I'd say my case makes his case MUCH stronger. Not a single one of you has epxlain how iron is going to float on helium. Why not? How is this emission pattern that spans the ENTIRE surface of the sun, not consistent with his theory? If the sun was iron poor, why isn't the iron collected in the core? What's it doing floating on helium?Originally Posted by Kesh
I'm finding that not many people actually READ his papers because they keep making many of the same false assumptions, like "photon count allows us to define the composition of the sun". Anyone with even a first semester exposure to nuclear chemistry should understand the compication of valence shells and energy states and would not make such a silly statement. Even still, I see it over and over again. Tons of people I talk to act like the sun's composition can be determined like that.His papers certainly don't, and he was unable to provide any reason beyond "read my papers."
Let's look at it this way. Suppose you had 3 atom that made up the sun, iron, helium, and hydrogen. If you put X amount of energy into these three molecules, they hydrogen might emit photons 1000 times, the helium 250 times and the iron maybe 5 times. By this photon emission pattern, these folks suggest that by weight, the sun must be mostly made of hydrogen, with some amount of helium, and a tiny amount of iron. Thats exactly the logic that most astrophysisics use to determine solar composition from my discussions on these boards. That is simply irrational if you know ANYTHING at all about nuclear chemistry. I can see why he gets frustrated.
Well, my work just did that for him. His model predicts a layer of iron that is LARGE and emits across a wide area, unlike the gas model which predicts iron in the core only. Instead of seeing a small collection of iron in the core we see an entire layer of iron that emits ions from a whole SURFACE. I'd say his predictions were dead on.He failed to provide predictions that matched observed solar activity;
Which error was that?he did not correct obvious errors that were pointed out to him; he simply refused to do anything but make assumptions.
If you think he provided no math, then you did not read his papers.That is why it's a bad idea to base your work on his own. He does seem to be a bright an interesting person, but he absolutely refuses to admit error, even when it's basic math. And especially when he provided no math at all, just "it must be so."