And even if no one had a good explanation for something, that doesn't make your theory any better. It's enough to point out where you are wrong, we don't need to have an alternative.
It's like with the pioneer anomalies. I don't have the correct explanation for them, but if I suggested that they were being pushed by giant turtles, I would still be wrong, even if you didn't have the correct explanation.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I've had about enough of this. The conversation has gone much like this:
I'll leave you with two references on measuring sunspot temperature, and then I'm done with this. Here is a class exercise on measuring sunspot temperature. Look at section 6.1 and following sections:

http://www.physics.hmc.edu/faculty/e.../labs/lab2.pdf

Here is an article on detailed sunspot temperature mapping.

What you think of me is irrelevent. You have repeatedly ignored well established fact and stated unsupported assertions. Your material will be judged on its scientific merits and it is failing at a very basic level.

Just FYI: The web site under discussion is now listed on Crank Dot Net, in the astronomy department, under "Crankiest."

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Yawn. The amount of argument by ridicule that goes on around here is utterly appauling. I suppose that's what people do when they just can't rebutt the science presented. I'm really unimpressed.

Yawn, remove the blinders and the rebuttals will show up just fine. [-X

You evidently didn't grasp the concept here Iris. The message is out there. You can critique it. Other can too. I'm paying big $$ to "advertise" the idea just to force NASA to respond publically. When they do, we can have a serious discussion about it. Until then, people like you will continue to forget completely about the science presented, and focus in on trivialities. If the science is bad, let someone point it out. If not, what do *I* as a person have to do with anything?

Of *THIS* particular solid surface model perhaps, but I'm not the first person in the history of planet earth to propose the idea you know. You did read *DR* (drum rool) Oliver Manuel's work didn't you?

I don't blame you for that "feeling". I had the very same same FEELING at first as well. It was only after MONTHS of careful study that I was willing to really put money on the idea and get involved in a serious way. Then again, your concerns have not been substanciated from a scientific perspective in case you didn't notice.

If you say so.

So do I. That's why I don't believe that ferrite floats on top of helium. I TRUST the laws of physics.

I did not REFUSE to answer anything. I simply noted the utter IRRELEVANCY of your point. If you must know I went to college but chose to help my father save his business through some very rough times in the early 80's. It worked. His business survived, and thrived and he helped me start my own software company over about 14 years ago. I've never regretted the choices I made, because I've always put family and love before paper on the wall and ego. If you still have a problem with that, take it up with Bill Gates. I'm sure he has his own reasons for not finishing college as well. That issue has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the EVIDENCE I have presented. You are WELCOME to poke holes in the EVIDENCE, but leave the man out of it. You have no right to judge me as a person.

The laws of physics suggest that visible light doesn't shine through solid calcium ferrite. The laws of physics suggest that calcium ferrite won't float on top of helium. The laws of physics are the very things that allowed the photos I have collected to be captured in the first place. If you value the laws of physics, perhaps you could get Lockheed Martin to explain to you how calcium ferrite floats on helium. When you get a satisfactory answer, please post it.

I have no idea what I *AM* to you. I know I am a good father to my children and a good husband to my wife. I love God and I love science. If you can't accept me for who I am, too bad. I feel pity for you. None of that has anything to do with the evidence I have presented and have spent good money to put out into public awareness. Like I said, if you have some criticism of the SCIENCE I have offered you, please put your objection on the table. If you continue to get personal, expect me to ingore you.

What rebuttals? Nobody here has TOUCHED a single page of my website and offered a BETTER explanation of the observed phenomenon I have presented. None of you have offered ANY kind of explanation for ANY of the materials I have presented. Instead it's argument by ridicule, personal attack, and appeal to authority routines. I'm not impressed by that attitude. Put some *SCIENCE* on the table for a change.

[quote="Van Rijn"]I've had about enough of this. The conversation has gone much like this:
Nothing like a good strawman to pump up a weak argument eh? Feel better?

Who said a WORD about temperature? I asked you why VISIBLE LIGHT stopped shining in that single location. That location is FULL of all sorts of HOT silicon. Nobody is denying the presense of HEAT. It's LIGHT I'm talking about, not HEAT. Why do you have a hard time distinguishing between these two issues?

It has not FAILED at all. In fact you have FAILED to raise a single reasonable objection to ANY of the materials I have presented, let alone ALL of the materials I have collected. In essence, you don't have a valid scientific objection. You have argument by ridicule on your side, and 400 years of flat eather's chanting you on of course, but sooner or later, people will notice what I'm saying, and will see what Dr. Manuel has been saying for 3 years now, and will see that both arguements put together blow HUGE HOLES in the gas model. Now you can believe the world is flat for another year or two, but I'm a patient man, and these ideas have held up to scrutiny just fine. I can explain virtually every phenomenon I see on the sun with this model while you can't even explain a simple sunspot.

