Misconceptions About The Origin Of Sunspots

[Masterov]

YouTube videos are not a reliable source of information about science.

Yes. 

 

It gives a reason to seek a more reliable source.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/05/13/stunning-video-comet-collides-sun.html

[exchemist]

Yes. 

 

It gives a reason to seek a more reliable source.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/05/13/stunning-video-comet-collides-sun.html

OK. What this shows is a comet being vaporised as it gets close to the sun. It does not show a sunspot being created. So this fits what Craig has been saying, doesn't it?

[Masterov]

OK. What this shows is a comet being vaporised as it gets close to the sun. It does not show a sunspot being created. So this fits what Craig has been saying, doesn't it?

Lack of information does not deny anything.

[exchemist]

Lack of information does not deny anything.

True. But it is you who is making the claim that sunspots are caused by comets, contrary to accepted science, so it is you that has to provide supporting evidence.

 

This report you refer to does not do this, so I'm not sure why you quoted it.  

[Masterov]

Lack of information does not deny anything.

True. But it is you who is making the claim that sunspots are caused by comets, contrary to accepted science, so it is you that has to provide supporting evidence.

 

This report you refer to does not do this, so I'm not sure why you quoted it.  

No.

 

Mendeleev constructed his table, which had empty cells.

 

Mendeleev predicted that empty cells correspond to chemical elements.

Mendeleev predicted the chemical properties of these (unknown) chemical elements.

And no-one did not say to Mendeleev that he should give these chemical elements.

 

Mendeleev made a part of the research. Mendeleev told that chemists should look for. And chemists have found.

 

I've done my part of research. I told astronomers the causes of spots on Sun. Astronomers need have a special tool, which I do not have, to observe the process of the fall of the comet to Sun.

 

But I have arguments.

And the astronomer who accept my arguments as convincing arguments, are do it. This astronomer able to observe the process of the fall of the comet to the sun. This astronomer will make the second part of the work that I could not do.

 

So often in science made discoveries.

[exchemist]

 

Lack of information does not deny anything.

No.

 

Mendeleev constructed his table, which had empty cells.

 

Mendeleev predicted that empty cells correspond to chemical elements.

Mendeleev predicted the chemical properties of these (unknown) chemical elements.

And no-one did not say to Mendeleev that he should give these chemical elements.

 

Mendeleev made a part of the research. Mendeleev told that chemists should look for. And chemists have found.

 

I've done my part of research. I told astronomers the causes of spots on Sun. Astronomers need have a special tool, which I do not have, to observe the process of the fall of the comet to Sun.

 

But I have arguments.

And the astronomer who accept my arguments as convincing arguments, are do it. This astronomer able to observe the process of the fall of the comet to the sun. This astronomer will make the second part of the work that I could not do.

 

So often in science made discoveries.

 

But that's not true. Mendele'ev filled in many of the cells. From evidence.

 

He left some blank, yes, and these were predictions, yes, quite true. But his hypothesis was based on evidence. It indicated trends in chemistry that suggested a system, from the evidence of the chemistry known at the time.

 

But you have no evidence for your idea and, rather than explaining something unexplained, it negates an existing explanation that we already have for sunspots, which works very well. What does your idea explain that the existing explanation fails to account for?

 

What advantage does it have?

[Masterov]

But that's not true. Mendele'ev filled in many of the cells. From evidence.

 

He left some blank, yes, and these were predictions, yes, quite true. But his hypothesis was based on evidence. It indicated trends in chemistry that suggested a system, from the evidence of the chemistry known at the time.

 

But you have no evidence for your idea and, rather than explaining something unexplained, it negates an existing explanation that we already have for sunspots, which works very well. What does your idea explain that the existing explanation fails to account for?

 

What advantage does it have?

I can suggest you read what I wrote above only.