ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid

[Michael Mozina]

A couple of other points:

It is utterly ILLOGICAL to think that our sun doesn't contain the same sort of heavier elements as it's planets. To suggest suns are made differently than everything else is pure spectulation, and rather unlikely as well.

Secondly, if you don't think it's neon that's glowing, what's causing the light to shimmer on the layer of the photosphere everywhere but in the sunspots? What's different about the sunspots, and why are they so dark?

How is it even logical to believe the sun wouldn't have the same materials as comets and planets?

[Van Rijn]

Well, the case or no- what is holding up this silicon shell, as the density of the sun as calculated from mass/volume is 1.4 g/cm^3, while silicon is 2.33 g/cm^3... is it hollow after the silicon layer, and underneath the neon sign... which, well,

These "calculated" numbers for the sun are all based upon the GAS model. I don't see where that applies to a solid surface model.

We know the mass of the sun by applying Newton's Laws of motion. From there, the average density can be calculated as PatKelley mentioned above. The average density must remain the same, whether it is the "gas" model or not. However, if the sun had a solid surface the interior density would have to be even lower than normally assumed.

neon would glow with a different set of spectra than the continuum of the solar spectra, which conforms more to a black-body curve than that of a glowing gas-plasma.

But Neon HAS been isolated rom the full spectra.
http://www.physik.rwth-aachen.de/~ha...ge/index1.html

Well, sure, there is some neon. From:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm

it is about 0.0076% of the total seen.

Hydrogen.......92.1%
Helium...........7.8%
Oxygen..........0.061%
Carbon..........0.030%
Nitrogen.........0.0084%
Neon..............0.0076%
Iron...............0.0037%
Silicon............0.0031%
Magnesium.....0.0024%
Sulfur............0.0015%
All others.......0.0015%

It is utterly ILLOGICAL to think that our sun doesn't contain the same sort of heavier elements as it's planets. To suggest suns are made differently than everything else is pure spectulation, and rather unlikely as well.

Of course it has heavier elements. And as with gas giants, hydrogen predominates. See percentages above.

Secondly, if you don't think it's neon that's glowing, what's causing the light to shimmer on the layer of the photosphere everywhere but in the sunspots? What's different about the sunspots, and why are they so dark?

The sun glows because of the blackbody temperature at the surface. Sunspots glow too at a somewhat lower temperature. They are darker but they are far from dark. The interaction of the solar magnetic fields slows convection to the surface so the area in a sunspot is somewhat cooler than elsewhere.

Here's one reference:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../magnetic.html

[captain swoop]

Why is this on a website and not a Peer reviewed Journal?

[PatKelley]

Well, the case or no- what is holding up this silicon shell, as the density of the sun as calculated from mass/volume is 1.4 g/cm^3, while silicon is 2.33 g/cm^3... is it hollow after the silicon layer, and underneath the neon sign... which, well,

These "calculated" numbers for the sun are all based upon the GAS model. I don't see where that applies to a solid surface model.

No, it's based on the mass calculated for the sun divided by the volume. It is not based on the "GAS" model; it is a simple ratio. Based on this simple ratio, the density of the sun (1.4 g/cm^3) is too low to be silicon (2.33 g/cm^3) much less "ferrite" (Iron, Ferrosilicon - 6.984 g/cm^3), so for the sun's surface to be composed of ferrite, it would seem that there has to be a compensatory area of lower density beneath this layer which implies a hollow sun. Assuming, of course, your model for the surface is correct.

neon would glow with a different set of spectra than the continuum of the solar spectra, which conforms more to a black-body curve than that of a glowing gas-plasma.

But Neon HAS been isolated rom the full spectra.
http://www.physik.rwth-aachen.de/~ha...ge/index1.html

The fact it has other emisions as well, makes it less obvious is all.

Yet you established it as the primary agent of luminescence at the sun's photosphere, hence one would expect a neon spectra for the sun, not a black-body bell curve. This conjecture appears to be unsupported by evidence.

This is part of the reason we can figure out what elements are on the sun: emission and absorption spectra (also useful for rough calculation of distances based on H-Alpha absorption lines in Quasars... but I digress).

At that action is happening at the Calcium Ferrite layers according to the BBSO images.......but I digress.

