Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PatKelley
So, to summarize, I understand you to be saying your model may be correct because our understanding of the relation of mass to gravitational acceleration may be misunderstood, which is another way of saying a gram might not be a gram.
|
No. This is called a "strawman". What I said is that according to nuclear chemistry and the laws of physics and 6 different satellites, the sun has a solid calcium ferrite surface that emits hydrogen. I believe it would be premature of me to simply "guess" at the interior of the sun since I simply DON'T KNOW at this point.
Do you see the difference between my explanation and YOUR strawman?
Quote:
|
This is quite far fetched, possibly more so than your conjecture of a solid surfaced sun.
|
What is "far fetched" is to believe that calcium ferrite floats on helium. THAT is fetched. Nothing I have suggested is "far fetched" in comparison to THAT whopper of a concept.
Quote:
|
Pending definition of the proper understanding of mass (in your hypothesis) and gravitation, actually an entire redefinition of GR and QM, I don't currently feel that further discussion will be fruitful.
|
Because you say so, or because you checked it out already? Here I hand you the basis of a unified field theory on a silver platter and you turn your nose at it without a second thought? Gee, I'm beginning to think this website is appropriately named afterall. There sure is a lot Bad Astronomy practiced around here.
Quote:
|
When you have redefined in full the GR and QM understanding of the universe I will continue my critique.
|
Fine. Think of gravity as a function of acceleration caused by the electromagnetic field of the universe. Continue your critique at your leisure.