ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid

[Michael Mozina]

Excuse me? Who said I don't like him? The simple fact is that he was completely unable to support his theory.

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?

His papers certainly don't, and he was unable to provide any reason beyond "read my papers."

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.

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.

He failed to provide predictions that matched observed solar activity;

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 did not correct obvious errors that were pointed out to him; he simply refused to do anything but make assumptions.

Which error was that?

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."

If you think he provided no math, then you did not read his papers.

[Michael Mozina]

Hmmm... I was thinking, wouldn't a solid surface of iron affect the results of the helioseismology data to a degree that would make it possible to detect?

Without some sort of solid resonance cavity, it's going to be hard to get heliosceismology to work at all IMO. What creates the resonance cavity in the first place?

'I mean, if it is a high density(higher density than the underlying layer), and the reflection occurs between it and an overlaying neon layer, the wave would refract at the boundary between the iron and the underlying layers, affecting timing and positions of the place the waves surface on the visible side. As a side effect, waves going down from the surface could get reflected of the interface between the iron and the lower gas/fluid layers it their angles was correct, I guess one might even see waves traveling around the sun several times, totally reflected inside the iron layer, something that would have extremely different signatures than the deeper wave penetration that allows one to make an image of the other side of the sun.

I guess I'm still not quite following you. I would suggest that it is the arcing on the surface that creates the sounds that people interpret as "grains of sand" striking a bell. The heavier material inside the iron layer carries these waves to the other side where they relfect out into the lighter materials.

I also think it seems strange that a denser layer would be able to keep from melting or breaking apart in the hostile environment of the sun and just sinking.

I agree. That's why I have a hard time with NASA's notion that iron floats on helium and why I'm inclined to believe that the only materials below the iron layer are at least as heavy as iron.

Wouldn't also such a sphere have problems with keeping centred on the sun, if one side moves closer to the core, it would have more radiation pressure on it per unit of area, but it would have a lot more area on the other side, so would it not balance out, and simillarly for gravity?

If the core is heavy, then there really isn't a problem. When you suggest iron layers float on helium layers, the you are right, there is a HUGE problem. Fortunately my model suggests the iron is underneath the helium and and suspended by a molten core, probably of nickel and other heavier elements. It operates not that much differently than earth operatates, with a solid surface that sits on a molten core. It certainly does experience sunquakes however. I have a whole page devoted to that particular phenomenon in fact.

If the iron layer was lower density, so that it floats, and that the reflection occurs at the interface between the lower layer and the iron layer. This I expect would mean that the iron layer is quite thick, or else it would not make that much of an impact on the iron, and my guess would be that it would be more fluid than solid...?

From the solar moss phenomenon, it is clear that this layer is thick. It's relatively solid however until the electrical activity ionizes the iron and we start to see the FE IX and FE X ions emit photons. As the iron is ionized it gets VERY hot and is carried by the electrical current into the arc.

If it has the density and acoustic properties that makes it fit the gas/fluid model to such a degree that we do not notice that its there, it is a gas/fluid, and so do not fit the solid surface of the sun model, even if there is a higher content of iron than expected, it would still be a gas/fluid sun…

How do you explain even an iron plasma layer floating on a helium layer? It really doesnt' matter whether it's a solid, or some sort of exotic plasma layer of iron, it's still going to sink to the bottom, not float on hydrogen and NASA claims.

[Michael Mozina]

The only things we need to find the average density of the SUn are its total mass and its volume.
If this average density is inconsistent with your proposed model, you are wrong.

No. This is an OVERsimplification. That might work fine for a gas model, but that isn't going to work in a solid surface model that involves electromagnetic currents. I'm starting to check out that plasma based universe idea I saw in the other thead on this board. I think those concepts make a LOT of sense and probably hold the key to understanding how to answer this question. There is no way to know if the suns "charge" and the earth's "charge" don't somehow influence these measurements. Until we understand these kinds of things, there is no way to answer this question. I'm sure it can be done, but it can't be done using purely a gas model prediction set. We live in an ELECTRIC universe and electricity is FAR more powerful than gravity. You can't simply ignore the implications of these things as it relates to a ball of iron. There are MANY other issues to consider, and your oversimplification isn't going to cut it.

What assumption?
The Principle of Equivalence, Newton's law fro gravity, Kepler's laws?
Please elaborate.

The assumption you are making that no electromagnetic influence should be considered!

What happens if there are no such electromagnetic influences?
What if the system Sun-Earth follows Newton's law for gravity so closely that are interactions can be ruled out?

Then maybe I'll have to reconsider aspects of my model. I seriously urge you to check out the website that talks about plasma cosmology. That is an AMAZING website. The universe is certainly filled with all sorts of electromagnetic influences and plasmas of all kinds. To simply ignore all this in favor of an oversimplification seems like a VERY bad idea from my perspective.

The fact that you refer to the current model as "Galileo's gas model" is a bad sign: with other ATM proponents, it usually means they do not know about the current theory.

I suspect other people were indoctrinated into astronomy just like me. You cannot sit there and tell me that it wasn't galileo who first claimed the sun didn't have a solid surface. That was HIS assumption, and it's never been verified or falsified by direct observation until NOW. NOW we know that there is an iron layer that does move uniformly from pole to equator that sits underneath the visible photosphere.

And from what I have seen so far, you do not either.

Here's the way I see it. None of you can really explain why we should ASSUME the sun has no solid iron layer. None of you can really explain why we should ASSUME that iron floats on helium. None of you can really explain a single observation from my website using the gas model. None of you can adequately explain why we see a SURFACE of iron rather than a pea sized amount of it in the core like the gas model predicts. None of you can explain why the sun would not be composed of the same heavy materials that formed the first four planets of the solar system. None of you have adequately explained why it wouldn't contain iron in abundance like every comet we "run into". Why in the world would anyone with even a first semester understanding of nuclear chemistry believe that you can tell an objects composition by weight based on photon count alone?

Until you guys can begin to answer some of these questions, I'm going to think you're just emotionally attached to being right rather than addressing the evidence I've presented.

The Sun is very different from any planet in the system.

Other than the fact it's big and shines, how do you KNOW it's "different" in composition than the first three planets of the system and different than comets? We already have evidence that our whole solar system formed from the remnants of supernova. There certainly was plenty of heavy material to work with. Why would only the lightest materials form at that center? That's not even logical.

"Explosive singularity"?

That's one of the assumptions of the gas model proponents. They typically suggest that all matter formed from a single explosions and all matter was too hot to form for a very long time, and slowly hydrogen formed, and then is slowly came together by gravity and slowly formed suns and only AFTER one of these suns blew did we get heavy materials.

Hubble's instruments call such simplistic assumptions into question.

And here I thought that the solar spectrum told us that it is made of hydrogen!

Only if you are personally naive enough to think that valence shells and energy states of atoms, and heat distribution between elements should be utterly ignored!

But, of course, Galileo did not take the solar spectrum.

He didn't know much about nuclear chemistry either, nor do many folks today evidently.

How much iron and silicon?

LOTS compared to gas model predictions that suggested our universe began from a singlularity that was very hot and only formed hydrogen at first.

And how is this incompatible with the current model?

EARLY gas model predictions suggested that only hydrogen survived the early part of the Big Bang. Hubble suggests it may have began as a "Big Slam", or "Big Bloom". The current model is being altered every decade now to "push back" the dates to fit the data. That's a sure sign things are looking bleak for the gas model.

And here I thought that the Sun was not a first generation star!

No, it wasn't. In fact there is now evidence that it formed from supernova remnants. That means that Dr. Manuel was right. If he was right about that, how do you know he was wrong in his analysis of lunar soil samples?

So, have ever seen a spectrum of the Sun?

Yes. Have you ever taken a nuclear chemistry class? Do you understand energy states of valence shells? How would these factor into the spectrum data in your opinion?

So, you have never seen a solar spectrum.

I've seen a PART of it. I'm not exactly sure anyone has ever seen ALL of it.

