on MHD, would be helpful too. Now if you want a nice piccie to go with this MM, why not check out this UCAR webpage? Oh, and be sure to note that there is no rigid surface ... |
22nd June 2009, 01:53 PM | #127 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Thanks, DeiRenDopa. This bears repeating. And it reminds us of something we must always consider when engaged in a discussion with Michael Mozina. He is apparently unable to process explanations offered to him that require any understanding of math or physics, or any legitimate scientific concern for that matter. Therefore he will simply blow off every explanation like a fart in the wind, then continue asking the same stupid questions and spewing the same nonsensical replies. It's a perfect set-up for him. In the crackpot world inside his head, he can't understand reality, and consequently he can't be wrong, and nobody else can be right. |
22nd June 2009, 02:01 PM | #128 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
No, it did *NOT* fail. His model (their model actually) was right on the money in terms of the flow of charged particles from the sun to the heliosphere and into the Earth's aurora. It was right on the money in terms of predicting at constant and spherical release of energy from the sun in terms of charged particle flow. It was right on the money in virtually every detail. Yes, he "guessed' at the amount of currents involved in particular solar processes, but his realization that they were influenced by EM fields and particle flow coming from the sun was exactly right.
Quote:
Birkeland could not know the density of the interstellar medium, he had no nifty equipment in space to show him any data on this topic. What he did do however is "predict" the flow of high speed charged particles from the surface of the sun into space, and past the Earth which power the Earth's aurora. You're quibbling about "speed" and ignoring that the "process" was accurate. How typical of your nitpick mentality.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd June 2009, 02:06 PM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You really do not read your citations do you?
Look at the papers cited by Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev. Try for example "Schou, J. et al., 1997, ApJ, 489, L197" or any standard textbook on stellar physics (something else you are ignorant of - somehow this does not surprize me ). |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 02:16 PM | #130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Nice pictures of the Sun but...
These are measurments of an *UNCONTROLLED* experiment (the Sun). By your criteria these are not empirical and so should be ignored. Can you give us a clue when you are going to remove this non-empirical data from your web site ? To be serious: You have already done the standard crackpot thing of redefining the English language (empirical actually includes observations of uncontrolled things like the Sun) You are probably confirming your status as a crackpot by stating half of your criteria for observations to be "empirical". The rest of the criteria will on the lines of "anything that supports my crackpot idea". If not then you will find it impossible to exclude astronomical observations such as the evidence for dark matter. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 02:37 PM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Michael Mozina:
Since it took you some weeks to find the standard defintion of pressure durig a discution in another thread, I will repeat the question I asked you before with a trime stamp. Will it take months or years befor you actually answer the question? First asked on 23rd June. 2009: How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 02:47 PM | #132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Wow Helioseismology is amazing!
Have a look at the movie on this page containing visual backup material (available until 1 July) for the AAS/SPD press conference about why sunspots are late in this cycle (via this Bad Astronomy blog entry).
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 03:12 PM | #133 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
No, they should be "explained" using "KNOWN" forces of nature. Just don't try to explain these images with invisible elves and we'll be fine.
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd June 2009, 03:14 PM | #134 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
22nd June 2009, 03:29 PM | #135 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I have already explained to you that all these papers and observations actually demonstrate is that your "gas model" solar theory is woefully flawed and incapable of accurately "predicting" the mass of any particular galaxy. In short your solar theories are hopelessly flawed, which is exactly why they require 96% "gap filler" to make things work right.
The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of "dark matter" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic. At the most one might provide "evidence" to support the notion of "missing mass" from these observations. This only demonstrates to me how useless your solar theories are at actually "predicting" the mass of a galaxy. In other words, your whole belief system is predicated upon a flawed solar model, so you fill the gaps with metaphysical mumbo jumbo that defies empirical support. Dark matter doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single gram of the stuff and your missing mass is related to the fact that suns are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium. There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime. You certainly will never see "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime. At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "missing mass". All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the mass of a galaxy based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me. |
22nd June 2009, 03:36 PM | #136 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
You've never offered me any explanations based on actual "physics" as in things you can actually physically demonstrate here and now. In fact your entire belief system is predicated on *FAITH*, not *PHYSICS*. Math related to invisible elves is meaningless junk, integration or no integration. Fancy math doesn't negate the need to *PHYSICALLY QUALIFY* your beliefs.
|
22nd June 2009, 03:39 PM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
And in what way does your model say where they are most likely placed? How does it work? How does it compare to the gravitational model? How would the data allow you to tell the difference ebwteen the two models? It is about the useful predictions of the models is it not? |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
22nd June 2009, 03:52 PM | #138 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I haven't had time to read the whole paper yet, but I did a quick search of the PDF and not once is the name BRUCE ever even mentioned. Where did they "knock" his specific work, or is that your way of implying that any *OTHER* explanation you put forth automatically negates *all* of his work?
