Not recently. I've tried to give credit where credit is due on my website. I'm certainly not trying to take credit for any of the photos I have used on the webite or this forum. I'll try to reference the source from now on just to make you happy. Are we ok now with this issue?


That's fine, but that does not explain the flare in the penumbral filament layer or explain the difference between the penumbra and the umbra.

If black body radiation was responsible for light, then we SHOULD see smooth lines of increasing brightness from the core all the way to the top of the penumbral layer. We don't see anything like that. Instead we see a VERY clear deliniation between the penumbra and umbra parts of the photosphere. My model explains this. Your model does not. My model explains the flare in the penumbral filament layer. Your model does not. My model explains the convection processes of neon we see in the penumbral filaments. Your model does not. See a pattern emerging here?

Come now. There is a VERY clear deliniation between the umbra and penumbra. We see light, then dark at very clearly defined levels of this sunspot along every single side of the sunspot. There is no side that behaves radically differently from any other side as it relates to thickness. Your answer is WAY too simplistic and does not explain the flare, the thickness of the penumbral filaments or any of these things.

But wait a moment. We should be able to predict SOMETHING about these sunspots with your model. If it's black body radiation, what is different about the penumbral filaments than the umbra below? You can't just leave that part unaddressed and expect to to accept that answer. If this were slowly increasing light from below, I would not expect to see the umbra underneath of th penumbral filaments. I see black under the shiny layer in these photos. That has to be explained. So does the flare in the penumbral filament layer. Neither of these observations jives with your black body explanation.

In this case however, the difference between the penumbra and umbra is so great the named these two things separetely. What makes them different and behave differently?

I'll read up on the affect, but I fail to see why my explantion isn't superiour to yours since I can explain the umbra AND the flare pattern perfectly. So far, you've yet to do either of these things with your model.

No, this is not the way science is supposed to work at all. There is supposed to be some sense of scientific netrality and open mindedness, especially as it relates to untested theories. The predictions of the gas model are crumbling right and left every single day. Hubble has located iron and neon and silicon as far back in time as we can see. That is in direct opposition to the gas model predictions. The sun's composition has been determined by nuclear chemistical analysis of lunar soils and comets to be made primarily of iron. That is in direct oppostion to gas model preditions. Those sunquakes on my website are in direct opposition to gas model predictions. That uniformly rotating fferrite layer is in direct opposition to gas model predictions. The gas model can't even explain the arcs we see or the carrier of these magnetic fields within the arc. The gas model is virtually dead at this point and hardly anyone has noticed how few predictions match expectations and how many predictions have already been falsified, starting with the idea the iron didn't form for BILLIONS of years after the BB.

The lack of competition is a very serious problem in astronomy if you ask me. There is far too much alegiance to a model that came for a few observations from a $200 dollar telescope, 400 years ago. The model I have constructed is based on satellite imagery from 6 different multi-million dollar satellites. I don't care how smart Galileo might have been, he didn't have access to this kind of technology, and we haven't had evidence to falisfy or corroborate his prediction that nothing solid exists beneath the visible photosphere until the last decade.

I think you and the majority of the scientific community are trying desparately to prop up a failed model only because it's considered "safe".

I lothe that attitude. If you can't explain it in your own words, quit pretending to know something I don't. I dont' believe you know anything more about this than I do. In fact I think you know a lot less. The fact you act as though these are not even relevant questions suggests to me that you don't have an open mind as it relates to this topic. These are "vital" observations, not something you can just ignore because you can't explain it.