I'm at home this evening with my family. I think I'm going to take a break for awhile and let things cool off here a bit. I don't think you're being fair at the moment Nereid. I used Newton's own analogy to demontrate the "principle" I was trying to convey about movement in the Z axis. Even if you have a valid point about me not being able to demonstrate any actual movement, your assertion I didn't even in "principle" explain the idea is unfair and *totally* frustrating. Somehow the analogy is ok for Newton, but I don't even get credit for sticking to his analogy or using his analogy to demonstrate the point I was trying to make. That is frustrating Nereid.

You've done the same thing in the other thread as well IMO. You dismissed my use of the SERTS data and basic metorite compostion and heliosiesmology measurements as a "qualitative" way of measuring elemental composition, even though gas model theorists turn right around and rely on these same technologies in gas model estimates. That makes no sense and it's again rather unfair to suggest I offered NO qualitative measurements, even when I've posted links to the SERTS data and heliosciesmology data and a host of other things to support these points. You've acted as though I have not provided arc sec info an any image even though I posted the whole FTS header file of the first image to the forum. I get no credit for any of the info I do present, and you keep pushing everything back to square one and accuse me of not offering you the information you ask for. This isn't a helpful or useful approach and we're repeating a lot of the same things at this point because the information I do provide is not acknowledged.

I'm also frustrated about this whole notion of suggesting that I can't question the gas model based on these images. That is highly unusual in a scientific setting. You've setup a scenario here where I'm handed a billion and three pet "issues" that anyone and everyone is welcome to throw at me, while I can't ask anyone any questions or expect any answers to these observations from a gas model perspective. How is that a fair debate?

This process looks suspiciously "religious-like" in nature. What you are saying is more or less akin to being told I can't question your "sacred" beliefs, but you get to pick my ideas apart any way you'd like. That isn't scientifically fair IMO, nor is that a sound or standard scientific approach to scientific debate about competing theories. There are supposed to be no "sacred" theories in science, but this "method" you are insisting on imposing rigidly now makes the gas model a "sacred cow" that is somehow above scientific reproach or scrutiny.

I need to stop for awhile and decide the usefulness of trying to have a serious scientific debate about this issue given such unequal settings, and highly unusual limitations, and the constant ignoring of the answers I give as though I've never answered anything and we have start over again.

I'll post the image pixel sizes from the first few images from my website when I've decided if and how I'd like to continue this discussion on this forum given such *severe* limits on free speech and the unusual deviation from standard scientific method that has been adopted here. It's pretty clear from your last few posts and Dwayne's last few posts that things need to cool off a bit anyway. Let's all take a deep breath and think about what we all want to achieve here. I want to talk about these observations and debate them openly. You seem to want to put me under a microscope and take pot shots at anything you think I might not be able to asnwer yet avoid any direct questions about these images based on gas model theories. I don't see how that is going to produce a fair and open debate about competing ideas and models. It's more like a firing squad where no one has to explain anything from a gas model perspective, but I have to explain absolutely EVERYTHING in my model. Its all one way, and it's not an open debate. Is that really the environment you want to create here? Do you really think any single indivual or small groups of individuals could adequately address even just the images I put on my website, let alone explain how fusion ties into the gas model and how magnetic flux ropes form and that list Dwayne through at me using the gas model? Even many professional astronomers have avoided explaining the observations on my website using gas model theories, demonstrating that even experts can't answer every question posed to them using their model, but you are expecting this of me on any and every subject you toss my way. That is simply unfair and unscientific IMO. I came here for an open debate of these ideas but it looks more like a duck hunt and any theory deamed "ATM" automatically becomes the sitting duck.