Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
So, where do we stand now?
|
Well, you did ask for my opinion, so ...
Quote:
|
I've addressed the density problem now.
|
In no way. You have denied that methods to determine the sun's density are valid, though these methods have great predictive power and are used to determine spacecraft trajectory and in observational astronomy, among many other things.
You have suggested a wild alternative to conventional gravitational theory, but have not provided references, evidence, or calculation. You have not demonstrated why we should throw out Newton and Einstein just because you say so. It is a leap of pure speculation, based on nothing except the insistence that your model is correct.
Quote:
|
I've explained all the materials involved as seen in the SERTS data.
|
You demonstrated that you didn't understand what the data represented.
Quote:
|
I have a Dr. of nuclear chemistry that came to exactly the same conclusion I did about the composition of the sun based on a completely different field of science and a completely different set of data.
|
(1) Dr. Manuel's conclusions seem to be quite different than yours, and
(2) His conclusions have been firmly rejected based on the evidence. Justly so, from reading the "Universe Today" forum.
Quote:
|
Gas model theorists have exactly NO evidence that hydrogen was EVER the most abundant element in the universe.
|
Except for multiple methods of direct and indirect measurement. Incidentally, you seem to confuse "existence of" and "relative abundance." You need to look at the actual numbers, not whether one experiment or another simply found evidence for an element.
Quote:
|
I've seen exactly NO explanations from a single page of my website.
|
There isn't much to explain. It is pure speculation based on image misinterpretation.
Quote:
|
I've seen no logical explanation for the fact this ferrite layer covers an entire surface rather than being collected in a small core like the gas model predicts.
|
(1) Because there is no ferrite layer. There is nothing solid. Pretty logical, eh?
(2) The "gas model" doesn't predict iron would all be collected in a small core, but is primarily distributed through the volume.
Quote:
|
I've seen no logical explanation to believe why a ferrite layer floats on helium,
|
See above.
Quote:
|
and I've heard no logical reason to explain that TRACE video that shows a layer being peeled from a relatively solid surface.
|
Because that isn't what it shows. This is a complete misinterpretation of the image.
Quote:
|
I've heard no explaination of how such a surface rotates uniformly over many days,
|
You have not demonstrated it is uniform.
Quote:
|
nor any logical explaination for the penumbral filament patters we see during sunspot activity that is superior to the one I offered.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
Quote:
|
Where does that leave us now? Is there any other logical objection to the model I have presented at this point?
|
Pretty much the same place when we started: It is pure speculation, completely at odds with many lines of evidence, including density, observed elemental abundance, temperature, satellite imagery, neutrino output, helioseismology results, etc. The speculation was fun to read, though.