Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skepticfrog
1) Science constantly progresses. All of our work builds on the work of others (true for natural and social sciences). This is why so much time is spent reviewing the work of others, examining what holes need to be filled, and then attempting to fill them. I am not as familiar with works published in astronomy, but I would assume that most published work begins with some review of existing work, holes in that work, and where your work fits in. The problem with your manuscript is that it seems to skip from Galileo to you. To be taken more seriously, your manuscript needs to make as strong a case as possible for the argument you are critiquing, and then explain why yours is better. Starting with Galileo in your piece immediately gives the appearance of starting with a straw man. You need to begin with a critique of the most current work, preferably work that uses evidence from SOHO, TRACE, etc. and show why that work is flawed.
|
Well, there are a few things we need to address in that paragraph. While some areas of science are gradual and build on older materials, some science just doesn't work that way. For instance, up until 10 years ago, we simply had not way to visibly verify or falsify Galileo's basic assumption that nothing solid could or did exist beneath the visible photosphere. We could make predictions. We could use THEORY to speculate and come up with SOME data, but until these satellites went to space, there wasn't a serious way to falsify or validate this assumption. It also happens to be a VERY critical assumption that forms the very foundation of the gas model. If that assumption is false, then everything that is based on that assumption is also false.
Your comment COULD be construed as an appeal to authority fallacy in that you are suggesting that because there is a gap between Galileo's observations and mine, that mine are somehow less valide than his. This is not so. I have better telescopes to work with. I have better a much better understanding of electricity. I understand the properties of neon and I know the difference between plasma and gas and have the benifit of 400 years of science.
In this particular instance, my work was unique. In other words I did rely on other people's work or other people manuscripts, or other people's observations. I worked alone, and I made these observations and built this model based on these observations.
It just so happens however that my work is fully supported by the field of nuclear chemistry as well. I didn't expect to find such validation frankly but I have.
If you are trying to suggest that my work is not valid only because it didn't begin with a bunch of assumptions and a bunch of other baggage, I must respectfully disagree. I think it is in fact because I did NOT try to make things fit into a preconcieved set of ideas that I was able to make these discoveries in the first place. I say "discoveries" here loosely, since I wasn't the first person to discover the sun was mostly made of iron, Dr. Manuel figure that out forty years ago. I just happen to be the first person to discover that the sun has an iron layer via OBSERVATION alone using images from six different satellites.
Sometimes science changes overnight because of new discoveries. If you don't allow for that possibility, you do science and yourself a great disservice IMO.
Quote:
|
2) Take seriously the critiques of others. In response to the argument that we know the density and mass of the sun, you keep responding that a) we need to know exact composition of the layers; and b) something about the effects of electromagnetism and a ferrite surface having unknown effects. If your model is superior, however, you should be able to calculate with relative ease the amount of each of the component elements in the sun and then postulate the thickness of the layers.
|
I think that is very naive. I am a single individual, not a team of people working night and day for 400 years on this issue. I've done the best I can do and I've admitted the limits of my knowledge. That's all I've done. The fact that no gas model explaination has been offered for ANY of the images on my website doesn't make you dismiss the gas model, so why would one or two things that seem unanswered in my model cause you to reject my model?
Quote:
|
If, on the other hand, you are positing that we cannot understand the forces acting on the sun, establish concrete, testable hypotheses of what you would expect those forces to be and ways we can test them.
|
Well, first of all, I'm learning something new about the sun virtually every day at this point. I'd love to have a way to test and see whether electromagnetic influence play a part in our calculation of the sun's density, but I can't think of a way to "test" for this just yet. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but I don't know how at the moment. Again however I can offer a variety of ways to explain how we might deal with these issues, and I'm not suggesting these issues should be ignored.
Then again, I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss one model for a lack a single answer on a single topic and apply a completely different standard to the gas model, only because its "safe".
Quote:
|
While I am dubious about your argument, again, I am not criticizing you for doing something new. With my limited knowledge, the conventional view seems more compelling. For me to take your argument more seriously (in your manuscript) would require a great deal more effort of placing your work in the context of the most recent work.
|
Well, I agree with you here. Now that I know that there IS corroborating evidence from the field of nuclear chemistry, I intend to incorporate that into my manuscript along with the evidence on my website from HUBBLE, CHANDRA and SPITZER. I'm also going to collaborate with Dr. Manuel on some other publications. I'm sure you'll hear more about this subject as time goes by.
Quote:
|
From the replies on the board, it seems that current work actually explains most observed phenomena of the sun. Make the strongest argument for your opponent, and then explain why you are better.
|
The gas model has indeed been bandaided together over the years to include "explanations" that are anything but obvious. For instance I can explain light as coming from neon, something we can see with our eyes in everyday life. The gas model group uses relatively "mystical" terms like "black body radiation" to describe light from the sun. I'd say my answer is MUCH simpler and occums razor ideas should apply here.
The 11 year cycle has NEVER adequately been explained by gas model proponents. The gas model really doesn't offer much in the way of an explanation for solar moss activity, or the sunquakes we see on the ferrite layer. It doesn't explain how iron floats on helium. It doesn't explain why we see emissions along a whole surface rather than from a pea sized core in the center of the sun. The gas model is old, and cobbled together at this point. Very little of what goes on beneath the photosphere is predicted by the gas model. Why do you think it's a "better" model than mine, other than the fact that is the politically correct model? Could you be at all specific or explain one or two pages of my website using the gas model to demonstrate how it is superior?
Quote:
|
But then again, I'm only a social scientist.
|
Then again, I'm just a programmer by trade.
