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.