for six (i.e. it shows, in great detail, that Bruce's models are inconsistent with the relevant observations): Radiative MHD simulation of sunspot structure (link is to the abstract of the preprint).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd June 2009, 03:53 PM | #139 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Are any of you critics man or woman enough to actually "explain" those two solar images using standard solar theory, yes or no?
|
22nd June 2009, 03:55 PM | #140 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
22nd June 2009, 04:06 PM | #141 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Actually evidence for dark energy does. You've given links to such things. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the word empirical, doesn't make a theory you haven't even got the faintest idea about wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You, on the other hand, are taking theories which do not match experiment and saying that they must be right because they produce pretty pictures. But that isn't science. Pretty pictures is art. Science is quantitative. And the "theories" you propose either have no quantitative component or fall at the first hurdle. This is the antithesis of science.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2) That should be "they haven't shown up in a lab yet". This of course does not mean they don't exist any more than the proton didn't exist before its discovery. All it means is we cannot be certain about there existence...
Quote:
Inflation faeries are something you made up. They don't exist because they are part of your subconcious. Please try to understand the difference between the real world and the things you make up in your head. It would make you seem a lot less like a crackpot. |
22nd June 2009, 04:09 PM | #142 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
That solid surface of the Sun crap has been done to death, Michael. You don't really want to embarrass yourself again, do you? If you don't have a shred of dignity, if you really do want to get trounced one more time, if you truly want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to anyone who doesn't already know, how totally scientifically incompetent you are (is there anyone?), you should start another thread. |
22nd June 2009, 04:27 PM | #143 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 04:28 PM | #144 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 04:39 PM | #145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Learn to read MM - the post is nothing about "gas model" solar theory.
Then you agree with: "The very notion that one can "prove" the existence of an "iron sun" from an uncontrolled observations is pathetic". Thank you Michael Mozina ! Your ignorance is showing yet again (and your inability to read). Therew is no "missing mass" It has been measured and so it is not missing. What has stellar physics got to do with measuring the mass of a galaxy? We measure the mass of stars and gas, do some multiplication and addition and there is the mass of a galaxy. Add the galactic masses to get the mass of a galctic cluster. Measure the motion of galaxies and see that there is mass that we have not measured. Use gravitational lensing to mesure the actual mass in the cludter and see tha most of the mass if not in the galaxies but is distributed as a massive sphere of stuff that does not emit light or interact except through gravity. We can say exactly the same thing about your "Iron Sun" idea: There is an important scientific principle here at stake as well. You certainly will never "prove" anything in your lifetime. You certainly will never see "proof" of iron sun from an uncontrolled observation in your lifetime. At best you may see evidence that you *interpret* as some sort of evidence of "stratification ". All this demonstrates is that you can't accurately guestimate the structure based on your current solar models. That is certainly no surprise to me. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 04:42 PM | #146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Michael Mozina:
Since it took you some weeks to find the standard defintion of pressure durig a discution in another thread, I will repeat the question I asked you before with a trime stamp. Will it take months or years before you actually answer the question rather than sput you usual non-science about uncontrolled experiments? Guess what: Newtonian dynamics have been confirmed in controlled experiments. Maxwell's equations have been confirmed in controlled experiments. General Relativity has been confirmed in controlled experiments. First asked on 23rd June. 2009: How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 05:05 PM | #147 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
A good article from the Starts With a Bang blog on the removal and replacement of WFPC2 on the Hubble telescope: The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4. This is about gravitational lensing and has this good image of the surface mass density of (maybe cluster 0024+1654 - unfortunately no source is cited):
Quote:
BTW: Micheal Mozina, this is an empirical measurement using the known properties of light - telescopes work, light is bent by mass (e.g. by the Sun, in the optical images of cluster 0024+1654 and other examples of gravitational lensing). |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 05:12 PM | #148 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Come on, use your head! It has *EVERYTHING* to do with standard solar theory. You *ASSUME* all those little points of light inside of a galaxy are made of mostly hydrogen and helium. They are not. They are mostly made of iron and nickel and all the the stuff of meteorites. This "mass underestimation" is directly related to your solar theories.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd June 2009, 05:13 PM | #149 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
22nd June 2009, 05:19 PM | #150 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Iron exists in the sun, even by your own theory. Invisible elves are the next door neighbors of the dark energy gnomes that far out dark energy to fill the gaps of your otherwise completely falsified theory.
Quote:
|
22nd June 2009, 05:23 PM | #151 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
The term "self luminous" is false. The "currents" provide the light, not the material in the rings. They just provide the physical infrastructure to emit the light but the source of energy for that light is "current flow". It's an electric light show.
