Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duane
Let me state that again Michael. The observations and measurements of a number of different physical attributes of the sun have been shown to match very closely with the predictions and mathematics behind the proton-proton reaction. IF your model cannot meet the same level of matching observation to theory, then logically it MUST be wrong!
|
I know I said I'm done for the night, but did want to address this one point and let you sleep on it.
I am of the impression that because Dr. Manuel seemed to think there was a problem with the neutrino count that others here (mostly those involved in the discussion) seem to think this one issue is a "big deal". I agree that it is a "big deal" that from a gas model perspective in that it does "seem" to lend greater support to the model. I willingly accept this as fact.
What you are doing however is not scientifically sound IMO. You are trying to exclude my model for not making predictions on this one issue. That is no better than trying to exclude the gas model prior to it finding an answer to the problem. There is no one issue that makes or breaks a model IMO.
I did spend months putting together a complete explanation for many solar phenomeon that remain elusive to gas model theories. For instance, while magnetic flux tubes might be demonstrated in plasma, they are scales of energy too small to account for a "magnetic flux rope" that lights up iron to millions of degrees. If you want to resolve the next crisis issue for the gas model, I suspect this issue is going to be it.
Now I can understand your reluctance to accept these ideas Dwayne. I was reluctant myself at first. I would be shocked if you agreed with me today or tomorrow or even next week. Given enough time I'm sure that all your questions can and will be answered, but not by any single individual. This individual can answer many things about the sun that are not answered by the gas model as well. There will always be relevance to any new idea, even if there are some aspects that are yet to be explained by the model.
I do realize I'm the "underdog" in this discussion, but a lot of scientific breakthroughs are made by underdogs and amateurs. I didn't technically even make this particular breakthrough IMO, Birkeland did it 100 years ago. I can also cite many things from Dr. Bruce's work that show a very close relationship between the atmospheric phemonomen and electrical discharges and I can cite the work of Dr. Manuel to support the composition aspects.
I believe that you are being premature in dismissing any model over a "percieved" issue or two. The fact the gas model has enjoyed greater research money through the years and has found support for the gas model along the way is not evidence it is right, or that my model is wrong. Surely as a scientist you realize this?