That is your idea of civil conversation?
Your conjecture is a crackpot conjecture. It's a definitive descriptive term for the claim you're making. My idea of an uncivil conversation is, for example...
I think before I spend money on a lawyer, I'll spend some time creating a few RD movies for you first and stuff your arrogant attitude right down your throat. We'll then compare them to what NASA has in their daily archives and see what you come up with for the same time period. Like I said, I have a day job, and you aren't my first priority in life, even with that smug arrogant attitude. Chill for a while.
It's uncivil when people ask you simple, straightforward questions and you respond with smarmy questions rather than straightforward answers. It's very uncivil of you to ask people to
help you support your claim, then when they do, with little help or cooperation from you, you tell them they've built a strawman. You get pissy and demand they rework the problems because they didn't come out the way you liked. Then after they put in more effort, you spit on them by completely ignoring everything they've said and done
for you. That's uncivil.
But frankly, Michael, we have come to expect that out of you. Some of us even find it mildly amusing when you waste hundreds of words throwing tantrums instead of actually addressing the pertinent, relevant questions. But of course you know as well as we that it's not moving your claim ahead.
You need to understand that everyone here is attacking
your claims, your arguments, and what you mistakenly believe to be evidence. In response you get all bent out of shape and attack the individuals. That is uncivil. People get frustrated with your dishonest evasion, your intentional and dishonest misdirection, and your intentional and dishonest attempts to deflect the burden of proof. That dishonesty is uncivil.
Look, nobody here has any responsibility to prove anything to you. It's not a debate where everyone's position is equal going in. There isn't a single professional physicist on Earth who accepts what you claim as being even remotely possible much less remotely true. The standard solar model is well supported by general relativity, thermodynamics, helioseismology, and yes, every pixel of every piece of solar imagery that exists, false color, real color, running difference, white light or otherwise filtered. The fact that you don't understand most of it and refuse to accept the rest isn't a flaw in conventional solar physics. It's a flaw in your interpretation.
But your claim, that crackpot conjecture you've been trying for years to pass off as legitimate science, that's what this discussion is about. It's
your job to make a case for your claim, freestanding and supported on its own. All that trying to poke holes in the standard solar model isn't supporting your claim. All your belittling, badgering, demanding, and taunting other people to explain things to you, things you don't seem to have the desire or ability to understand, is not supporting your claim.
Your claims, your arguments, and your evidence are open for attack here. It's a skeptics' forum. Your qualifications will be challenged, and when you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate that you are qualified, your qualifications will be challenged again. And when you lie, as you do when you say you're representing Birkeland's solar model, your lies will be noted. You won't get away with making up crap here, Michael. And there's nothing uncivil about pointing it out when you do. If you don't have thick enough skin to take the criticism and the scrutiny, if you can't take the heat for making claims about subjects you aren't qualified to speak on with any expertise, maybe this science business isn't for you.
) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 50 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