Well Eta, I'm a reasonable person. I'm happy to admit they probably do change FLAVORS. I'm still not sure that a 5.3 standard deviation (rather than a 3.3) suggests that the gas model is superior in any way based on this SINGLE experiement.

Again, I don't see how that DISPROVES the model I have presented, even if it somehow lends support to the gas model. I've yet to hear the gas model crowd explain solar moss for instance.

You first.

No, Omicron, that's only ONE of the MANY things I have said. I have yet to hear anyone here explain any of the pages on my website in a BETTER way using the gas model. Until I do, I'm going to assume there isn't one, because the sun isn't made of simply hydrogen and helium gas with a few minor amounts of heavier elements.

I'll bet you big $$ they find heavier elements in Tempel 1. What logic is there to the notion that planets form from space debris like comets, but somehow suns are immune from this phenomenon of gravity?

Think about that for a moment. Why wouldn't the sun contain it's share of heavier elements, expecically if it's a "recycled" sun? How old is our sun? How old is the universe? Why does Hubble find IRON and SILICON and NEON as far back in time as it can see? These OBSERVATIONS don't fit the gas model predictions, even if a FEW things might.

Me first what? I came here to find out if you or anyone else could poke holes in the observations I have made on my website. To date, that has not happened. What has happened is a lot of childish ridicule and pointless focus on me the individual. I presented PAGES and PAGES and even a more formal manuscript. If you are going to reject the idea, at least do me the favor of explaining what you think I did wrong before you blow it off out of hand. I've spent over a thousand dollars of my own money getting this idea out there. I assure you that is a lot of money to me and I wouldn't invest that kind of money if I didn't have a lot of faith in the idea after a lot of soul searching. I've not "hidden" any of the evidence or any of my methods. You are free to critique them at your leasure. You should also check out Dr. Manuel's work on comets and lunar soils. He came at this issue from an entirely different field of science and arrived at exactly the same conclusion I came to after careful observation. Please point out his errors as well before you just dismiss the ideas blithely.

Then point out where I am wrong. My manuscript is nearly 30 pages long. I'll be updating it next week by the way. Please point out where I have made any mistakes.

This is argument by ridicule. I am not impressed. I did not suggest anything of the sort. I suggested the same thing that a Doctor of nuclear chemistry suggested over 3 years ago in Washington DC. I've checked out his work. It's VERY impressive. I've checked my own work over and over again. I'm comfortable with it and I'm confortable defending it publically. I've not presented anything "off the wall" even though is is not MAINSTREAM at the moment. Others have proposed a solid surface model of the sun in the past, not just me. I'm just the first one to do it with satellite imagery, spectral analysis and scientific theories about electrical activity through silicon and neon. It's not that "out there" except for you internal bias. Don't let that bias blind you to evidence you can see with your own eyes. YOu can check every referrence I cited in my manuscript for accuracy. All of this information comes directly from NASA and Lockheed Martin and Stanford. None of it is "made up". None of it defies the laws of physics the way Lockheed's model does. None of it should be dismissed lightly. If you do that, you are no better than those who first ridiculed Galileo for his "observations".

No, that is NOT true. I spoke with him last week and we have exchanged emails over the weekend. We are DEFINITELY in agreement. His work has simply been IGNORED for over 40 years because he lacked OBSERVATIONAL evidence to support an idea that originated in nuclear chemistry circles. My visual evidence supports his 40 years of effort BEAUTIFULLY. His work is utlimately what will be scritinized for accuracy since I have already listed my sources and they are PUBLIC sources.

I believe he was right all along, and I've simply provided the VISUAL evidence to support his NUCLEAR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. I think it's a MAJOR one-two combination that science and business will simply not ignore. Sooner or later others will come around. I've aready recieved DOZENS of very supportive emails over the last few weeks, and this will make the news sooner or later. You can't ignore nuclear chemistry AND observervation forever.

Sure...but you're not going to like it.


On June 30th you posted this...
If I understand you correctly, you have this revolutionary new idea about the mechanics of the Sun, yet you don't seem to understand why Sunspots would be darker.

To overthrow a mainstream idea, you must first understand the idea you intend to overthrow.

Hot objects give off light-if something is hot enough it glows.
This is one of those laws of physics which you claim to have respect for.
So if the temperature of the centre of a sunspot is around 4570 K as stated in the link given by Van Rijn, it will certainly be giving off a heck of a lot of light; the sunspot will be hotter than an incandescent light bulb filament.
It looks dark by contrast and for no other reason.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

Though I'm new to this discussion, I was wondering when Galileo would be making an "appearance".