Quote:
Originally posted by Nereid@Jul 11 2005, 09:55 PM
UT Forum readers who are interested may find an extensive discussion of this idea on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, here.
The site owner (Phil Plait; BA and UT are in each other's 'similar sites') locked the thread (after 15 pages!), with the following words (extract), directed at the proponent of these claims about the Sun:
"Here's the scoop. You look at images, then assume that just by looking at them you can deduce all sorts of things, including that everything we know about physics for the past century is wrong. When people point out the (incredibly copious) errors of your ideas, you simply continue to use those same arguments to make further arguments.
You say we are arrogant, when you are the one who is saying that every single scientist has missed incredibly obvious problems with every field of physics -- including chemistry, relativity, stellar dynamics, solar behavior, fusion, hydrodynamics, basic mechanics, cosmology, and now, evidently, acentrism -- and that you are the one who has figured all this out.
Did I miss anything?
I think that pretty much sums this up. I don't see a whole lot of usefulness coming from this thread at this point. No matter what people say, you are clearly just reacting to what they are saying instead of really thinking about it. You don't even consider the advice of experts, people who study this stuff for a living. And we're supposed to listen to you? Why should we?
I'll give you some credit for trying; it can't be easy to have so many people assaulting your ideas from so many directions. But in a very real sense, that's the point: your idea is assailable from all those different directions, because it's wrong in that many ways. Yet you have not been able to defend the idea against these questions, so you just build more incorrect ideas on top of others. "
The specific comment by Michael Mozina that Phil is responding to is one Mike made in an attempt to explain why the average density of the Sun (mass divided by volume) is so far below that of solid iron; here is Mike's 'defence': "I'm suggesting the whole universe spins within an electromagnetic field that is constantly accelerating these balls of iron as they spin through space."
|
Since this thread now relates back to the Bad Astronomy Board, you may want to read through this thread as well, since the conversations continue:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopi...9a40d7e092d68bc
I would very much appreciate a gas model explanation for this running difference image from the trace satellite.
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
By the way, it was certainly NOT my intent to create the "tone" that happened at the Bad Astronomy board. I'm really pretty easy to get along with as long as we can have a sense of humor about this.
I realize that this is not a mainstream idea, but I think the fact that Dr. Manuel and I reached the very same conclusion using entirely different methods is very important. His observations in nuclear chemistry predicted this set of observations nearly 35 years before you saw them in this thread. I believe if one keeps an open mind that this model of the sun is at least as "viable" as any gas model that exists mainly because it's supported by direct visual observation, and was predicted by nuclear chemistry more than 3 decades ago based on totally different measurements and methods and data sets.