Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baloo
Well, that's just my opinion and your last posts doesn't help to change it. But, as example, you're saying that:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
I believe that Dr. Oliver Manuel has been accurate now for over 40 years in his assesment that the sun was mostly made of iron. That is one scientists that I have absolute faith in.
|
The faith in someone's theory is not a scientific evidence that the theory is right, especially when is supported by just one person. |
He had his followers, long before I found his work. You act as though NOBODY on the planet EVER believed him. That is false. Several of his friends have contacted me to vouch for his abilities by the way. If you'd llike to demonstrate he doesn't know what he's talking about, go right ahead. Until then, arguements based on appeals to authority aren't really going to impress me.
[quote="Michael Mozina"]
Quote:
|
No, not just one measurement; it has been asked to you on this board to provide numerical estimations for observated parameters of the sun (neutrino emission, density, etc.). You've said that you could not do that yet; very well, but since you don't know yet if your theory match some of the facts why you are so sure that you're right?
|
I made 26 seperate and detailed predictions you are welcome to falsify at your leasure. The fact I can't hand you a PERFECTED theory that has had all the benefits of hundreds of man year of effort doesn't negate the model. You have predictions. Disprove them.
Quote:
|
No, we're asking for you to show that your theory is fitting the already observed facts.
|
I already *DID* that! I put up PAGES and PAGES of observations and explained how my model fits these observations and EXPLAINS these observations.
Quote:
|
And again, if you still don't know if the predictions you'll make will match the reality why are you so sure that your theory is correct?
|
Because it's based on pure observation, it explains everything we see observationally. It explains the iron ion emissions from a whole SURFACE rather than pea sized core. It explains the sunquake on my sunquake page. It explains solar moss. It explains the 11 year cycles of the sun. It explains the light we see with our eyes. It explains EVERYTHING I can SEE observationally.
On top of that, it was PREDICTED based on nuclear chemistry and many years of efforts by dedicated and intelligent scientists.
Quote:
|
Your assumption that there is a iron layer on the surface is based only on the SOHO images taken with the Fe filters or on something else?
|
No. It is based on SOHO images, TRACE images, Yohkoh images, Chandra images, Hubble images and Spitzer images as well. It's based on spectral data from the SERTS program and lunar analysis and comet analysis. What else would you like before you'll consider the idea?
Quote:
AFAIK Galileo didn't say anything about photosphere and what is underneath it simply because he didn't knew that the photosphere existed.
Do you think that the later scientists took on faith what Galileo said ?
|
Yes I do. I think a LOT of them did. I think a FEW of them tried to prove or disprove the idea with very PRIMATIVE technology. I happen to have the advantage of a lot better technology than any sceintist that has ever studied this issue up to today. Only in the past 10 years have we had the technology to fully test this ASSUMPTION. That ASSUMPTION was false according to these images from 6 different multimillion dollar satellite programs and from spectral analysis from the Serts program and from lunar analysis as well. Most of the technology capable of helping us has only been available to THIS generation of scientists, and only in the past 10 years have satellites designed to study the sun been launched into space.
Quote:
|
The problem is that you're not working scientifically; you're providing the images but not a word about the specific conditions in which they've been obtained or at least links to the original webpage.
|
I put a link to every photo I used in my manuscript at the bottom of my manuscript. I put links to the SOHO and TRACE websites where I acquired most of the materials I have used. I did NOT try to do that with EVERY single photo, but few websites I've ever seen attempt to do such a thing in minute detail.
Quote:
|
You're kidding, aren't you? I could adress you exactly the same questions! This kind of argumentation is leading nowhere; I provided you my explanation and you're asking me "how do I know" whitout yet reading it and whitout trying to evaluate my arguments?
|
It's a valid question. The fact you can explain something ONE way does not negate the possibility that it can be explained another way as well. The fact you offered me an explanation is not evidence it actually works that way. What evidence do you have that it works that way? If you keep avoiding my question about the flare pattern and the fact it always closes from the outside toward the inside, then I can't help but believe your answer remains incomplete and does not jive with observational evidence. I know my model DOES jive with observational evidence and I have no reason to believe that yours does since you can't explain these *IMPORTANT* observations. Throwing a half answer at me is not the same as explaining the observed behavior with your model. You have *AN* explanation. How do you know its the RIGHT explanation?
