Quote (Derkaderk @ Apr 12 2012 08:29pm)

First of all, you've been quoting other people and saying nothing yourself this entire thread, and I point you directly above this post to:



which is supposed to be a refutation of what I said, but it doesn't actually say anything pertaining to what I was claiming. They use measurements of radius and density in conjunction with the mechanics of nuclear fusion to determine core temperature.

The funny thing is when I asked you about what Arp has said, you just told me (twice) to go to his website, and subsequently quoted his website. Seems to me you found a dissenter and just played devil's advocate without knowing what you're actually advocating. What do you actually know about cosmology?

For what it's worth, the point of the wiki quotes is this: Arp finds arbitrary statistical anomalies and expects them to overthrow an entire theoretical cosmological model. No one says he's wrong; they just say his "evidence" is insubstantial.

Quote (novocane @ Apr 12 2012 07:33pm)

anything arps says you can pretty much throw out the window

he's not credible

Quote (Derkaderk @ Apr 12 2012 07:29pm)

First of all, you've been quoting other people and saying nothing yourself this entire thread, and I point you directly above this post to:



which is supposed to be a refutation of what I said, but it doesn't actually say anything pertaining to what I was claiming. They use measurements of radius and density in conjunction with the mechanics of nuclear fusion to determine core temperature.

The funny thing is when I asked you about what Arp has said, you just told me (twice) to go to his website, and subsequently quoted his website. Seems to me you found a dissenter and just played devil's advocate without knowing what you're actually advocating. What do you actually know about cosmology?

For what it's worth, the point of the wiki quotes is this: Arp finds arbitrary statistical anomalies and expects them to overthrow an entire theoretical cosmological model. No one says he's wrong; they just say his "evidence" is insubstantial.

Quote (AEtheric @ Apr 12 2012 08:53pm)

Sure, because Wikipedia says so.

Quote (AEtheric @ Apr 12 2012 07:55pm)

If there's no overturning convection in the sun then what do you expect the core to consist of?  And I'm sure nuclear fusion has been proven to work, right? They use measurements and radius in conjunction with the mechanics of nuclear fusion to SPECULATE that the center of the sun is hotter. They do not have empirical evidence.

And regardless of all of this, you cannot disprove that article by Arp. It doesn't matter how rare that occurrence is, which it's not, if there's an exception to the big bang then the big bang is wrong.

Quote (Derkaderk @ Apr 14 2012 09:10am)

LOL upon second re-read of that quote which was supposedly a refutation of my claim that the core is hotter than the corona (I stopped reading when I read in the first sentence that it was regarding the photosphere, not the core), I realized their experiment relied on doppler shift.

Pick a side, Aetheric.

Quote (AEtheric @ Apr 14 2012 04:14pm)

Ok, let's assume that the core is the hottest part. Now explain to me how convection makes the corona hotter than the surface of the sun.

Quote (Derkaderk @ Apr 14 2012 04:24pm)

First of all, the photosphere isn't the corona. Just to clarify for you, that big block of text you quoted has to do with sunspots on the photosphere. I'm not sure if you read it or not.

Second of all, that's still being worked out by astronomers. Possible hypotheses I've heard of involve magnetic energy and sound waves and combinations of the two.

Third, what's your point? Are you telling me astronomy doesn't work well because it still has unanswered questions? Better abandon science then.