No. This is an OVERsimplification. That might work fine for a gas model, but that isn't going to work in a solid surface model that involves electromagnetic currents. I'm starting to check out that plasma based universe idea I saw in the other thead on this board. I think those concepts make a LOT of sense and probably hold the key to understanding how to answer this question. There is no way to know if the suns "charge" and the earth's "charge" don't somehow influence these measurements. Until we understand these kinds of things, there is no way to answer this question. I'm sure it can be done, but it can't be done using purely a gas model prediction set. We live in an ELECTRIC universe and electricity is FAR more powerful than gravity. You can't simply ignore the implications of these things as it relates to a ball of iron. There are MANY other issues to consider, and your oversimplification isn't going to cut it.

The assumption you are making that no electromagnetic influence should be considered!

Then maybe I'll have to reconsider aspects of my model. I seriously urge you to check out the website that talks about plasma cosmology. That is an AMAZING website. The universe is certainly filled with all sorts of electromagnetic influences and plasmas of all kinds. To simply ignore all this in favor of an oversimplification seems like a VERY bad idea from my perspective.

I suspect other people were indoctrinated into astronomy just like me. You cannot sit there and tell me that it wasn't galileo who first claimed the sun didn't have a solid surface. That was HIS assumption, and it's never been verified or falsified by direct observation until NOW. NOW we know that there is an iron layer that does move uniformly from pole to equator that sits underneath the visible photosphere.

Here's the way I see it. None of you can really explain why we should ASSUME the sun has no solid iron layer. None of you can really explain why we should ASSUME that iron floats on helium. None of you can really explain a single observation from my website using the gas model. None of you can adequately explain why we see a SURFACE of iron rather than a pea sized amount of it in the core like the gas model predicts. None of you can explain why the sun would not be composed of the same heavy materials that formed the first four planets of the solar system. None of you have adequately explained why it wouldn't contain iron in abundance like every comet we "run into". Why in the world would anyone with even a first semester understanding of nuclear chemistry believe that you can tell an objects composition by weight based on photon count alone?

Until you guys can begin to answer some of these questions, I'm going to think you're just emotionally attached to being right rather than addressing the evidence I've presented.

Other than the fact it's big and shines, how do you KNOW it's "different" in composition than the first three planets of the system and different than comets? We already have evidence that our whole solar system formed from the remnants of supernova. There certainly was plenty of heavy material to work with. Why would only the lightest materials form at that center? That's not even logical.

That's one of the assumptions of the gas model proponents. They typically suggest that all matter formed from a single explosions and all matter was too hot to form for a very long time, and slowly hydrogen formed, and then is slowly came together by gravity and slowly formed suns and only AFTER one of these suns blew did we get heavy materials.

Hubble's instruments call such simplistic assumptions into question.

Only if you are personally naive enough to think that valence shells and energy states of atoms, and heat distribution between elements should be utterly ignored!

He didn't know much about nuclear chemistry either, nor do many folks today evidently.

LOTS compared to gas model predictions that suggested our universe began from a singlularity that was very hot and only formed hydrogen at first.

EARLY gas model predictions suggested that only hydrogen survived the early part of the Big Bang. Hubble suggests it may have began as a "Big Slam", or "Big Bloom". The current model is being altered every decade now to "push back" the dates to fit the data. That's a sure sign things are looking bleak for the gas model.

No, it wasn't. In fact there is now evidence that it formed from supernova remnants. That means that Dr. Manuel was right. If he was right about that, how do you know he was wrong in his analysis of lunar soil samples?

Yes. Have you ever taken a nuclear chemistry class? Do you understand energy states of valence shells? How would these factor into the spectrum data in your opinion?

I've seen a PART of it. I'm not exactly sure anyone has ever seen ALL of it.

I was really trying to focus on issues where I expected my model to deviate noticeably from the standard model. Since my model is based upon an expectation of free positrons and free electrons flowing from the surface, I didn't really expect to see much difference from my model and the gas model.

I'm guessing by all this focus on nuetrinos all of a sudden, that my original statements were really misconstrued. All I was trying to point out is that the gas model's predictions did NOT *AT FIRST* match the measured neutrino count. At that time, that gas model was not TOSSED OUT *ONLY* because it didn't jive with expectations. No concept should be "tossed out" only because it can't explain a single measurement. New tests were created to look for other ways to explain these contradictions. Nobody paniced however and claimed ONE test somehow ruled out the model.

No, it makes no sense SCIENTIFICALLY. If you know even the rudimentary aspects of chemistry, you know that there are energy states to consider and valence shells and heat distribution within the physical model to consider. There is simply no logical reason to add up photons and pretend that can tell us the solar composition. It is a LOT more complicated than that. I can't bury my head in the sand to an obviously overly simplistic set of assumptions!

I certainly do know the basics of the gas model. I was indocrinated into the gas model just like you. I just don't cling to it anymore, nor can I ignore what I see with my own eyes and can understand from my basic grasp of nuclear chemistry.

Start by explaining why we see an entire surface rather than pea sized amount of iron in the core. Start by explaining how the first four planets are made of heavy materials, as are every comet we've ever studied, yet somehow the sun only contains the very LIGHTEST elements our solar system in any real quantity. What is the logic in that?

How much of those materials is present?[/quote]

I don't know that purely from observation.

Be my guest. How much hydrogen and helium does the earth contain or any comet contain relative to it's overall mass?

Well, it COULD be solid as my model suggests. I COULD be an exotic plasma of some kind as well if I am to be intellectually honest about it. In either case, I would not expect to see this iron layer floating on top of a helium layer. That model would defy the laws of gravity. That however is the model that NASA uses to this day. Why do they do that?

Visit my webiste. Look around. Pick just one of my pages and explain the observed phenomenon using the gas model.

Sound travels through about anything except a vacuum. To have sounds like sand hitting a bell, you need a bell.

I explain it my noting that some evidence might support a VARIETY of models. Some evidence will not. In this case the evidence fits BOTH models and excludes neither one.