Now, where do you address the solar neutrino question?

I was really trying to focus on issues where I expected my model to deviate noticeably from the standard model. Since my model is based upon an expectation of free positrons and free electrons flowing from the surface, I didn't really expect to see much difference from my model and the gas model.

I'm guessing by all this focus on nuetrinos all of a sudden, that my original statements were really misconstrued. All I was trying to point out is that the gas model's predictions did NOT *AT FIRST* match the measured neutrino count. At that time, that gas model was not TOSSED OUT *ONLY* because it didn't jive with expectations. No concept should be "tossed out" only because it can't explain a single measurement. New tests were created to look for other ways to explain these contradictions. Nobody paniced however and claimed ONE test somehow ruled out the model.

It makes no sense to you.

No, it makes no sense SCIENTIFICALLY. If you know even the rudimentary aspects of chemistry, you know that there are energy states to consider and valence shells and heat distribution within the physical model to consider. There is simply no logical reason to add up photons and pretend that can tell us the solar composition. It is a LOT more complicated than that. I can't bury my head in the sand to an obviously overly simplistic set of assumptions!

Unfortunately, you have not shown that you actually understand the current model.

I certainly do know the basics of the gas model. I was indocrinated into the gas model just like you. I just don't cling to it anymore, nor can I ignore what I see with my own eyes and can understand from my basic grasp of nuclear chemistry.

So, what in the whole phenomenology of the Sun is incompatible with the scurrent model?

Start by explaining why we see an entire surface rather than pea sized amount of iron in the core. Start by explaining how the first four planets are made of heavy materials, as are every comet we've ever studied, yet somehow the sun only contains the very LIGHTEST elements our solar system in any real quantity. What is the logic in that?

ath the iron layer is more dense than these materials.

How much of those materials is present?[/quote]

I don't know that purely from observation.

Compare it to the amount of hydrogen and helium.

Be my guest. How much hydrogen and helium does the earth contain or any comet contain relative to it's overall mass?

As far as I know, ferrite is solid.

Well, it COULD be solid as my model suggests. I COULD be an exotic plasma of some kind as well if I am to be intellectually honest about it. In either case, I would not expect to see this iron layer floating on top of a helium layer. That model would defy the laws of gravity. That however is the model that NASA uses to this day. Why do they do that?

What evidence do you have that there is anything solid on the SUn?

Visit my webiste. Look around. Pick just one of my pages and explain the observed phenomenon using the gas model.

Sound travels in gas (for example, air).
You do not need anything solid for helioseismology.
And since the observations in helioseismology fit the expectations based on the "gas model", what makes you think that helioseismology does not favor this particular model.

Sound travels through about anything except a vacuum. To have sounds like sand hitting a bell, you need a bell.

How do you explain that the current model fits the observed solar neutrino and helioseismological observations?

I explain it my noting that some evidence might support a VARIETY of models. Some evidence will not. In this case the evidence fits BOTH models and excludes neither one.

[Mendel]

I have evidence that the outer materials are made of calcium, silicon, neon, hydrogen and helium. Whatever material is underneath the iron layer is more dense than these materials.

I was interested about this model of yours so I read the whole thread up until this and I find this fascinating and I'll surely talk about this with my friends later on, but now you got me a bit lost!

You seemed to earlier claim that your model supported that there was fusion reactions happening in the core of the sun, right? And I assumed you meant that there was hydrogen that indeed was the matter that was the fuel of the fusion, but now its something more massive that's in there after all?

You also were talking about how the majority of sun consisted of same materials as the planets. But if there is just a layer of these common materials on the sun and below that is something more dense, then isn't the majority of sun made of this something that is more dense or is the layer of iron, calcium, silicon, neon, hydrogen and helium that thick?

Or are planets majorly consisted of something more massive than iron? I hope someone can clarify this for me :-?

[Michael Mozina]

First of all Michael I want to say that it becomes clear to me that you don't know how a scientific theory is developed.

Pure grandstanding IMO.

Also you seems to believe that a theory is only completely right or wrong;

Followed by a strawman? We aren't off to a good start.

well, that's not true, we are using today a lot of theories that we know to be incomplete, but as we are aware of their limitations we keep using them.

Yes, I realize that. That was my point with the neutrino thing, but that got blow ALL out of proportion. There was a point to be made however in that observation that relates back the gravity issue as it relates to a solid surface model. I don't intend to abandon my model only because it doesn't yet fit ONE meausement.

Nobody could have from the first try a complete theory about something (be it astronomy, biology or else)

But you guys seem to DEMAND one from me that includes all kinds of predictions about things I have no clue about!

but there are exactly the previous incomplete theories that let us know how the right theory should behave.

Then the gas model SHOULD behave with a pea sized amount of iron in the middle rather than a LAYER of iron that spans a whole surface.

The best example is the general relativity: it is obviously better and explains a lot more than Newton, but this isn't mean that Newton was completely wrong. He was right within some limits.

Sure, and likewise Galileo was right about the PHOTOSPHERE, but wrong about what was underneath the visible photosphere.

You keep saying that the sunspots are actually black and are not emitting any kind of light like in this film on your webpage here .
From the name of this film I assume that it was taken in the G-band (since you didn't specify anything about it on your page, which again is not scientific: you should always say how was obtained and analyzed a piece of information or image).

Forgive me. I've got limited time and I work on a budget.

I didn't have any ideea what G-band is, so after a quick search I found this: "The G band 4305 A, width 10 A" (from here ).
So it seems that those images where highly monochtomatic with a 430nm wavelength . What this means? Well the mainstream theory says that a sunspot has 4200K and the surrounding areas 5800K.
Look here for the theoretical emissions of a 6000K surface and here for the emission of a 4000K surface. Look at the energy emission at 430 nm (where the images where taken) and you'll see that the emitted energy density is:

- 7*10^13 W/m^2 at 6000K
- 3*10^12 W/m^2 at 4000K

It seems clear to me that in your images the dark region is emitting in the g-band 10 time less energy than the bright region. Anybody with a minimum photographic experience will tell you that on an image exposed to see the bright region the dark region will be simply invisible.
So I'd say that the light intensity variations to be seen in the film are due to temperature variations that leads to different energy emissions in the 430 nm band and are not actually 'umbra' and 'penumbra'. (Anyway when you talk about 'umbra' regions you're implying a sort of exterior light source, which is not true since the sun is the only one available 8) )

I'll have to look at your links to respond to this. I will. What MATERIAL are you suggesting emits this light? Even if it can be explained one way, what makes you KNOW it's the right way? How do you know there isn't a better and more elegant way to explain the same phenomenon? How does your black body explanation explain the flare patterns and the flow patterns we see on this layer?

Now you're saying that anybody that's using an arc welder becomes expert in electric arcs and therefore is able to say that a solar phenomena is an electric arc? Come on....

No, that is another of your strawmen. I said that I've used an arcwlder before and worked with electricity all of my life and I know some things about electricity and I know how it SHOULD behave given specific conditions. I see every reason to believe from my experience with electricity that the sun is electric and the arcs we see are electrical in nature. Now could you explain to me how you know they are not electrical in nature?

Oh, now I know how I'd missed it: you're not using properly the name of the thing. :wink:

Toche'. I'll use the term IRON. In fact it's been pointed out by a few folks that my use of the term "ferrite" is more confusing than helpuful. I was trying to be specific about it being a ferrite alloy, but instead that seems to cause confusion. I'll work on it for you.

I assume that you're not talking about that: "magnetic ferrite, which has the general formula MOFe2O3, where M means some divalent metal ion (Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, etc)." (from here ), altough when you're mentioned some magnetic effects that are taken into account in your model due to this layer I was thinking that is exactly this kind of ferrite you are refering to.

I was trying to imply that the layer isn't simply made of iron, but rather it's a magnetic alloy, thus the term "ferrite".

