[quote="Van Rijn"]I've had about enough of this. The conversation has gone much like this:
Quote:
Michael Mozina: Why is a sunspot dark?
Me: It isn't. The temperature is lower and it isn't as bright. Here are some references.
Michael Mozina: But look at this picture. Why is it dark?
Me: That is an artifact of the viewing method. It is only dark by comparison.
Michael Mozina: Yes, but the umbra isn't lit! Why is that?
|
Nothing like a good strawman to pump up a weak argument eh? Feel better?
Who said a WORD about temperature? I asked you why VISIBLE LIGHT stopped shining in that single location. That location is FULL of all sorts of HOT silicon. Nobody is denying the presense of HEAT. It's LIGHT I'm talking about, not HEAT. Why do you have a hard time distinguishing between these two issues?
Quote:
|
What you think of me is irrelevent. You have repeatedly ignored well established fact and stated unsupported assertions. Your material will be judged on its scientific merits and it is failing at a very basic level.
|
It has not FAILED at all. In fact you have FAILED to raise a single reasonable objection to ANY of the materials I have presented, let alone ALL of the materials I have collected. In essence, you don't have a valid scientific objection. You have argument by ridicule on your side, and 400 years of flat eather's chanting you on of course, but sooner or later, people will notice what I'm saying, and will see what Dr. Manuel has been saying for 3 years now, and will see that both arguements put together blow HUGE HOLES in the gas model. Now you can believe the world is flat for another year or two, but I'm a patient man, and these ideas have held up to scrutiny just fine. I can explain virtually every phenomenon I see on the sun with this model while you can't even explain a simple sunspot.