Now it's calcium ferrite - but wasn't that supposed to be cooled by the Neon? How does it maintain its temperature over the span of a year, much less the thousands of years we have human records of it shining, nevermind the question of what fossil plants could have been getting their energy from.

[Michael Mozina]

We know the mass of the sun by applying Newton's Laws of motion. From there, the average density can be calculated as PatKelley mentioned above. The average density must remain the same, whether it is the "gas" model or not. However, if the sun had a solid surface the interior density would have to be even lower than normally assumed.

Then so be it. You can't however determine density until you understand thicknesses of various layers.

Well, sure, there is some neon. From:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm

it is about 0.0076% of the total seen.

Hydrogen.......92.1%
Helium...........7.8%
Oxygen..........0.061%
Carbon..........0.030%
Nitrogen.........0.0084%
Neon..............0.0076%
Iron...............0.0037%
Silicon............0.0031%
Magnesium.....0.0024%
Sulfur............0.0015%
All others.......0.0015%

You seem to have a VERY simplistic, in fact OVERLY simplistic idea about what these numbers represent. They only show us the RELATIVE distribution of HEAT, which will be OVERLY reprsented in the UPPER (LIGHTER) elements. That is *NOT* a valid way to measure COMPOSITION. I suggest you check out the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel for a SERIOUS attempt to measure compositon based on nuclear physics.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

Of course it has heavier elements. And as with gas giants, hydrogen predominates. See percentages above.

Like I said, you can't apply an overly simplistic model to nuclear physics where heat is distributed through several different layers and expect to get a serious answer. Dr. Manual's work will validate the fact that the sun is NOT made of mostly hydrogen.

The sun glows because of the blackbody temperature at the surface. Sunspots glow too at a somewhat lower temperature. They are darker but they are far from dark.

Huh? They are VERY dark to the naked eye. They have other types of photons flowing through them of course, but in that region, the visible light simply disapears, and we can see highly defined "sides" to this "layer" of "penumbral filaments". What the deal with the BLACK hole in just these specific locations, and along the sides of the penumbral filament layer?

The interaction of the solar magnetic fields slows convection to the surface so the area in a sunspot is somewhat cooler than elsewhere.

Even if it were "cooler", it should not be SO cold that NOTHING shines from that spot, but shines right around the edges like that.

Here's one reference:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../magnetic.html

My explanation was MUCH simpler, and I'll just stick to the Occum's razor concept when we have competing idea.

I've noticed none of you have addressed that running difference movie I put together.

I still haven't heard a logical explantation as to why the earth and venus and mars are full of heavy materials, but somehow the sun is imunne. That doesn't make much sense of you ask me.

[Michael Mozina]

Why is this on a website and not a Peer reviewed Journal?

I submitted my PDF file for peer review on 6/20/05 at The Astrophical Journal:

http://mss.uchicago.edu/ApJ/

I'm still waiting for it to be assigned an "editor". From what I see at with other papers, it's not uncommon for this process to drag out for several weeks.

I figured I get an early start on the process.

[Michael Mozina]

No, it's based on the mass calculated for the sun divided by the volume. It is not based on the "GAS" model; it is a simple ratio. Based on this simple ratio, the density of the sun (1.4 g/cm^3) is too low to be silicon (2.33 g/cm^3) much less "ferrite" (Iron, Ferrosilicon - 6.984 g/cm^3), so for the sun's surface to be composed of ferrite, it would seem that there has to be a compensatory area of lower density beneath this layer which implies a hollow sun. Assuming, of course, your model for the surface is correct.

You can calculate the mass of the sun, but unless and until you know thicknesses of layers, you can't really calculate the density of the center of the sun.

Yet you established it as the primary agent of luminescence at the sun's photosphere, hence one would expect a neon spectra for the sun, not a black-body bell curve. This conjecture appears to be unsupported by evidence.

No, we wouldn't EXPECT that at all, considering the hydrogen and helium layers are spitting out vast amounts of heat and emissions of their own. I'd expect to find SOME neon, but I'd expect it to be "blurred" by all the other things that are involved as well.

This is part of the reason we can figure out what elements are on the sun: emission and absorption spectra (also useful for rough calculation of distances based on H-Alpha absorption lines in Quasars... but I digress).