So what else is a ferrite? According to the same source citated above: " is the name metallurgists give to the body-centered-cubic phase of iron and it's alloys. The 'body-centered-cubic' phrase refers to the way the atoms are arranged in the lattice, to distinguish it from "austenite" which is the face-centered-cubic arrangement."
Now you see, a ferrite is a structured lattice and the fact that there are Fe ions in Sun doesn't mean that there is a ferrite also. There is also hidrogen and oxigen in sun, but no water. :wink:

Yes, but we see ions from IRON over an entire SURFACE. :wink:

By the way, what is it in your opinion the temperature of the sun? Do you agree with the 'official' value for the mass of the sun?

I agree with the official value of the sun that is assigned to the photosphere on out. The silicon beneath the visible photophere is cooler than the neon layer. Sunspots typically realease cooler silicon from below. How "cool" is "cool" remains to be seen, but it need to be cool enough to support a ferrite alloy of some kind.

Also you've said that the hidrogen is a product of the reactions inside the sun; what kind of reactions?

I don't really know yet. I've been talking to Oliver about it. I'm not sure just yet, but the BBSO images make it clear that the ions are originating between the calcium and ferrite layers.

You're saying about this photo that is showing cracks; how do you now that these are really cracks in a solid surface? Just visual inspection or you have some other reasons?

Purely visual inspection of the pattern in the crack and the pattern in the penumbral filaments. They seem be very connected in pattern and shape.

[Michael Mozina]

You seemed to earlier claim that your model supported that there was fusion reactions happening in the core of the sun, right?

Well, for simplicity sake, yes. The longer explanation is that my model predicts the free flow of positrons and electrons. That IMPLIES fission or fusion, but how or what that looks like in the core is pure speculation at this point. It COULD be that dynamo affects are at least partly responsible for the flow of electricity as well. Since I can't really see what's going on beneath the surface and since I can't really know what is releasing the electrical current, I stuck with the "tried and true" method.

And I assumed you meant that there was hydrogen that indeed was the matter that was the fuel of the fusion, but now its something more massive that's in there after all?

My "guess" is that the free flow of electrons begins with something heavier that hydrogen/helium, and heavier than iron. We could be talking a FISSION in the core rather than FUSION for all I know. All I'm suggesting is that electrons and positrons are released in these interactions. The rest is speculation. If you're asking me for my best guess, I think it's a fission reaction that releases the positrons and electrons and as well as dynamo affects from the rotation of the magnetic core accross the surface of ferrite/iron.

You also were talking about how the majority of sun consisted of same materials as the planets. But if there is just a layer of these common materials on the sun and below that is something more dense, then isn't the majority of sun made of this something that is more dense or is the layer of iron, calcium, silicon, neon, hydrogen and helium that thick?

That would be my personal expectation, yes.

Or are planets majorly consisted of something more massive than iron? I hope someone can clarify this for me :-?

Since our own planet contains things more massive than iron, it's very difficult for me to imagine the sun not having uranium and plutonium and things like that at it's core. Iron is probably a relatively LIGHT substance compared to what is in the core. During "active" phases, SERTS data revealed elevated levels of nickel (heavier than iron) and sulfur. That suggest to me that whatever is underneath the iron layer is most likely heavier than iron. Gravity will pretty much rule out the interior being made of light materials. Something dense has to be holding up the iron.

[Mendel]

Okay, thanks for the quick response!

What's left me puzzled now is that I think this would mean that the sun would be very much more massive and/or dense than previously thought!

I'm merely a student but I'm going to discuss this idea with my physics teacher next week and see what he thinks about this. 8)

[Michael Mozina]

First, (all?) the references for (all?) the images in your paper are websites, and a mixture of .jpg and .gif files at that. Why did you not obtain the native FITS files?

I obtained most of the RAW dit video directly from the SOHO website. If you follow the link the archives, you'll find all the grey video located there. All images presented on my website are snapshots taken from these vidoes using Quicktime. I simply copied and pasted the Quicktime snapshots in Microsofts Movie maker program and used a "morph" between snapshots to simulate movement from one from to the next. I did not alter or change these images in any way.

Second, your analyses seem to have been (with the exception of SERTS - see below*) entirely of the 'photointerpretation' kind - i.e. you looked at an image and you made a word picture interpretation of it (or several). In particular, you seem to have no quantitative model, based on the physics which one learns when one does a university degree in that subject.

If you want a "physics" based answer, I suggest you study the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. He studied lunar soil samples and comet debris. My model however was in fact based on direct observation as you suggest.

Did I miss something?

No, you didn't really miss anything. Dr. Manuel and I came at this issue two different ways. He based his conclusions on the nuclear chemistry and has every degee you could hope for in an nuclear chemist.

I came at this problem based on satellite imagery. We both arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Why?

Nor do you seem to have attempted to 'ground' the reader in how SOHO, etc obtain the data you use, what the observatory operators claim the data represent, how they were gathered, processed, etc (other than provide a link to some websites). This may seem a nit, but IMHO it's not. For starters, webpages are somewhat ephemeral, so if I wanted to check your sources for myself, in a few years' time, I may not be able to do so.

I don't think that's a minor nit pick actually. I need to make some time to document my images better. I'll have to quit responding to messages in the forum for awhile and apply some of the feedback I've gotten to my website sooner or later. All of the images on my website come straight from the SOHO or TRACE archives, or from Harvard or Stanford. I made only the running difference movies from SOHO. All the rest are public domain photos and videos.

Finally, for today, there are the 26 "Predictions Of A 21st Century Solid Surface Electrical Model". All of these are qualitative. How far along are you in terms of building a quantitative model?

I'm currently working on a joint effort with Dr. Manuel. I hope to update my manuscript in another week or so to include the data from the other 3 satellites from my evidence page as well as links to Dr. Manuels work. You might check back in a week. I should have it finished by then. I'll probably change some wording as well and use the term iron rather than ferrite. I thought it was a clever idea at first to talk about a magnetic ferrite, but I'm finding it confuses some poeple. The term IRON would be a better choice in certain sentences of the manuscript.

Did I miss something?

Not really. I ASSUMED that readers had some understanding of valence shells and energy states and some understanding of nuclear physics. That turns out to be a bad assumption on my part. I think I'll reference Dr. Manuels work a lot more often in the next "draft".

Thanks for your feedback by the way. I appreciate it.

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, thanks for the quick response!

What's left me puzzled now is that I think this would mean that the sun would be very much more massive and/or dense than previously thought!

I'm merely a student but I'm going to discuss this idea with my physics teacher next week and see what he thinks about this. 8)

I believe the sun is much more dense than previously thought. I suggest you read the thread on plasma cosmology next. I think that area of study offers the best hope of explaining the orbital relationship of earth to the sun from a more "wholistic" and "electric" point of view. I'd guess there is a "charge" associated with the sun and the planets that affect their orbit. That's my best guess at the moment.

[Mendel]

One more thing, you seem to talk few times about how you put lots of money to this idea.

Well, it can be a two bladed sword in some cases. Have you thought, maybe because you put so much money to this, you would have harder time admitting if there were any errors in your model? No offence, just a thought!

But on the other hand, I think you have just shown that you *are* willing to adjust your model, by changing "ferrite" to "iron" in some cases, where it works better, so there we go!

[Michael Mozina]

The Sun’s spots have strong magnetic field , doesn’t mean they are charged ? Has a Sun’s spot a potential electrostatic capacity ? Does it interact with other stars spots ?

I'd say it's the ferrite on the surface that is magnetically charged and creates the magnetic fields to begin with. The iron ions are carried into the arc, and the electrical current within the arc creates it's own set of magnetic fields. When the magnetic poles point roughly toward the equator, it creates a condition where one side of the equator is more positively charged while the other side is being negatively charged. This creates an active condition where sunspots start to interact not only with the area around it, but with other sunspots in the other hemisphere as well. Things get VERY hot indeed!

When the magnetic poles align themselves with the spin axis, things are relatively "quiet" on the surface.

