Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Do you really see anything wrong with Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemistry or the satellite imagery I have presented? How can these two very different areas of science end up at exactly the same conclusion and still not be taken seriously? Why should there not be competing theories to work with expecially if the competing model can be supported by satellite imagery AND nuclear chemistry?
|
Well, I don't know about the second, but the first, Manuel's nuclear chemistry, is clearly flawed. As other's have pointed out, its predictions do not match the
observed structure of the sun and iron, while present, is not as prevalent in the sun as his model predicts. And, when one considers that one of the bases for his model are the old measurements of the solar nu flux, it's clear (to me at least) that Dr. Manuel's model does not explain the observations as well as the SSM does.
(oh, and by the way, Galileo knew nothing about nuclear fusion processes, so the standard solar model has clearly undergone some modifications since his day. A better starting point for the current solar model is the seminal paper
The Origin of Chemical Elements by Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow
from 1948. Of course, the SSM has undergone further modification since then.)