We find that iron and neon and silicon are present in almost all supernova remnants, and galaxy collisions, but I digress.

Now it's calcium ferrite - but wasn't that supposed to be cooled by the Neon?

The "surface" is likely a calcium ferrite ALLOY with all sorts of other metals as well. It's not ONE element. The calcium layer sits on top of that alloy. The silicon sits on that layer and absorbs most of the heat from the calcium layer. The neon layer sits on top of the silicon and cools the whole thing, passing the heat through "convection" forces we see at the top of the neon layer (penumbral filaments).

How does it maintain its temperature over the span of a year, much less the thousands of years we have human records of it shining, nevermind the question of what fossil plants could have been getting their energy from.

It maintains an even temp because it puts out the same amount of energy ever day, and the neon keeps it cool every day. I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of that question as it relates to this model.

[Van Rijn]

We know the mass of the sun by applying Newton's Laws of motion. From there, the average density can be calculated as PatKelley mentioned above. The average density must remain the same, whether it is the "gas" model or not. However, if the sun had a solid surface the interior density would have to be even lower than normally assumed.

Then so be it. You can't however determine density until you understand thicknesses of various layers.

The average density has been determined. Are you saying there is a thin solid layer over a gaseous interior?

The sun glows because of the blackbody temperature at the surface. Sunspots glow too at a somewhat lower temperature. They are darker but they are far from dark.

Huh? They are VERY dark to the naked eye.

Probably because you destroyed your retina. Seriously, this is basic astronomy. You can't look at the sun with the naked eye for more than an instant without damaging the eye and you certainly can't identify sunspots that way. You have to use a filter or other method to reduce the intensity of the light. Sunspots only appear dark through a filter because they are relatively darker than the rest of the surface. From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

A sunspot is a region on the Sun's surface (photosphere) that is marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity. Although they are blindingly bright, at temperatures of roughly 5000 K, the contrast with the surrounding material at some 6000 K leaves them clearly visible as dark spots. Interestingly, if they were isolated from the surrounding photosphere they would be brighter than an electric arc.

They have other types of photons flowing through them of course, but in that region, the visible light simply disapears, and we can see highly defined "sides" to this "layer" of "penumbral filaments". What the deal with the BLACK hole in just these specific locations, and along the sides of the penumbral filament layer?

Different types of photons? What are you talking about? And, of course, the visible light does not disapear in a sunspot.

The interaction of the solar magnetic fields slows convection to the surface so the area in a sunspot is somewhat cooler than elsewhere.

Even if it were "cooler", it should not be SO cold that NOTHING shines from that spot, but shines right around the edges like that.

Here's one reference:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../magnetic.html

My explanation was MUCH simpler, and I'll just stick to the Occum's razor concept when we have competing idea.

Uh, right. A solid surface and different photons. Oh, and black hole sunspots - which clearly doesn't match reality. Much simpler.

I still haven't heard a logical explantation as to why the earth and venus and mars are full of heavy materials, but somehow the sun is imunne. That doesn't make much sense of you ask me.

And as said previously, the sun does have these elements, but the percentages are different because it didn't form the same way.

Anyway, I would suggest you read some basic astronomy books. It is clear that you have some fundamental misunderstandings on this subject.

[Maksutov]

[edit]

The sun glows because of the blackbody temperature at the surface. Sunspots glow too at a somewhat lower temperature. They are darker but they are far from dark.

Huh? They are VERY dark to the naked eye.

Probably because you destroyed your retina. Seriously, this is basic astronomy. You can't look at the sun with the naked eye for more than an instant without damaging the eye and you certainly can't identify sunspots that way. You have to use a filter or other method to reduce the intensity of the light. Sunspots only appear dark through a filter because they are relatively darker than the rest of the surface. From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

A sunspot is a region on the Sun's surface (photosphere) that is marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity. Although they are blindingly bright, at temperatures of roughly 5000 K, the contrast with the surrounding material at some 6000 K leaves them clearly visible as dark spots. Interestingly, if they were isolated from the surrounding photosphere they would be brighter than an electric arc.

That was pretty revealing re sunspot "darkness". If memory serves the apparent magnitude of a typical sunspot is about -14.5 to -15. A sunspot, if moved 180° from the Sun, would be the brightest object in the night sky.

