Quote:
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 26 2004, 04:08 AM
However, I make measurements, not models.
|
But you do make a model.
You are taking the measured abundances of several isotopes, and then proposing a model to explain them. This model fails against many other measurements.
A great deal of your paper space seems devoted to the Xenon issue. The paper
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf describes Xenon-1 as having elevated abundences of the middle-weight isotopes [e.g. 130 & 132 & 134] of Xenon and Xenon-2 as having somewhat elevated light and heavy isotopes [e.g. 124 & 136], plus it appears with an elevated number of trapped alpha particles. The papers discuss previous results showing that the Xenon-2 concentrations are probably the result of r-process in a supernova, but it says nothing to show that our sun must be constructed largely of fusion products from such a supernova. By showing that the Solar wind and Earth atmospheric abundences are Xe-1 and Jupiter and the carbonaceous meteroites contain Xe-2, you only show that the outer part of the protoplanteary disk ended up with different isotope ratios from the part that was highly heated by the early sun. You aren't showing that the sun is made of rocks [your model].
You give a correlation factor:
The statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is <0.000000000000000000000000000000002. but you don't explain how it was calculated or what, precisely this non-fortuitous agreement must imply. There could be many models that might explain it.