Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
I don't expect to explain anything really..
but the idea seems sound.. generally... as such fits right into my plans... hehehe.
no but seriously.... hehehe... they do.. i can use it all.
Micheal.. one question... as i fail to see it.
does your.. IRON SUN, have a core...? and if so what is it?
|
My model is based on a fission core, while Dr. Manuel's is based upon at neutron star core. I think either position is defenseable, but I find it easier to defend a fission core at it requires nothing special. I like simple. His theory does offer it's own benefits however and I am not attached to my core to be honest. I can really only see from the surface on up. I can't really look inside just yet, but heliosiesmology does offer a great deal of promise.
Quote:
|
and what about neutron stars, and or dwarf masses left behind.?
|
I have no idea what happens to such things. I've heard theories of quark stars from Harvard that intrigue me as a possible way to explain black holes, but in plasma cosmology, you don't really need one.
Quote:
do you follow the fusion logic at the point?
or do you follow the nuetron star/dwarf mass beginning?
|
I'm a fission guy at the moment, but like I said, I'm not attached to it. It is a "theory" rather than an "observation" on my part.
Quote:
and if so.. dwarf i mean... where then did the dwarfs come from?
-MT
|
I'd rather stick to solar topics, since these kinds of topics seem so far "out there' to me at the moment. I'd rather focus on one thing at a time. I don't dispute however that Dr. Manuel's model is a valid alternative. I'm not sure how to tell you how to even choose between them. You'll have to make up your own mind about the core.