[Michael Mozina]

The average density has been determined. Are you saying there is a thin solid layer over a gaseous interior?

I have NO idea what's beneath the surface. I can only tell you it has a solid surface. The only thing I can note from SERTS data is that during "active" phases the sun emits more sulfur and nickel.

Probably because you destroyed your retina. Seriously, this is basic astronomy. You can't look at the sun with the naked eye for more than an instant without damaging the eye and you certainly can't identify sunspots that way. You have to use a filter or other method to reduce the intensity of the light. Sunspots only appear dark through a filter because they are relatively darker than the rest of the surface. From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

It was your beloved Galileo, the father of the gas model, who went blind staring at the sun, not me. I'm not foolish enough to stare directly at the sun. I use a computer monitor to study the sun. Do you always make such rash and irrational assumptions about people you don't even know?

A sunspot is a region on the Sun's surface (photosphere) that is marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity. Although they are blindingly bright, at temperatures of roughly 5000 K, the contrast with the surrounding material at some 6000 K leaves them clearly visible as dark spots. Interestingly, if they were isolated from the surrounding photosphere they would be brighter than an electric arc.

What makes it go black in the center of the sunspot as it relates to visible light? Why would a 1000K difference result in a completely BLACK (visible light) sunspot? What's "radiating" visible light? Specifically what molecules are involved? What makes it reform a shiny layer again? Why do we see "sides" along the penumbral filaments?

Different types of photons? What are you talking about?

The wavelength of the photon will determine whether we can "see" it. Why can't we SEE a sunspot but see the whole shiny surface?

And, of course, the visible light does not disapear in a sunspot.

Have you ever looked at sunspot?

Uh, right. A solid surface and different photons. Oh, and black hole sunspots - which clearly doesn't match reality. Much simpler.

What are you talking about? Photons come in ALL wavelengths. Who said anything about a black hole? I said visible light is not emitting from the center of the sunspot. I asked you why that might be. Rather than addressing it, you created a set of strawman arguments that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with anything I've said.

And as said previously, the sun does have these elements, but the percentages are different because it didn't form the same way.

How do you *KNOW* it didn't form the same way?

Anyway, I would suggest you read some basic astronomy books. It is clear that you have some fundamental misunderstandings on this subject.

Pure argument by ridicule utterly devoid of scientific merit. Please read about photons and wavelenghts of photons before you stick your foot in your mouth again. It's clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[Michael Mozina]

That was pretty revealing re sunspot "darkness". If memory serves the apparent magnitude of a typical sunspot is about -14.5 to -15. A sunspot, if moved 180° from the Sun, would be the brightest object in the night sky.

Where might I find your references as it relates to VISIBLE light coming from the center of sunspots?

[Iris]

Mr. Mozina. I have found your website today, read a bit through it, and actually came looking around to see if there was a thread about it. Afterall, I found it myself on a google ad on Bad Astronomy. I am not a scientist and therefore I will not advance myself to try to dismantle your sayings.

But. I have a question: nowhere on your website you state what scientific degrees and studies you possess. Perhaps I have missed it. Still, could you please state your studies and experience to us?

[Michael Mozina]

Mr. Mozina. I have found your website today, read a bit through it, and actually came looking around to see if there was a thread about it. Afterall, I found it myself on a google ad on Bad Astronomy. I am not a scientist and therefore I will not advance myself to try to dismantle your sayings.

But. I have a question: nowhere on your website you state what scientific degrees and studies you possess. Perhaps I have missed it. Still, could you please state your studies and experience to us?

How is that relevant?

[Van Rijn]

(from previous Michael Mozina post)
Huh? They [sunspots] are VERY dark to the naked eye

Probably because you destroyed your retina. Seriously, this is basic astronomy. You can't look at the sun with the naked eye for more than an instant without damaging the eye and you certainly can't identify sunspots that way. You have to use a filter or other method to reduce the intensity of the light. Sunspots only appear dark through a filter because they are relatively darker than the rest of the surface. From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

It was your beloved Galileo, the father of the gas model, who went blind staring at the sun, not me. I'm not foolish enough to stare directly at the sun. I use a computer monitor to study the sun. Do you always make such rash and irrational assumptions about people you don't even know?