[Michael Mozina]

One more thing, you seem to talk few times about how you put lots of money to this idea.

The term LOTS Is realive. Relative to me, it's lots. Relative to what's been spent building the satellites that produced the images I'm using, it's a mere pitence.

Well, it can be a two bladed sword in some cases. Have you thought, maybe because you put so much money to this, you would have harder time admitting if there were any errors in your model? No offence, just a thought!

That's actually a fair observation and a fair point to raise. I assure you however that I wouldn't have put money into the idea if I didn't think it was important for the idea to be heard, even if not everyone jumps on board at the moment. I'm basically a businessman and I believe in the power of "competition". I'm simply trying to provide a competitive model to the gas model. I'm still certainly open to valid criticism, and I here with the express intent of getting feeback about my model.

On the other hand a lot of scientists make their living on grants related to some study related to the gas model. They are just as apt to not hear me because of the way it affects them financially and how it affects them professionally.

I don't make my living on scientific grants. If I'm wrong, I can just close up my website and walk about anytime I wish. So what if I'm wrong? Who cares? It won't affect my job since I'm a self employed software developer by trade. It would actually save me money were I to find out I was wrong and accept that idea. I'd say I have a lot less at stake than most professional astronomers who've been earning their living by promoting the gas model. That observation should factor into this discussion as well.

But on the other hand, I think you have just shown that you *are* willing to adjust your model, by changing "ferrite" to "iron" in some cases, where it works better, so there we go!

I'm not afraid of being wrong nor am I deaf to valid criticisms. I'm not attached to anything but "getting it right". I'll be happy to adjust things as necessary to make things right and I've essentially treated my website as a "blog" of sorts where I've added materials as I've found them and fixed mistakes as I've noticed them and found out about them.

On the other hand I'm VERY pleased with how this model holds up to the scrutiny I've seen to date and I think this process will help me a great deal with the next draft of my manusript. It has certainly been a worthwhile process from my perspective.

[Nereid]

First, (all?) the references for (all?) the images in your paper are websites, and a mixture of .jpg and .gif files at that. Why did you not obtain the native FITS files?

I obtained most of the RAW dit video directly from the SOHO website. If you follow the link the archives, you'll find all the grey video located there. All images presented on my website are snapshots taken from these vidoes using Quicktime. I simply copied and pasted the Quicktime snapshots in Microsofts Movie maker program and used a "morph" between snapshots to simulate movement from one from to the next. I did not alter or change these images in any way.

Second, your analyses seem to have been (with the exception of SERTS - see below*) entirely of the 'photointerpretation' kind - i.e. you looked at an image and you made a word picture interpretation of it (or several). In particular, you seem to have no quantitative model, based on the physics which one learns when one does a university degree in that subject.

If you want a "physics" based answer, I suggest you study the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. He studied lunar soil samples and comet debris. My model however was in fact based on direct observation as you suggest.

Did I miss something?

No, you didn't really miss anything. Dr. Manuel and I came at this issue two different ways. He based his conclusions on the nuclear chemistry and has every degee you could hope for in an nuclear chemist.

I came at this problem based on satellite imagery. We both arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Why?

Nor do you seem to have attempted to 'ground' the reader in how SOHO, etc obtain the data you use, what the observatory operators claim the data represent, how they were gathered, processed, etc (other than provide a link to some websites). This may seem a nit, but IMHO it's not. For starters, webpages are somewhat ephemeral, so if I wanted to check your sources for myself, in a few years' time, I may not be able to do so.

I don't think that's a minor nit pick actually. I need to make some time to document my images better. I'll have to quit responding to messages in the forum for awhile and apply some of the feedback I've gotten to my website sooner or later. All of the images on my website come straight from the SOHO or TRACE archives, or from Harvard or Stanford. I made only the running difference movies from SOHO. All the rest are public domain photos and videos.

Finally, for today, there are the 26 "Predictions Of A 21st Century Solid Surface Electrical Model". All of these are qualitative. How far along are you in terms of building a quantitative model?

I'm currently working on a joint effort with Dr. Manuel. I hope to update my manuscript in another week or so to include the data from the other 3 satellites from my evidence page as well as links to Dr. Manuels work. You might check back in a week. I should have it finished by then. I'll probably change some wording as well and use the term iron rather than ferrite. I thought it was a clever idea at first to talk about a magnetic ferrite, but I'm finding it confuses some poeple. The term IRON would be a better choice in certain sentences of the manuscript.

Did I miss something?

Not really. I ASSUMED that readers had some understanding of valence shells and energy states and some understanding of nuclear physics. That turns out to be a bad assumption on my part. I think I'll reference Dr. Manuels work a lot more often in the next "draft".

Thanks for your feedback by the way. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your reply.

As you indicate you are working on a quantitative model, I will wait until you have it ready before I ask you any further questions about it, and will work from your document in asking questions.

For today then, some (minor) clarifications, and responses to your questions of me.

The importance of using FITS files is many-fold; for your idea, you may find it important for the following reasons:
- they carry provenance (in the headers)
- there's no loss of information (unlike many common image compression schemes)
- recovery of fully characterised, 'output from the instrument', quantitative data is usually assured
- your analyses can be fairly easily verified and validated, independently.

The importance of relating your data processing (image processing, in your case I guess) to the 'user guides' from the 'observatory staff' is so you can show your readers that you have understood the capabilities of the observatory and instruments (and, almost always, the data reduction pipelines), especially their known limitations, systematic errors, and so on. (You can probably imagine how annoying responses to your work - along the lines of "Michael's image analysis is deficient in the following 987 ways {looong list}" - would be!).

No, you didn't really miss anything. Dr. Manuel and I came at this issue two different ways. He based his conclusions on the nuclear chemistry and has every degee you could hope for in an nuclear chemist.

I came at this problem based on satellite imagery. We both arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Why?

I have only just started to read the material Dr. Manuel has on his website, so I really can't comment about his work.

However, I do note that there appear to be quite a few differences between the 26 predictions in your paper and what I have found so far from Dr. Manuel's website (apart from the fact that he seems to have at least some quantitative conclusions and you, as yet, have none).

[Michael Mozina]

I must reply in kind, and say that it is an excellent and succinct summary of the situation, skepticfrog, and welcome to the board.

I'm just curious why my own outre theories don't generate nearly this response.

speaking as an innocent bystander, I'd have to say that it's because when your mistakes are pointed out to you, you react with the equivalent of "Oh, I see, let me work on that" and proceed from there.

But when I point out that the ferrite layer spans the whole surface unlike gas model predictions of a tiny amount of iron in the core, everyone here goes, "but wait, I can't be wrong, I'm a scientist and he's just some guy from California.

[Padawan]

Ok, I'm very late to reply to this topic, but...

First, I too reacted when I saw the ad about the sun having a solid surface and then visited the site to find out more. From a quick glimpse (as far as I remember) they didnt seem stupid to me. On the contrary, I believe it was a trick for them to attract visitors to their site.


I'm sorry, I didnt read this entire thread. I just had to say what I said above.

[TrAI]

Without some sort of solid resonance cavity, it's going to be hard to get heliosceismology to work at all IMO. What creates the resonance cavity in the first place?

Hmmm... I fail to see the connection. Sure the sun will have resonant frequencies, but there is no need for the waves used in helio seismology to be at the resonant frequency. The wave travels through the sun by reflecting of the inside of the higher density layer mentioned in your earlier quote, and it seems to be deflected by the pressure from the fusion reactions in the core of the sun. underway the differences in the surface of the sun caused by the sun spots affect the propagation of the waves, and makes it possible to compute information about the spot. The sound waves are powered by the fusion reaction in the core.

I guess I'm still not quite following you. I would suggest that it is the arcing on the surface that creates the sounds that people interpret as "grains of sand" striking a bell. The heavier material inside the iron layer carries these waves to the other side where they relfect out into the lighter materials.

(...)

I agree. That's why I have a hard time with NASA's notion that iron floats on helium and why I'm inclined to believe that the only materials below the iron layer are at least as heavy as iron.

