Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Faultline
Mozina, your job is to complete your hypothesis and match it with as many of the observations as possible. It's not sufficient to point at anomolies and say, "I'm right because you can't explain this!"
|
I agree. That is why I put together an entire website based on many different observations. It includes explanations for these observations that by necessity will match observations, because all I did was observe to begin with. Every observation must have a explanation, and I offered one for every observation I listed.
Quote:
|
Just because current theory can't YET explain why a particular observation doesn't fit the model, the model still has tons of other evidence to fall back on. When a model fits 99% of observations, it is the most accurate one around. We are not going to trade it for a model that only fits 1% of the observations.
|
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you to consider another model that can explain a whole host of things the gas model has yet to explain and even if it's only 90% there, it's far better at explaining recent satellite images than the gas model. I offer the fact no one has even tried as evidence there is a serious problem getting a gas model to explain these images.
Quote:
|
Stop asking others to explain things and get to explaining them yourself. Then we can have something to agree with or disagree with.
|
Science is really competetive when it's at it's best IMO. I am simply pointing out to you that there has been more than a century's worth of work done on this model by a host of very dedicated and honest scientists that firmly believe in an electrical model of the sun. Now you can take that information and ignore it, or you can consider it carefully. I can't make you consider it, but these satellite images should make you consider it, particularly if you and no one here can explain these images.
Consider this. I'm just one guy. Dr. Manuel and I together are only two people. I've thrown in Dr. Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work into the mix and between the 4 of us, I think we can cover a lot of bases here and explain a lot of solar phenomenon that directly relates electrical activity in the solar atmosphere.
Now the gas model crowd has the benefit of far more than 4 guys doing the work, but where oh where is the gas model explanation for these heat concentration patterns? How about that sturctures seen in running difference images or even an explanation fo the lighting source in running difference images using a gas model? If four of us can put our heads together and figure an explanation to offer for critique, then surely the gas model folks, with thousand upon thousand of highly decided and highly intelligent scientists can step forth and offer a alternative explanation so we can sit down and compare the two in minute detail. To date I've yet to hear an explanation for the lighting source or structure from anyone. I've not heard an explanation for the focus of heat in the arcs either for that matter.
Now science is supposed to work by comparing observation to theory and comparing possible ways of explaining these phenomenon so we can judge a range of options and pick the "best", most elegant solution. I've offered my explanation. So far no one here is willing to stick their neck out and offer one to compare it to. What can I say? I'm willing to compare, but I need something to compare my answer to before I can make a decision one way or the other. If you have some suggestions here, I'm all ears.