You left out the statement I was commenting on, so I added it back in. This was a small joke. The word "Seriously" was a hint. The point being that it is very dangerous to look at the sun with the naked eye as you first suggested. This is not a good way to look for sunspots. I'm glad to see you conceded the point.

What makes it go black in the center of the sunspot as it relates to visible light? Why would a 1000K difference result in a completely BLACK (visible light) sunspot? What's "radiating" visible light? Specifically what molecules are involved? What makes it reform a shiny layer again? Why do we see "sides" along the penumbral filaments?

In order: It doesn't. It isn't. The same gas as everywhere else on the sun. See the list in this post. The sunspot/magnetic storm collapses (see sunspot references for details). The structure of the sunspot is based on the interaction of the solar magnetic field.

Different types of photons? What are you talking about?

The wavelength of the photon will determine whether we can "see" it. Why can't we SEE a sunspot but see the whole shiny surface?

While the peak emission wavelength changes with the lower temperature, it is well within the visual range. As to your question: Go out on a moonless night. How many stars do you see? Now do the same on a moonlit night. How many stars? Now go out in daylight. Repeat the process. Did the stars go out or is it simply that you can't see them?

And, of course, the visible light does not disapear in a sunspot.

Have you ever looked at sunspot?

Yes, with appropriate equipment. However, simple visual examination isn't a useful method for determining the amount of light coming from a sunspot so I don't see your point.

Uh, right. A solid surface and different photons. Oh, and black hole sunspots - which clearly doesn't match reality. Much simpler.

What are you talking about? Photons come in ALL wavelengths. Who said anything about a black hole?

I was referring to the following paragraph. I've taken the liberty of emphasizing points of interest:

Huh? They are VERY dark to the naked eye. They have other types of photons flowing through them of course, but in that region, the visible light simply disapears, and we can see highly defined "sides" to this "layer" of "penumbral filaments". What the deal with the BLACK hole in just these specific locations, and along the sides of the penumbral filament layer?

Does that clear things up? Incidentally, wavelength doesn't a change photon's "type." A photon is still a photon.

I said visible light is not emitting from the center of the sunspot. I asked you why that might be. Rather than addressing it, you created a set of strawman arguments that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with anything I've said.

I answered you directly. To repeat: You're incorrect. Visible light is emitted at the center of the sunspot. This has been very well established and carefully measured. See my previous posts and the links I provided for details.

And as said previously, the sun does have these elements, but the percentages are different because it didn't form the same way.

How do you *KNOW* it didn't form the same way?

Numerous reasons - relative availability of elements in space, examination of the sun and stars, examination of planets, examination of stellar nurseries, models of the effect of different masses on formation, models of the effect of a star on planetary formation, etc. And there is the simple observational fact that the sun CANNOT have the same relative percentage of elements as the earth.

Anyway, I would suggest you read some basic astronomy books. It is clear that you have some fundamental misunderstandings on this subject.

Pure argument by ridicule utterly devoid of scientific merit. Please read about photons and wavelenghts of photons before you stick your foot in your mouth again. It's clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Some might consider that ironic. From your statements and questions about sunspots (among other things) it seemed reasonable to conclude that you are not familiar with a number of facets of mainstream astronomy. If you want your alternative hypothesis to be taken seriously, you should learn something about what you are arguing against. Your insistence that sunspots are "black" is a perfect example of the problem.

[minor word edits added]

[Iris]

Mr. Mozina. I have found your website today, read a bit through it, and actually came looking around to see if there was a thread about it. Afterall, I found it myself on a google ad on Bad Astronomy. I am not a scientist and therefore I will not advance myself to try to dismantle your sayings.

But. I have a question: nowhere on your website you state what scientific degrees and studies you possess. Perhaps I have missed it. Still, could you please state your studies and experience to us?

How is that relevant?

I believe you probably have the specialized qualifications to know what you're talking about, isn't it? If you wish to revolutionize something, you probably have studies in the said domain, am I right? Have you not went through university? The men that worked previous theories went through a LOT. People will want to know your path.

I'm a student in 3D animation. Not a science one. I'm not going to start defying people that spent YEARS studying physics by building a theory about the Great Orion Nebula being actually a huge accumulation of cotton candy. Let's say I won't have a lot of...credibility.