Well, You are the one proposing that the sun has a solid iron surface, so its you who are saying it has to float on something. NASA, AFAIK, adhere to the gas/fluid model of the sun, there is no need for such a layer in that model, so one cant really say that NASA has the notion that iron floats on a helium layer.

If the core is heavy, then there really isn't a problem. When you suggest iron layers float on helium layers, the you are right, there is a HUGE problem. Fortunately my model suggests the iron is underneath the helium and and suspended by a molten core, probably of nickel and other heavier elements. It operates not that much differently than earth operatates, with a solid surface that sits on a molten core. It certainly does experience sunquakes however. I have a whole page devoted to that particular phenomenon in fact.

Well, that has a problem, namely that you can't fuse heavier elements than iron and get energy, so if your model states that the inner layers of the sun is mostly heavier elements, you need to find some alternative source for the energy the sun gives off. For the neon layers you propose to give of light they need to be ionized by something. The solar plasma in the gas/fluid model is powered by the fusion of light elements(mostly hydrogen into helium) in the inner layers of the sun, your model do not support fusion(due to excessive levels of heavier elements in the core).

Another thing to remember is that if you were to dump the suns mass in iron and heavier elements into one spot, the resultant object would not become bigger than Jupiter, it would just become denser. Sooner or later it would collapse under its own mass, but it would never become bigger. You may ask now why the sun can be larger than Jupiter then, Well, the answer to this is, according to the gas/fluid model, that the fusion reaction in the core creates such massive amounts of radiation pressure, that it actually pushes outwards the surrounding layers, at some point this pushing will cause the pressure to fall in the core of the sun, and this means the fusion reaction slows down, the gravity of the sun will then be higher than the force of the radiation pressure, and the outer layers will fall inwards a bit, the pressure increases, and radiation pressure will again be stronger, and the outer layers will expand again, its a self regulating cycle. Hmmm, come to think about it i fully expect this to create vibration in the surface. I also expect this effect to be the reason the suns density is quite low compared with its size.

Anyway. As I said, if the inner layers of the sun were mostly heavier elements, like nickel and so on, it could not sustain fusion, and so there would be no possibility of a process like this, and so such a sun would be quite a lot smaller and very cold.

From the solar moss phenomenon, it is clear that this layer is thick. It's relatively solid however until the electrical activity ionizes the iron and we start to see the FE IX and FE X ions emit photons. As the iron is ionized it gets VERY hot and is carried by the electrical current into the arc.

hmmm.. Where do the energy for the ionization of the iron come from?

How do you explain even an iron plasma layer floating on a helium layer? It really doesnt' matter whether it's a solid, or some sort of exotic plasma layer of iron, it's still going to sink to the bottom, not float on hydrogen and NASA claims.

No offence meant, but it is you who say that your interpretation of the data that suggests a higher iron content in the sun than the current models believe, and interpret that as a layer of iron on the surface, The gas/fluid model does not need to explain how the iron layer floats, as it has no such layer, its you who most provide an explanation for how it could work... Remember though, that if your model significantly increases the amount of heavier elements in the inner layers(as you suggested to make it float) there can not be fusion, so you will also have to find some other source of the massive amount of energy the sun puts out.

You know, before fusion was discovered, people had a lot of trouble figuring out where the energy came from. Some proposed that the sun was powered by the energy released by the suns mass as it collapsed under its gravity, then they figured out that the time this source of energy could have powered the sun could be expressed in million years, and the sun is a lot older than that... Now the only energy source we know of that is both powerful enough and sustainable for the required time in this kind of environment is fusion.

[Michael Mozina]

First, (all?) the references for (all?) the images in your paper are websites, and a mixture of .jpg and .gif files at that. Why did you not obtain the native FITS files?

I obtained most of the RAW dit video directly from the SOHO website. If you follow the link the archives, you'll find all the grey video located there. All images presented on my website are snapshots taken from these vidoes using Quicktime. I simply copied and pasted the Quicktime snapshots in Microsofts Movie maker program and used a "morph" between snapshots to simulate movement from one from to the next. I did not alter or change these images in any way.

Second, your analyses seem to have been (with the exception of SERTS - see below*) entirely of the 'photointerpretation' kind - i.e. you looked at an image and you made a word picture interpretation of it (or several). In particular, you seem to have no quantitative model, based on the physics which one learns when one does a university degree in that subject.

If you want a "physics" based answer, I suggest you study the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. He studied lunar soil samples and comet debris. My model however was in fact based on direct observation as you suggest.

Did I miss something?

No, you didn't really miss anything. Dr. Manuel and I came at this issue two different ways. He based his conclusions on the nuclear chemistry and has every degee you could hope for in an nuclear chemist.

I came at this problem based on satellite imagery. We both arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Why?

Nor do you seem to have attempted to 'ground' the reader in how SOHO, etc obtain the data you use, what the observatory operators claim the data represent, how they were gathered, processed, etc (other than provide a link to some websites). This may seem a nit, but IMHO it's not. For starters, webpages are somewhat ephemeral, so if I wanted to check your sources for myself, in a few years' time, I may not be able to do so.

I don't think that's a minor nit pick actually. I need to make some time to document my images better. I'll have to quit responding to messages in the forum for awhile and apply some of the feedback I've gotten to my website sooner or later. All of the images on my website come straight from the SOHO or TRACE archives, or from Harvard or Stanford. I made only the running difference movies from SOHO. All the rest are public domain photos and videos.

Finally, for today, there are the 26 "Predictions Of A 21st Century Solid Surface Electrical Model". All of these are qualitative. How far along are you in terms of building a quantitative model?

I'm currently working on a joint effort with Dr. Manuel. I hope to update my manuscript in another week or so to include the data from the other 3 satellites from my evidence page as well as links to Dr. Manuels work. You might check back in a week. I should have it finished by then. I'll probably change some wording as well and use the term iron rather than ferrite. I thought it was a clever idea at first to talk about a magnetic ferrite, but I'm finding it confuses some poeple. The term IRON would be a better choice in certain sentences of the manuscript.

Did I miss something?

Not really. I ASSUMED that readers had some understanding of valence shells and energy states and some understanding of nuclear physics. That turns out to be a bad assumption on my part. I think I'll reference Dr. Manuels work a lot more often in the next "draft".

Thanks for your feedback by the way. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your reply.

As you indicate you are working on a quantitative model, I will wait until you have it ready before I ask you any further questions about it, and will work from your document in asking questions.

For today then, some (minor) clarifications, and responses to your questions of me.

The importance of using FITS files is many-fold; for your idea, you may find it important for the following reasons:
- they carry provenance (in the headers)
- there's no loss of information (unlike many common image compression schemes)
- recovery of fully characterised, 'output from the instrument', quantitative data is usually assured
- your analyses can be fairly easily verified and validated, independently.

The importance of relating your data processing (image processing, in your case I guess) to the 'user guides' from the 'observatory staff' is so you can show your readers that you have understood the capabilities of the observatory and instruments (and, almost always, the data reduction pipelines), especially their known limitations, systematic errors, and so on. (You can probably imagine how annoying responses to your work - along the lines of "Michael's image analysis is deficient in the following 987 ways {looong list}" - would be!).

Yes, I'm sure there will be a LOT of that kind of commentary, and probably not a word about why we see a whole surface of iron rather than a pea sized core of iron. Some folks can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

I have only just started to read the material Dr. Manuel has on his website, so I really can't comment about his work.

However, I do note that there appear to be quite a few differences between the 26 predictions in your paper and what I have found so far from Dr. Manuel's website (apart from the fact that he seems to have at least some quantitative conclusions and you, as yet, have none).

What differences are you refering to. To the best of my knowledge we're pretty much in agreement on everything. He'll have to speak for himself of course.

I certainly did make predictions and conclusions. I think you are editorializing here just a wee bit.