Quote:
|
I don't know what material is, but my evaluation doesn't depend on the material but only on it's temperature.
|
No way. You can't get away with that. You need a MATERIAL to explain how we get THIS KIND of visible light. I offered you a MATERIAL in my explanation. That makes my explanation a BETTER one at the moment. I can explain the flare and the fact it closes from the outside in. You've not done that. You've handed me half and idea and claim it fits observationally and you keep dodging difficult questions about the behaviors we see in these pictures.
Quote:
|
The patterns you're talking about are probably flow patterns, but not from a different material; it could be the same but with different temperatures and therefore with different emission spectra.
|
Hey, we agree. I've isolated the materials as well. You did not. Again, my model is therefore superior and has more ability to be tested and more ability to be falsified.
Quote:
|
Ah, and you've get me wrong: I don't KNOW that this is the right explanation, I've just did a quick evaluation of the known data on the images and I've provided a PLAUSIBLE explanation (altough I think is probably the right one).
|
You THINK, but you don't KNOW. That's the whole problem. You ASSUME that since it's the "accepted" answer it's the right one, but you can't explain it personally. I can PERSONALLY explain my model, what the material are, and why it flows the way it flows. My model is superior.
Quote:
|
Did you contacted the observatory that took those images? Did you contacted some expert in the field to ask a second opinion on this very images? Did you search for some other possible explanations for why that picture look like that?
|
I've contacted NASA and Lockheed Martin and Stanford. I've asked all sorts of "experts" to explain these images. Their answers defy the laws of physics. In this particular instance I did NOT happen to contact the person who took the photo, but I am just as capable of interpreting this photo as anyone else. You are arguing an appeal to authority fallacy again.
Quote:
|
It seems to me that you're overestimating your competences;
|
It seems to me you are underestimating them.
Quote:
the Sun (and actually the rest of the universe :wink is VERY different from the Earth and the daily experiences that one has here is not applicable elsewhere. What kind of specific experience with the electricity do you have that could be applied in the Sun's study?
|
What do I need to get through your appeal to authority arguement? This is more arguement by inuendo. Have you ever personally used an arc welder? Have you worked around electricity your whole life? Do you have your own business? What is your competency in general science? See how irrelevant this is?
If you believe I am in error, demonstrate the error. Otherwise this is nothing but an appeal to authority.
Quote:
|
No, not for me; nobody will pay attention to your theory if you fail to properly use the basic therms who should be very well understood not to build a theory but just to be capable of understanding one.
|
FYI, I *DID* use the term properly since this layer is IRON, which when crystalized is a FERRITE, and the surface is really an ALLOY of a FERRITE material. Your nitpicking is simply nitpicking IMO.
Quote:
|
As long as your alloy is not the one described above you should not use the nomination "ferrite"; is not right and is also highly misleading.
|
I do not know that it is not as the one described. Do you? Do you know that the iron isn't FERRITE in it's own right?
Quote:
|
What is the ratio Fe/Other elements on the Sun's surface in your opinion?
|
The honest answer is "I don't know". I could GUESS as some of the other metals involved from the SERTS data, but what would be the point?
Quote:
|
So you have a heat source in the midlle, then a cool layer and then a hot layer?
|
Huh? No. I have a heat source at the bottom, a cool layer of silicon followed by a layer of neon and helium and hydrogen.
Quote:
How does the cool neon layer transmits heat to a much hot layer? You're contradicting some fundamental thermodinamics law here...
:wink:
|
No I am not. The hot silicon rises to the neon layer where the neon convects this heat to the outer layers. Once the silicon is cool, it sinks again. If you buy a lava lamp and plug it in, you'll get the idea. Now laws of thermodynamic are contradicted.
Quote:
|
Purely visual inspection...hm, not at all scientific.
|
False. Science is all about OBSERVATION. Sure observation is NOT unscientific no matter what you think.
Quote:
Let's make an experiment: will look from the Earth' s orbit down to the Atlantic ocean with an infrared camera. The image will look like: that . Full of cracks, isnt'it? Especially the big red one, very clear on a visual inspection...well, I bet that the Atlantic ocean has no cracks in it, even if in this photo one is clearly visible. 8)
(the explanation of what are we really seeing here )
|
You're big on the strawmen today aren't you?
Quote:
|
AFAIK fission implies elements heavier than Fe; do you have any in your model? 8)
|
Yes, I've already noted the nickel. Whatever is below the nickel is going to be heavier that both of these elements.
Quote:
|
Positrons? Do you mean this kind of particle? Antimatter?
|
No, I mean POSITRONS.