It does in fact emit light cause by currents including those ring currents I cited earlier. All Birkeland may have "missed" was the specific wavelength of light which they emit. |
22nd June 2009, 06:01 PM | #152 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
22nd June 2009, 06:06 PM | #153 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
We have as good evidence that dark matter exists as we do the iron exists in the Sun. We even use our knowledge of the properties of light to do the detections (in once case absorption spectrum, in the other case bending of light by mass).
So if you state that dark matter does not exist then you must also believe that iron does not exist in the Sun. What is the "otherwise completely falsified theory" of dark matter? List the evidence that falsified the existence of dark matter. A real scientist would ignore you completely as a crackpot. A real scientist know that images are nice but data is better. The images are easy to explain - they are sunspots and the surface of teh Sun. So what? What has this to do with dark matter. (another sign of a crackpot - derailing conversations). I do not undervalue the importance of "empirical testing" and controlled experimentation. Controlled experimentation allows scientists to explore the basics of science in areas that they know about. Controlled experiemts allow the extremely precise confirmation of QED and the many tests of Special Relativity. Unlike you I also know the value of observation. Uncontrolled experiments (observations) allow scientists to discover things about the universe that they would otherwise not find out. This includes the existence of dark matter. I wonder how many controlled experiments on gravity Newton did? Or did he use those non-empirical non-scientific (according to Michael Mozina) observations of Kepler and others? Uncontrolled experiments (e.g. cosmic rays, black holes, galactic jets) allow scientists to test theories at extreme values of their parameters - things that they cannot do in controlled experiments. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 06:10 PM | #154 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
The textbooks predicted stratification. The data gave a number to it.
ETA: First prediction of stratification in the Sun was in 1870: Great Moments in Solar Physics 3
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 06:22 PM | #155 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Now how are you going to do that. the mass of visible objects is easy to estimate, as is the mass of the interstellar medium. So how do you think they should estimate the mass of galaxies? What method changes do you propose?
So, as i asked you before. How do you explain the actual roatation curves of galaxies and the star clusters that orbit them? There are not enough MACHOs by current observations. So how do you explain the acceleration of the objects beyond that predicted from the visible material? |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
22nd June 2009, 06:24 PM | #156 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
By a "stratification subsurface", Michael usually means the solid iron surface he sees in his hallucinations. It's pretty safe to say that no textbook predicted that, if only for the simple fact that there is no legitimate scientific evidence to suggest that such a thing actually exists. |
22nd June 2009, 06:46 PM | #157 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
22nd June 2009, 06:49 PM | #158 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Easy. You're figuring the mass of galaxies using how gravity bends light, and you come up with all that apparent extra mass you can't explain. So you name the magic surplus "dark matter". And that's where you're as wrong as wrong can be. Instead of inventing "dark matter" fairies as an excuse for the extra mass, divide it up into the necessary amount of iron and nickel to make the surfaces of all those stars solid like a bunch of giant meteors. No need for "dark matter" pixies. Plus there's the proof for the solid surface of the Sun theory. Send a few bazillion volts of electricity careening throughout the universe, zap the stars, they burn like the flash of an arc welder, and, well, let there be light! Everyone in the astrophysics industry actually already knows this, but they're too afraid to admit it for fear of losing their funding. Next question? |
22nd June 2009, 09:12 PM | #159 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Which model prior to their paper "predicted" a stratification at around .995R or even a shallow depth under the photosphere? I'm sure you figured it's layered in some manner, but where did predict those rigid outlines just under the photosphere that we observe in Nickel ion doppler images and RD images? Suggesting to me that some ancient model predicted a layering of some sort somewhere in the core is meaningless. Where was there a prediction of a "stratification" that can have a visual effect on shallow doppler images and RD images? That whole regions is supposed to be an open convection zone according to gas model solar theory. The whole thing is supposed to be homogeneously mixed, where iron and nickel ions supposedly stays relatively mixed with hydrogen and helium. How's that supposed to happen with a stratification subsurface that is rigid and blocks the flow of plasma?
I still see nothing in the way of a better "Explanation" being offered for these images. Real scientists would respond with real answers to the actual images in question and they would put some serious options on the table. Since you evidently don't have any serious alternatives, nor any explanations for these images, you'll continue to attack the individual and avoid the data altogether. You guys are like a wizard of oz deal where you keep repeating "pay no attention to those rigid features in those images, or that man behind the curtain......" |
22nd June 2009, 09:17 PM | #160 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Ya, and Doppler images, and running difference images......
Quote:
Did you care to show any backbone in terms of actual science and explain just these two images, or did you intend to simply live in fear and hurl petty insults for the rest of your life? If you really have a better "explanation", lets hear it. Got one? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|