[Mendel]

Anyway. As I said, if the inner layers of the sun were mostly heavier elements, like nickel and so on, it could not sustain fusion, and so there would be no possibility of a process like this, and so such a sun would be quite a lot smaller and very cold.


hmmm.. Where do the energy for the ionization of the iron come from?

I think he was proposing fission instead of fusion, is that feasible? edit to add: what about dynamo effects?

You seemed to earlier claim that your model supported that there was fusion reactions happening in the core of the sun, right?

Well, for simplicity sake, yes. The longer explanation is that my model predicts the free flow of positrons and electrons. That IMPLIES fission or fusion, but how or what that looks like in the core is pure speculation at this point. It COULD be that dynamo affects are at least partly responsible for the flow of electricity as well. Since I can't really see what's going on beneath the surface and since I can't really know what is releasing the electrical current, I stuck with the "tried and true" method.

[Nereid]

The only things we need to find the average density of the SUn are its total mass and its volume.
If this average density is inconsistent with your proposed model, you are wrong.

No. This is an OVERsimplification. That might work fine for a gas model, but that isn't going to work in a solid surface model that involves electromagnetic currents. I'm starting to check out that plasma based universe idea I saw in the other thead on this board. I think those concepts make a LOT of sense and probably hold the key to understanding how to answer this question. There is no way to know if the suns "charge" and the earth's "charge" don't somehow influence these measurements. Until we understand these kinds of things, there is no way to answer this question. I'm sure it can be done, but it can't be done using purely a gas model prediction set. We live in an ELECTRIC universe and electricity is FAR more powerful than gravity. You can't simply ignore the implications of these things as it relates to a ball of iron. There are MANY other issues to consider, and your oversimplification isn't going to cut it.

Mike, you've said this quite a number of times already, but so far I can't see anywhere (in this thread, or on your website) where you've shown (experiments or observations) that the standard methods for calculating the average density of a star, planet, moon, asteroid, ... will give misleading or inaccurate results. After all, they seem to work perfectly OK for bodies which have solid surfaces and "electromagnetic currents" (what are these, by the way?) such as the Earth, Io, Ganymede, and Callisto (they all have magnetic fields; there are electric currents involved with them all too).

Would you be so kind as to tell us what lead you to conclude these methods would likely give misleading or incorrect results, before you read the other thread here in BA?

What assumption?
The Principle of Equivalence, Newton's law fro gravity, Kepler's laws?
Please elaborate.

The assumption you are making that no electromagnetic influence should be considered!

I can't speak for papageno, but the reasons 'no electromagnetic influence should be considered' include the following they have been shown to have no significant influence in several centuries of good observational and experimental results, both on Earth and off it, both where there are all kinds of 'electromagnetic influence' and where there aren't.

What happens if there are no such electromagnetic influences?
What if the system Sun-Earth follows Newton's law for gravity so closely that are interactions can be ruled out?

Then maybe I'll have to reconsider aspects of my model. I seriously urge you to check out the website that talks about plasma cosmology. That is an AMAZING website. The universe is certainly filled with all sorts of electromagnetic influences and plasmas of all kinds. To simply ignore all this in favor of an oversimplification seems like a VERY bad idea from my perspective.

I have been reading the material on 'the website that talks about plasma cosmology', and many other similar ones, for some time now. I have been asking proponents of the ideas presented on those sites many questions about the case they present. My conclusion is that, with some notable exceptions, the case fails the 'observation test'. If you are interested, I will give you links to threads and internet fora where you may read the discussions for yourself.

Specifically, my POV is that 'all this' has been taken very seriously by mainstream astrophysicists for a long time.

[Michael Mozina]

Hmmm... I fail to see the connection. Sure the sun will have resonant frequencies

What will sound "resonate" from?

, but there is no need for the waves used in helio seismology to be at the resonant frequency.

Again, resonating off of what?

The wave travels through the sun by reflecting of the inside of the higher density layer mentioned in your earlier quote,

Where do we find this high density layer and how do you know it's not iron and heavy metals?

and it seems to be deflected by the pressure from the fusion reactions in the core of the sun.

Presure against what?

underway the differences in the surface of the sun caused by the sun spots affect the propagation of the waves, and makes it possible to compute information about the spot. The sound waves are powered by the fusion reaction in the core.

How do you intend to demonstrate that the grains of sand sounds come from the core?

Well, You are the one proposing that the sun has a solid iron surface, so its you who are saying it has to float on something.

Yes, nickel and other heavy metals most likely.

NASA, AFAIK, adhere to the gas/fluid model of the sun, there is no need for such a layer in that model, so one cant really say that NASA has the notion that iron floats on a helium layer.

The identify it as a unique layer. If you go to my observations page, it's the yellow layer. They certainly acknowledge it's there. I've emailed NASA and Lockheed Martin about why they have it floating above the other layers like that and their answers make little sense.

Well, that has a problem, namely that you can't fuse heavier elements than iron and get energy, so if your model states that the inner layers of the sun is mostly heavier elements, you need to find some alternative source for the energy the sun gives off.

Fine, we'll go with fission. It seem more likely an explanation the more I think about it. I'm also still pretty sure their are dynamo effects as well.

For the neon layers you propose to give of light they need to be ionized by something.

The hydrogen is created at the calcium/ferrite layer. It has to pass through the neon along with a lot of other flotsum and jetsum.

The solar plasma in the gas/fluid model is powered by the fusion of light elements(mostly hydrogen into helium) in the inner layers of the sun, your model do not support fusion(due to excessive levels of heavier elements in the core).

Alright, you've convinced me. I'm switching to fission.

Another thing to remember is that if you were to dump the suns mass in iron and heavier elements into one spot, the resultant object would not become bigger than Jupiter, it would just become denser. Sooner or later it would collapse under its own mass, but it would never become bigger. You may ask now why the sun can be larger than Jupiter then, Well, the answer to this is, according to the gas/fluid model, that the fusion reaction in the core creates such massive amounts of radiation pressure, that it actually pushes outwards the surrounding layers, at some point this pushing will cause the pressure to fall in the core of the sun, and this means the fusion reaction slows down, the gravity of the sun will then be higher than the force of the radiation pressure, and the outer layers will fall inwards a bit, the pressure increases, and radiation pressure will again be stronger, and the outer layers will expand again, its a self regulating cycle. Hmmm, come to think about it i fully expect this to create vibration in the surface. I also expect this effect to be the reason the suns density is quite low compared with its size.

Whereas I'm pretty sure we have electromagnetic charges affecting the gravitation orbits of the planets in relationship to the sun.

Anyway. As I said, if the inner layers of the sun were mostly heavier elements, like nickel and so on, it could not sustain fusion, and so there would be no possibility of a process like this, and so such a sun would be quite a lot smaller and very cold.

It would still be HOT as it relates to fission. Like I said, you've already convinced me.

From the solar moss phenomenon, it is clear that this layer is thick. It's relatively solid however until the electrical activity ionizes the iron and we start to see the FE IX and FE X ions emit photons. As the iron is ionized it gets VERY hot and is carried by the electrical current into the arc.

hmmm.. Where do the energy for the ionization of the iron come from?[/quote]

The electricity flowing through the iron.

No offence meant, but it is you who say that your interpretation of the data that suggests a higher iron content in the sun than the current models believe, and interpret that as a layer of iron on the surface, The gas/fluid model does not need to explain how the iron layer floats, as it has no such layer,

But the layer is there! I'm not making up these images. They are right from NASA/SOHO. There is a LAYER, not a small core that emits ferrite ions and ferrite ion photons. You can't simply ignore it!

its you who most provide an explanation for how it could work... Remember though, that if your model significantly increases the amount of heavier elements in the inner layers(as you suggested to make it float) there can not be fusion, so you will also have to find some other source of the massive amount of energy the sun puts out.

Ok, like I said, it's probably fission rather than fusion. Either way you look at it, I can explain the electrons and the electricity and the heat. It's not skin off my nose either way. I'll grant you that fission is a better answer, and in fact I had that conversation yesterday with someone else.

