Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baloo
Could you be more precise about the kind of computer science you're involved in, please?
|
Why in the world does that even matter? Geez! This place is simply amazing. I'm a self employed computer programmer. You can read about my software at
http://www.etwebsite.com. I wrote a full accounting and management package for a vertical market (child care). Does a over a decade of sucessful self employment as a software developer suffice, or would you like a note from my mother too?
I don't mean to sound rude, but this whole line of arguement is rediculace. If you have a beef with the observations and evidence I have presented, please put it on the table. Otherwise, leave me out of this discussion.
The focus on the individual here is scientifcally unacceptable. I've asked for a scientific refute of the materials I have presented, not a personal critique. What's with the focus on ME as an individal rather then on the MATERIALS I have gathered and presented? This is pseudo-science at its worst IMO. It's like a trial by inuendo and personal attack. That is not science. That is psuedoscience.
Quote:
|
Then could you tell me what kind of filters and what kind of postprocessing have been used to take the image and the film you've posted here previously?
|
Here we go again. What does that have to do with anything? The filters that are most important to my arguement are the ferrite ion filters on board TRACE and SOHO that create the running different images I have presented. Care to explain these "better" than I did?
Quote:
|
Well, the kind of background that teach an engineer the difference between "it looks like an electric arc" and "it is an electric arc". :wink:
|
So how does someone with the "right" background KNOW it's not an electrical arc again? Have you ever personally used an arc welder before? Do you know how to weld?
Quote:
|
More generally speaking, it is not a good ideea to extrapolate your daily experience here on Earth to a scale and an environment so radically different.
|
I fail to see anything "radical" about the ideas I've presented. The gas model is "radical" if you ask me. It PRESUMES that suns are not made of the same materials as everything else in the solar system. That sounds positively mystical if you ask me. It PRESUMES that the arcs we see aren't electrical in nature for some reason, but also somehow hold a magnetic field. Another mystical explanation rather than the obvious one. The gas model "presumes" there is on solid surface when we can clearly see one with ferrite ion filters onboard TRACE and SOHO.
Quote:
|
No, I did not read his work. Actually I did not read your whole webpage. Don't forget that the peoples that are posting here are not doing it because they're experts in astronomy but mostly because they want to share and learn with the others. In fact I think that your expectations are highly unrealistic: after all you've spent years searching and analizing and now do you ask us to fully understand your model by just reading once your webpage?
|
Compared to the gas model, my model is VERY easy to understand and follow. It's worth the read. Dr. Manuel's work is a bit more "involved" but I've checked the methods, and they make sense. We have a difference of agreement about some layering aspects, but this is due to the way we arrived at our conclusions. My layering system is based on observation of the functioning sun itself. His layer system is based on observations of lunar soil and meteorites, neither of which is likely to hold neon.
Quote:
|
I'm not trying to debunk your whole theory, mostly because I have not the necessary knowledge, but I still can point to its weaknesses based of my limited knowledge on the subject. And as you may see nobody here has claimed to be an expert in the field, therefore each one has adressed some specific issues that fit in his field of interest and/or knowledge.
|
What I'm noticing is that those who lack the basic skill to actually put science on the table to dispute the material I have presented seem to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on me the individual. That is NOT acceptable. There is a LOT of material to critique, and many observations to explain with a gas model, starting with the solar moss phenomenon which I have already explained with my model.
Quote:
|
By the way, in the dr. Manuel's article you've linked here I didn't find any reference to a ferrite or neon layer. 8)
|
It DOES talk about ferrite and silicon. It does NOT talk about neon since this is something that typicically doesn't stick to asteroids in great volumes. Don't worry, we'll work through the layering issues later today.
Quote:
|
That's exactly what I was talking about: Maksutov didn't adressed the sunspot or penumbra problem, but instead he had show why the ideea of a solid ferrite crust (which is very important in your theory) is not pertinent. He's not explaining the sunspots, but is proving that the kind of layer you're talking about couldn't exist. :wink:
|
I'm afraid you aren't addressing MY material, but some other material at this point. The layer I'm talking about is the one you can SEE in running difference images. I didn't offer any math to critique in any way, shape or form.