Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fram
And even if no one had a good explanation for something, that doesn't make your theory any better. It's enough to point out where you are wrong, we don't need to have an alternative.
|
Then point out where I am wrong. My manuscript is nearly 30 pages long. I'll be updating it next week by the way. Please point out where I have made any mistakes.
Quote:
|
It's like with the pioneer anomalies. I don't have the correct explanation for them, but if I suggested that they were being pushed by giant turtles, I would still be wrong, even if you didn't have the correct explanation.
|
This is argument by ridicule. I am not impressed. I did not suggest anything of the sort. I suggested the same thing that a Doctor of nuclear chemistry suggested over 3 years ago in Washington DC. I've checked out his work. It's VERY impressive. I've checked my own work over and over again. I'm comfortable with it and I'm confortable defending it publically. I've not presented anything "off the wall" even though is is not MAINSTREAM at the moment. Others have proposed a solid surface model of the sun in the past, not just me. I'm just the first one to do it with satellite imagery, spectral analysis and scientific theories about electrical activity through silicon and neon. It's not that "out there" except for you internal bias. Don't let that bias blind you to evidence you can see with your own eyes. YOu can check every referrence I cited in my manuscript for accuracy. All of this information comes directly from NASA and Lockheed Martin and Stanford. None of it is "made up". None of it defies the laws of physics the way Lockheed's model does. None of it should be dismissed lightly. If you do that, you are no better than those who first ridiculed Galileo for his "observations".