On the other hand you comment about NASA doesn't have iron floating on helium is simply wrong. I suggest you go to Lockheed Martin's website or go to my observations page. I have emailed Dr. SOHO and Lockheed Martin about their laying system and the choice of their layering system. They do acknowledge it's presence, they simply think it defies the laws of gravity.

You know, before fusion was discovered, people had a lot of trouble figuring out where the energy came from. Some proposed that the sun was powered by the energy released by the suns mass as it collapsed under its gravity, then they figured out that the time this source of energy could have powered the sun could be expressed in million years, and the sun is a lot older than that... Now the only energy source we know of that is both powerful enough and sustainable for the required time in this kind of environment is fusion.

Or then again, the universe may be completely electric as I predict and it may be that fission is the key to the energy release rather than fusion. Time will tell. I'm just doing my part in that process.

[Michael Mozina]

[I think he was proposing fission instead of fusion, is that feasible? edit to add: what about dynamo effects?

I was first open to either option, but the more I debate this issue, the more I'm convinced the energy source is fission, not fusion. I'll update my website tonight to include that "prediction".

The dynamo affects are caused by the fact that the sun's magnetic core rotates relative to its rotational axis once ever 22 years. More likely the sun rotates around a universe magnetic field of some sort. The rotation of an electromagnetic field over a ferrite/iron surface is going to cause electricty to flow in much the same way as a lawn more provides it's spark by passing magnets past metal.

You seemed to earlier claim that your model supported that there was fusion reactions happening in the core of the sun, right?

Yes I did. I now think I was wrong. See, I can listen to valid criticism.

Well, for simplicity sake, yes. The longer explanation is that my model predicts the free flow of positrons and electrons. That IMPLIES fission or fusion, but how or what that looks like in the core is pure speculation at this point. It COULD be that dynamo affects are at least partly responsible for the flow of electricity as well. Since I can't really see what's going on beneath the surface and since I can't really know what is releasing the electrical current, I stuck with the "tried and true" method.

I should known better than to ever have trusted the tried and true method to begin with.

[Michael Mozina]

This is the "official" layering system right from the Lockheed Martin webiste. Please explain to me how that solid layer of iron (yellow) floats above the other two layers? Presumably this iron layer defies the laws of gravity.

[Mendel]

I have a feeling you might be driving yourself to a trap here.

I don't know for sure but I think fission needs very heavy elements such as Uranium and well I think the reaction would be too fast. I'm sure others will explain it better though.

edit: actually never mind, I'm not qualified to argue on something like this. I would edit it out or delete but I don't think forum rules allow such actions so, uhm... just ignore!

edit2: Oh well, I could at least try and rephrase this as a question:

How well do you know nuclear fission and are you sure our sun could maintain it for billions of years?

[Michael Mozina]

How well do you know nuclear fission and are you sure our sun could maintain it for billions of years?

What reason do I have to believe it wouldn't maintain itself for billions of years? There has to be some energy source or the model won't work. Assuming that the sun is made of mostly heavy materials, I have no reason to think fission isn't a viable alternative to fusion.

[Van Rijn]

This is the "official" layering system right from the Lockheed Martin webiste. Please explain to me how that solid layer of iron (yellow) floats above the other two layers? Presumably this iron layer defies the laws of gravity.

And you know that is a solid layer of iron ... how? :roll:

[Michael Mozina]

This is the "official" layering system right from the Lockheed Martin webiste. Please explain to me how that solid layer of iron (yellow) floats above the other two layers? Presumably this iron layer defies the laws of gravity.

And you know that is a solid layer of iron ... how? :roll:

Please tell me how these ion emissions all come from the same place is this isn't a "rigid" surface?

[Baloo]

First of all Michael I want to say that it becomes clear to me that you don't know how a scientific theory is developed.

Pure grandstanding IMO.

Also you seems to believe that a theory is only completely right or wrong;

Followed by a strawman? We aren't off to a good start.

Well, that's just my opinion and your last posts doesn't help to change it. But, as example, you're saying that:

I believe that Dr. Oliver Manuel has been accurate now for over 40 years in his assesment that the sun was mostly made of iron. That is one scientists that I have absolute faith in.

The faith in someone's theory is not a scientific evidence that the theory is right, especially when is supported by just one person.

well, that's not true, we are using today a lot of theories that we know to be incomplete, but as we are aware of their limitations we keep using them.

Yes, I realize that. That was my point with the neutrino thing, but that got blow ALL out of proportion. There was a point to be made however in that observation that relates back the gravity issue as it relates to a solid surface model. I don't intend to abandon my model only because it doesn't yet fit ONE meausement.

No, not just one measurement; it has been asked to you on this board to provide numerical estimations for observated parameters of the sun (neutrino emission, density, etc.). You've said that you could not do that yet; very well, but since you don't know yet if your theory match some of the facts why you are so sure that you're right?

Nobody could have from the first try a complete theory about something (be it astronomy, biology or else)

But you guys seem to DEMAND one from me that includes all kinds of predictions about things I have no clue about!

No, we're asking for you to show that your theory is fitting the already observed facts. And again, if you still don't know if the predictions you'll make will match the reality why are you so sure that your theory is correct?

but there are exactly the previous incomplete theories that let us know how the right theory should behave.

Then the gas model SHOULD behave with a pea sized amount of iron in the middle rather than a LAYER of iron that spans a whole surface.

Your assumption that there is a iron layer on the surface is based only on the SOHO images taken with the Fe filters or on something else?

The best example is the general relativity: it is obviously better and explains a lot more than Newton, but this isn't mean that Newton was completely wrong. He was right within some limits.

Sure, and likewise Galileo was right about the PHOTOSPHERE, but wrong about what was underneath the visible photosphere.

AFAIK Galileo didn't say anything about photosphere and what is underneath it simply because he didn't knew that the photosphere existed.
Do you think that the later scientists took on faith what Galileo said ?

You keep saying that the sunspots are actually black and are not emitting any kind of light like in this film on your webpage here .
From the name of this film I assume that it was taken in the G-band (since you didn't specify anything about it on your page, which again is not scientific: you should always say how was obtained and analyzed a piece of information or image).

Forgive me. I've got limited time and I work on a budget.

The problem is that you're not working scientifically; you're providing the images but not a word about the specific conditions in which they've been obtained or at least links to the original webpage.

I didn't have any ideea what G-band is, so after a quick search I found this: "The G band 4305 A, width 10 A" (from here ).
So it seems that those images where highly monochtomatic with a 430nm wavelength . What this means? Well the mainstream theory says that a sunspot has 4200K and the surrounding areas 5800K.
Look here for the theoretical emissions of a 6000K surface and here for the emission of a 4000K surface. Look at the energy emission at 430 nm (where the images where taken) and you'll see that the emitted energy density is:

- 7*10^13 W/m^2 at 6000K
- 3*10^12 W/m^2 at 4000K

It seems clear to me that in your images the dark region is emitting in the g-band 10 time less energy than the bright region. Anybody with a minimum photographic experience will tell you that on an image exposed to see the bright region the dark region will be simply invisible.
So I'd say that the light intensity variations to be seen in the film are due to temperature variations that leads to different energy emissions in the 430 nm band and are not actually 'umbra' and 'penumbra'. (Anyway when you talk about 'umbra' regions you're implying a sort of exterior light source, which is not true since the sun is the only one available 8) )

I'll have to look at your links to respond to this. I will. What MATERIAL are you suggesting emits this light? Even if it can be explained one way, what makes you KNOW it's the right way? How do you know there isn't a better and more elegant way to explain the same phenomenon? How does your black body explanation explain the flare patterns and the flow patterns we see on this layer?

