Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gillianren
really, really not, in fact. I haven't seen you once show to any degree of understandability how your model fits any observations other than "it looks like it the thing is, you're looking at pictures. "
|
I'm getting a little tired of the belittling process that is being put upon DIRECT OBSERVATION. I specifically capitalized the words this time because we need to talk about this issue. Theory and math, used the right way are wonderful tools. If however you try to apply theory and a math forumula to something it doesn't fit, the results probably won't match with observation. There is no guarantee that a theory and a math formula actually relates to an idea unless you have "pretty little pictures" to look at and compare it to. Those "pretty little pictures" tell the truth. They don't lie. The are nuetral. They don't care what we think. They are just there because that's they the universe works. We can ignore those pretty little pictures, or we can analyse them in great detail. I choose the later. Some people to so far outside of science, they start to belittle the idea without cause. That is argument by ridicule. I am utterly unimpressed with arguement by riducule.
Quote:
|
Theory and math are great things do you honestly also believe that clouds are made of cotton because they look like they do?
|
This is what I mean. Do you honestly think that is a fair debate tactic or a fair strawman here? Did I make any such claim? If all I was bringing to this discussion was pretty little pictures, you'd have a right to say things like this. I brought you the life's work of Dr. Birkeland, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel to consider as well. Did you notice that part?
Quote:
|
some of the things in the pictures you're showing us look like bridges to me, but there's no reason for me to assume that they are because that's what they look like.
|
No, there is not. Then again these structures exist. Unlike clouds these 'strutures' rotate uniformly around the sun. The last for days, perhaps whole rotations cycles. You can't simply ignore the fact they are there altogether and close your eyes to their existence. How about explaining them scientifically?
Quote:
|
if Birkeland, Bruce, or Manuel agree with you, and you're explaining their hypotheses correctly, I don't have any reason to believe them, either.
|
Because? That is no better than me suggesting I have no reason to belive anyone but myself. Care to explain the error in any of their work, or tackle a single page from my website and explain it using the gas model?
Quote:
|
but it's your job to explain your theory.
|
I agree. I've spent months putting together a detailed explanation on my website with lots of visual confirmation from direct observation.
Quote:
|
what do you think they are?
|
I think they are hills and valleys on an electrified surface. What do you think they are?
Quote:
|
what's your evidence that you're right?
|
Beside the images themselves? Ok, let's start with Dr. Manuel. Show me the error in his method. I've stuck my neck out and show you where I think the error in the photon method exists. You tell me where Dr. Manuel method went wrong and how and why.
Quote:
|
what's your evidence that anyone else is wrong, even?
|
How can anyone here be wrong, when none of you will offer an explanation for the images? I seem to be the only one "risking my reputation" around here recently.
Quote:
|
once you present reasoned evidence, including numbers,
|
Dr. Manuel, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland have plenty of numbers for you to examine. I'm more of the 'picture guy'. They also offer you a lot of reasoned evidence if you'll consider it. I will too and I'll do it real time on the internet for you. I'm putting my explanation out there to critique. How about offering me a competitive theory.
Quote:
|
then it becomes the job of those who disagree with you and know enough to have a sound reason for doing so to explain where you're wrong. you've been told this before; that's how science works.
|
No, that is not how science works. That is how religion works. Religions presume out outcome and work backworks. They belittle every peice of evidence put before them that might confict with the preconcieved idea. They ignore nuclear chemical analysis as well. I've seen that many time on religious based websites.
Science is different. It's "better" IMO in the sense that it is supposed to be able to 'learn' and adapt to new information from new technologies. It's suppose to remain open minded to all ideas to long as they offer meaningful explanations to real world observations. It works by competitition, and thrives on competition. That's what science is about.
Now I've stuck my neck out here, risked my reputation using my real name for all the world to see. I'm here on probably the single largest website for astronomy on the planet so I can logically and rationally discuss these ideas I've put forth with others.
What has been missing to this point in time is an alternative explanation for these observations using the gas model. If and when such an explanation is put on the table, then we can sit down and scientificallyd debate the two ideas based on the details we see in these observations. I'm willing to do that, but I need something to work with here from a scientifically competitive standpoint. If some amateur like me can offer a way to explain these images, then surely the scientific body as a whole can step forward and offer a competitive option. I really am open to suggestions, but if we are going to have more than a religious discussion, I'll need a competitive model to work with.
Quote:
|
you do understand that knowing how the image was created may have more to do with why certain things look certain ways than you're acknowledging, right? that's why you need to explain how it was created. I can't give any details, because my knowledge of solar probes is fairly limited, but, for example, I have a picture of myself somewhere taken using the false colouring system on the Voyager probes. I'm not really all purple and orange; it's how the software makes me look--and I don't know why, so I wouldn't attempt to explain things on, say, Saturn by looking at a picture using that program.
|
Sure, and I agree with you. If I was trying to tell you "Hey those structures are X tall", then you would need the scaling information to figure out if I am right or wrong. I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply noticing the structures themselves and the lighting effects and the heat distribution. These things can be "observed" without fully understanding the scaling. I don't really have to know a whole lot about the scaling or pixels sizes that Yohkoh uses to see that she picked out hard x-rays near the surface and soft x-rays that are conentrated in the arcs. If I wished to know how large the arc is, I'll need to know the scaling factors. It all depends on what kind of information we are trying to get from these images.
Quote:
|
in science, nothing is considered truly proven because there is always the possibility that there's something we don't know that changes things.
|
Exactly. On this point we fully agree.
Quote:
|
now, the more data we collect, the less likely that is to happen,
|
I think you just violated the scientific prime directive.
You presumed an outcome without know what KIND of data we might collect. You can't do that. You assume that all data collected with concur with previous theory. In this case, that did not happen. The reverse happened IMO. Now you have observation that conflicts with theory. Now what do we do? Ignore it? Sweep it under the carpet? That data is conflicted now. Where do we go from here? Which method of determining solar composition is 'better' from a scientific perpsective, Dr. Manuel's methods, or simply counting photons?
Quote:
|
which is why we still bother trying to collect data, and certainly we understand, say, Newtonian physics enough to put men on the Moon, but time has shown that Newtonian physics have their flaws, which obviously means it isn't "proven." it does still work, though.
|
No one here, least of all me, is doubting the usefulness of good ol' Newtonian physics. It's just that everything and every movement is also "relative" to something else.