Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
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.
|
But I did explain this phenomenon by using the theory of relativity you folks claimed I rejected. There would be no change whatsoever relative to our two dimensional sense of gravity. In other words, my explanation does fit within the known laws of gravity and stiill explains the increase in density based on a 3 dimensional perspective. No noticeable difference would be apparent from out two dimensional perspetive.
Quote:
|
You have suggested a wild alternative to conventional gravitational theory, but have not provided references, evidence, or calculation.
|
Rome wasn't built in a day. I just started thinking about this problem a few days ago for goodness sake! Even still, my solution fits well with observed phenomenon, including the 22 year rotation of the sun's magnetic field.
[qoute] 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]
That's a rediculace strawman since I just used the theory of relativity to resolve this problem in the first place. To then accuse me of somehow disagreeing with Einstein is simply absurd.
Quote:
|
You demonstrated that you didn't understand what the data represented.
|
No YOU demonstated you know very little about nuclear chemistry. If you don't believe me, take it up with the good Doctor. He had this outcome pegged nearly 40 years ago using nuclear chemisty. Where in your explanation of these numbers did you include any concept at all of energy states of various valence shell configurations? Who do you think you are kidding anyway?
Quote:
|
(1) Dr. Manuel's conclusions seem to be quite different than yours, and
|
No, they are not. We both agree the sun formed form a supernova remnant and is mostly made of iron and heavy metals. We are even colaborating on work together at this point, so your point is mute. Whatever issues come up, we'll work though, don't you worry.
Quote:
|
(2) His conclusions have been firmly rejected based on the evidence. Justly so, from reading the "Universe Today" forum.
|
There is no "evidence" that disproves his work because its been OBSERVED to be true at this point. I've seen how this group rejects perfectly sound ideas on a whim and based on "bad science" like counting photons to determine solar composition. With that kind of ignorance to overcome, it's no wonder folks didn't understand the work he did. This whole notion that you can add up photons to determine solar composition is just based on pure ignorance of nuclear chemistry entirely.
Quote:
|
Except for multiple methods of direct and indirect measurement.
|
No. You have NO direct measurement that demonstrates this as it relates to the composition of the sun or any other large body in the solar system.
Quote:
|
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.
|
When one does the math the RIGHT way, and includes valence shell energy states into the equation, it's quite clear the sun is mostly made of iron. The observational evidence confirms his math and his findings were right all along. You'll note that up until now he didn't have such evidence, but he has embraced it openly now that it is available. Sooner or later others will notice he was right all along and the information I compiled confirms it observationally.
Quote:
|
There isn't much to explain. It is pure speculation based on image misinterpretation.
|
What a GIANT cop out that is. It's not really an sunquake even though it LOOKS like a sunquake? If you beloved gas model had been accurate, these ion emissions would be coming from a tiny little core. Instead there is a whole LAYER of ferrite covering the width of the sun. You're just going to ignore that little problem eh?
Quote:
|
(1) Because there is no ferrite layer. There is nothing solid. Pretty logical, eh?
|
No, that is pure denial on your part. I can see it with my own eyes and so can anyone else who WANTS to. The fact this LAYER rotates uniformly and all the structures stay intact day after day after day precludes you from claiming there is nothing "solid". That movie I handed you from Lockheed Martin precludes you from claiming this layer isn't solid. You've NEVER addressed this video or explained what holds those ridges together in that kind of heat range. You are simply in denial of the observational evidence at this point.
Quote:
|
(2) The "gas model" doesn't predict iron would all be collected in a small core, but is primarily distributed through the volume.
|
How do you explain ALL that iron? Did you even do some quick math to consider the ramifications of even a modest amount of ferrite over such a large surface area? There is NO WAY this amount of iron can be explained by the gas model.
See above yourself. You've never demonstrate that iron ANYTHING, solid or plasma will FLOAT on helium plasma and not separate from helium plasma. You are simply ALEDGING this like you have ALEDGED everything else. You do so in direct opposition to the clear abundance of iron all along a surface that rotates uniformly.
Quote:
|
Because that isn't what it shows. This is a complete misinterpretation of the image.
|
But of course you offer no explaination of your own? This really is a big time denial routine now.
Quote:
|
You have not demonstrated it is uniform.
|
I did. If you'd bother to watch the running difference images I put together you can see it for yourself. Show me ANY evidence in that video that anything rotates differently than any other part of the surface. You cannot and you will not.
No answer about the flare pattern. It didn't explain why the hole always closes from the outside in either. You are just tossing out a concept and HOPING it sticks. It doesn't fit since it doesn't address the important observations I have pointed out to you.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I addressed the density thing USING the relativity theory. You on the other hand didn't touch a single observation on my website and offer a rational explation of this observation using the gas model. That is because there isn't one. The sun never was a giant ball of gas and Dr. Manuel knew that 35 years before we could "see" it for ourselves.