You're kidding, aren't you? I could adress you exactly the same questions! This kind of argumentation is leading nowhere; I provided you my explanation and you're asking me "how do I know" whitout yet reading it and whitout trying to evaluate my arguments?
I don't know what material is, but my evaluation doesn't depend on the material but only on it's temperature.
The patterns you're talking about are probably flow patterns, but not from a different material; it could be the same but with different temperatures and therefore with different emission spectra.
Ah, and you've get me wrong: I don't KNOW that this is the right explanation, I've just did a quick evaluation of the known data on the images and I've provided a PLAUSIBLE explanation (altough I think is probably the right one).
Did you contacted the observatory that took those images? Did you contacted some expert in the field to ask a second opinion on this very images? Did you search for some other possible explanations for why that picture look like that?

Now you're saying that anybody that's using an arc welder becomes expert in electric arcs and therefore is able to say that a solar phenomena is an electric arc? Come on....

No, that is another of your strawmen. I said that I've used an arcwlder before and worked with electricity all of my life and I know some things about electricity and I know how it SHOULD behave given specific conditions. I see every reason to believe from my experience with electricity that the sun is electric and the arcs we see are electrical in nature. Now could you explain to me how you know they are not electrical in nature?

It seems to me that you're overestimating your competences; the Sun (and actually the rest of the universe :wink is VERY different from the Earth and the daily experiences that one has here is not applicable elsewhere. What kind of specific experience with the electricity do you have that could be applied in the Sun's study?

Oh, now I know how I'd missed it: you're not using properly the name of the thing. :wink:

Toche'. I'll use the term IRON. In fact it's been pointed out by a few folks that my use of the term "ferrite" is more confusing than helpuful. I was trying to be specific about it being a ferrite alloy, but instead that seems to cause confusion. I'll work on it for you.

No, not for me; nobody will pay attention to your theory if you fail to properly use the basic therms who should be very well understood not to build a theory but just to be capable of understanding one.

I assume that you're not talking about that: "magnetic ferrite, which has the general formula MOFe2O3, where M means some divalent metal ion (Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, etc)." (from here ), altough when you're mentioned some magnetic effects that are taken into account in your model due to this layer I was thinking that is exactly this kind of ferrite you are refering to.

I was trying to imply that the layer isn't simply made of iron, but rather it's a magnetic alloy, thus the term "ferrite".

As long as your alloy is not the one described above you should not use the nomination "ferrite"; is not right and is also highly misleading.

Yes, but we see ions from IRON over an entire SURFACE. :wink:

What is the ratio Fe/Other elements on the Sun's surface in your opinion?

I agree with the official value of the sun that is assigned to the photosphere on out. The silicon beneath the visible photophere is cooler than the neon layer. Sunspots typically realease cooler silicon from below. How "cool" is "cool" remains to be seen, but it need to be cool enough to support a ferrite alloy of some kind.

So you have a heat source in the midlle, then a cool layer and then a hot layer? How does the cool neon layer transmits heat to a much hot layer? You're contradicting some fundamental thermodinamics law here...
:wink:

You're saying about this photo that is showing cracks; how do you now that these are really cracks in a solid surface? Just visual inspection or you have some other reasons?

Purely visual inspection of the pattern in the crack and the pattern in the penumbral filaments. They seem be very connected in pattern and shape.

Purely visual inspection...hm, not at all scientific. Let's make an experiment: will look from the Earth' s orbit down to the Atlantic ocean with an infrared camera. The image will look like: that . Full of cracks, isnt'it? Especially the big red one, very clear on a visual inspection...well, I bet that the Atlantic ocean has no cracks in it, even if in this photo one is clearly visible. 8)
(the explanation of what are we really seeing here )

We could be talking a FISSION in the core rather than FUSION for all I know.

AFAIK fission implies elements heavier than Fe; do you have any in your model? 8)

All I'm suggesting is that electrons and positrons are released in these interactions...

Positrons? Do you mean this kind of particle? Antimatter?

[Michael Mozina]

Mike, you've said this quite a number of times already, but so far I can't see anywhere (in this thread, or on your website) where you've shown (experiments or observations) that the standard methods for calculating the average density of a star, planet, moon, asteroid, ... will give misleading or inaccurate results.

I had never actually considered the idea until a few days ago. This seems to be one of those core issues that deserves and explaination however.

After all, they seem to work perfectly OK for bodies which have solid surfaces and "electromagnetic currents" (what are these, by the way?) such as the Earth, Io, Ganymede, and Callisto (they all have magnetic fields; there are electric currents involved with them all too).

When we ASSUMED the sun was mostly hydrogen, a "gravity only" scenario sounded pretty reasonable. Now that we have evidence to suggest it's mostly IRON and other materials that conduct electricity and can hold a charge, that concept sounds pretty simplistic. The charge of the body itself can affect the orbits. One has to assume that other bodies have fission happening in their core as well. These could all affect the orbits of mostly IRON objects.

Would you be so kind as to tell us what lead you to conclude these methods would likely give misleading or incorrect results, before you read the other thread here in BA?

I read the other thread specifically because it sounded like a viable option to explain this anomoly. I suggested electromagnetic influences before reading the thread however. In fact I've already read a lot of materials about high temp plasma floating around the Cosmos and creating "webs" in our physical universe. Of the these things have to be considered.

I can't speak for papageno, but the reasons 'no electromagnetic influence should be considered' include the following they have been shown to have no significant influence in several centuries of good observational and experimental results, both on Earth and off it, both where there are all kinds of 'electromagnetic influence' and where there aren't.

First of all, only in the last 100 years have we even started to understand electricity, and secondly, only in the past 10 years could we confirm the sun is mostly iron. We know from the study of electricity and magnetism that it COULD have a MUCH stronger influence than gravity. You only need a paperclip and a magnet to prove that point. To deny this as an influence suggests you have some reasonable material to prove this point. Let's see it.

I have been reading the material on 'the website that talks about plasma cosmology', and many other similar ones, for some time now. I have been asking proponents of the ideas presented on those sites many questions about the case they present. My conclusion is that, with some notable exceptions, the case fails the 'observation test'. If you are interested, I will give you links to threads and internet fora where you may read the discussions for yourself.

Quite frankly, I don't know enough about plasma physics to know EXACTLY how well it fits with evidence from Chandra, but the little I do know leads me to conclude there *IS* observational evidence to support such a model, and since my work suggests that there are many plasma invloved in our own sun, it would make a LOT of sense to think the whole universe has an electromagnetic character to it. Plasma conducts electricity in a BIG way and if our universe is filled with it, then we certainly live in an electrical universe.

Specifically, my POV is that 'all this' has been taken very seriously by mainstream astrophysicists for a long time.

It should be. This is where all the new discoveries of astrophysics will occur IMO. Plasma cosmology is very real and very relevant.

[Kesh]

I think I'm done here. Michael, if you seriously think Doc Manuel's work solves all the math for you, do you also believe (as he does) that there is a neutron star fragment at the core of our sun?

Anyone who wants to hurt their brains can read the 46(!) page thread on Universe Today's forums, where people challenged Dr. Manuel's claim and received nothing but "you're wrong, read my paper" repeatedly. Even when the numbers in his paper were shown to be wrong.

[Eta C]

Tell us why a gaseous (or liquid) surface can't have emissions at several different frequencies. What you've got there Mike is an image of two sunspots. What we're seeing are the plasma prominences following the magnetic field lines between them. These prominences project far above the sun's surface.

Going back a couple of posts, just because the LockMart site (link please. even if you've provided it before it's courteous to link to the original site when showing info from it.) showed the various frequencies as "stacked layers" doesn't mean that these represent actual "physical" layers. In the absence of a link, you should tell us what frequencies the various pictures represent and what element produced the observed spectral line.

You know something, I just come to a realization. Mike possibly believes that the different frequencies represented in the SOHO imagery must come from separate solid layers. (I invite you to correct me if I'm wrong here Mike, no attempts to set up scarecrows). If one of the frequencies is from an iron spectral line it would explain his insistence that there is an iron layer. Of course, there's a big leap from saying that there is some iron in the sun to claiming that there's a solid iron surface with hollow resonance gaps beneath it.