well said.

Lol you really are crazy!! Hahahaha

You do understand that the force of gravity and magnet forces are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things right?

I guess I must have pricked a nerve somewhere, since the attacks at my competence are starting. I guess it was only a matter of time. I do know what magnetism is. Don't stray from objectivity by attacking me. It only hinders your case by making you look desperate. A little nugget of wisdom from one debater to another. It's difficult, I know, to do this, but so much of scientific debate relies on the "discoveries" made by scientists. It's obvious much of your case falls back on the research done by astronomers. I'm not saying every single discovery is flawed, but with such consistently fluctuating foundations, the extensions of studies from their sources are adversely impacted by the changes made. I feel like my original point hasn't been addressed though: If the scientific discoveries made in the field of astronomy are irrefutably undeniable, tell me how these truths were made known. Isn't the most basic foundation of science abroad the scientific method (before you attack my understanding of the method, let me clarify my meaning)? I know you can't put planets in a petri dish and study it under a microscope, but the singular focus behind scientific research is being able to observe, by means of the five senses, and respond accordingly to the stimuli acting upon the area of study. How is it that scientists have done this from outside the uninhabitable regions of planets? It's impossible. Revisiting my earlier point, you have fallen victim to the likely incomplete, or altogether faulty, claims made by scientists' hypotheses and theories. I'm not pointing fingers like a child and saying you're at fault. It's just the convincing nature of science influencing understanding. Of course, there is some measure of natural order that we have to fall back on in order to defend a case, but such areas of study should be ones that can be put under a microscope and remain consistent and immune to the forced fluctuation of scientific convenience (though the laws of thermodynamics make that an issue, but that's beside the point). Physics and chemistry are sorts of these fields, at least when applied to the current topic. I don't even think geology can be considered much since people falsely treat plate tectonics as fact when it's only a theory, which therefore presents the theories on a planet's layers. I think a word got left out in your comment, so I'm having a little difficulty determining what your meaning was exactly, but I will substitute each possibility into the gap... [quote]You understand that due to the huge mass and volume of Jupiter that it can have a relatively small ___ (i.e. relative to it's mass) but still have more magnetic material than a planet such as ours?[/quote] As I read the context, I don't see "mass", "volume", or "magnetism" making much sense; and "gravitational force" doesn't seem to make sense either, because Jupiter already has a large measure of said force. To be honest, I don't really understand where you were going with that statement. As for comparing Jupiter to the Sun, you were apparently making a case for Jupiter not relying on magnetism for gravitational influence, much like the Sun doesn't, all due to the fact that they have a similar composition. So no, you weren't saying they were the same celestial body (that's not what I suggested you were saying either), but you essentially tried to explain Jupiter's gravitational influences under the same scope that is used with the Sun because of a similar composition. To reiterate, that doesn't necessarily mean Jupiter has the same kind of binding nature as the sun has with its compounds, so that argument is invalid. Frankly, like most debates are, this is becoming circular. As this continues without acknowledging particular questions in an impartial and unbiased manner under the scope of logic, we'll just perpetually revisit the same points without gaining any ground. I wasn't planning on getting involved in an extensive debate over the subject, but even as I found myself in this situation, I remember why I stopped debating. It's exhausts patience, and I don't have the time to drag this out needlessly just to encounter the same issues we've already discussed. My case is as I've presented. By no means am I walking away from this defeated, nor am I leaving it victoriously. I've made it clear this is all my speculation against scientific speculation. My sole intention rested in the possibility of a planetary structure being different compared to presented claims by science. Conjecture vs. conjecture, so don't misunderstand my purpose as declaring these theories as fact. I may be wrong, but equally so, I wouldn't dismiss the likely possibility of flawed scientific information regarding areas that cannot be observed. I feel that scientists could be just as wrong as I am, for they aren't resorting to the precious methods of study and research they esteem so highly in order to make something known as fact. All that being said though, this was rather entertaining. I extend to you, my thanks for occupying a piece of my time with this debate. But I would think about what I've said some. Just meditate on it in an unbiased, impersonal fashion. You may likely not ever come to the same conclusion, but who knows what kind of discoveries you'll make of your own about the fallacies of many scientific studies. As the study itself says often about errors, one of the worst but most common errors are those made my the researcher (equipment can count as well). Scientists aren't perfect; not even close for that matter. Error is surely bound to occur in a study that can be put under the scope of the scientific method and its base focus of observation. How much more likely is that to happen if the area of study cannot be observed?