Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
When you say "It shows a lot of both of them", what you really mean is that we see a lot of it. That really doesn't tell us what is there, only what is SHINING during the time of our measurements of the photons we collect. Spitzer is opening up the universe to all new spectrums of energy and it finds iron and silicon as far back in time as it can see, just like Hubble.
|
Ah but how is Spitzer finding these things? By looking at their photon emmissions. So if you want to prove your theory "counting photon emmissions" is OK but when anyone uses it to try to prove another one it isn't justified. Having ones cake and eating it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Again, there are two basic premises that unpin the gas model. The first premise is that the BB produced all matter,
|
Wrong, Hoyle did a large amount of work on on the steady state model and on thermonuclear fusion in stars. You don't need a big bang to have stars made of gas.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
and the second one being that counting photon emissions will give us an accurate representation of solar composition.
|
Personally I prefer looking at the composition of the Sun using methods of spectroscopy to examine what elements are present rather than examining meteors.