(EDIT: Added quote to Mr. Mozina's post)

[Michael Mozina]

I believe you probably have the specialized qualifications to know what you're talking about, isn't it? If you wish to revolutionize something, you probably have studies in the said domain, am I right?

The observations I have made will speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how many degrees Bill Gates might have or not have, his software revolutionized the planet.

Have you not went through university? The men that worked previous theories went through a LOT. People will want to know your path.

My path isn't even relevant IMO. I've presented scientific evidence that warrants a scientific refute. Instead, everyone has AVOIDED providing alternative explanations for the phenomenon I have observed and commented on. Instead they are fixated on the messenger. I find that distracting.

I'm a student in 3D animation. Not a science one. I'm not going to start defying people that spent YEARS studying physics by building a theory about the Great Orion Nebula being actually a huge accumulation of cotton candy. Let's say I won't have a lot of...credibility.

Since I didn't propose anything of the sort, this is nothing but a strawman and has nothing to do with any of the material I have presented. I have presented a RANGE of material from a total of 6 different satellites. If you have something to refute as it relates to MATERIAL, great. If this is going to be a pick on Michael routine, I'm not going to participate in such rediculace nonsense. I am a self employed businessman who writes software for a living. I'm 45 years old and have been out of college now for over 20 years. I'm investing money in getting this idea out there for others to comment on. Its the MATERIAL that is relevant here, not the individual.

[Omicron Persei 8]

Instead, everyone has AVOIDED providing alternative explanations for the phenomenon I have observed and commented on.


No....I'm darn sure a few people have so far challenged your hypothesis given that it really don't make a whole lot of sense in light of the data we have of the sun. For one thing I haven't noticed your position on solar neutrinos and how you think they're produced with your ideas. Also you have to account for the makeup of solar wind and what constitutes it:

From link

"73% ionized hydrogen and 25% ionized helium with the remainder as trace impurities; these components are present as a plasma, consisting of about 95% singly ionized hydrogen, 4% doubly ionized helium, and less than 0.5% other ions (often called minor ions)."

Also, haven't you even wondered once that are just plain don't know how to interpret the data you sift through because you don't have a background to actually understand it?

[Michael Mozina]

What makes it go black in the center of the sunspot as it relates to visible light? Why would a 1000K difference result in a completely BLACK (visible light) sunspot? What's "radiating" visible light? Specifically what molecules are involved? What makes it reform a shiny layer again? Why do we see "sides" along the penumbral filaments?

In order: It doesn't. It isn't. The same gas as everywhere else on the sun. See the list.

Go to my website again and go to the sunquake page for me and explain the PENUMBRA and UMBRA part of the top photo on that page. Why is the penumbra LIT, and why is the UMBRA NOT LIT visibibly?

The sunspot/magnetic storm collapses (see sunspot references for details). The structure of the sunspot is based on the interaction of the solar magnetic field.

That's not really an answer frankly. You've never explained WHAT caused this phenomenon to occur (I HAVE), and you have not explain what caused it to STOP occurring other than "mystical magnetic fields". Those mystical magnetic fields are caused by the electrical arcs. The HEAT of these arcs causes the silicon plasma to push through the neon layer we see with our eyes and you'll see in that photo. You need to explain the DEPTH of the LIT part of that photo, the CRACK down the center of the hole in the penumbral filaments and the UMBRA or black part of that photo for me, and explain something about what's happening to explain all three of these observed phenomenon. Until you do, you are just offering me "mystical science". Occum's razor applies. Keep your answers SIMPLE.

While the peak emission wavelength changes with the lower temperature, it is well within the visual range. As to your question: Go out on a moonless night. How many stars do you see? Now do the same on a moonlit night. How many stars? Now go out in daylight. Repeat the process. Did the stars go out or is it simply that you can't see them?

That has nothing to do with my question however. I see them because of their neon. Otherwise I wouldn't see them with my naked eye under ANY circumstance. Even *IF* the temp dropped at the surface, I would not expect the hole to be BLACK to the naked eye because of the layers underneath that would undoubtedly be hotter than the top layer. If you answer was correct, then that hole would be "darker", but not BLACK. THe UMBRA would not be black.

Yes, with appropriate equipment. However, simple visual examination isn't a useful method for determining the amount of light coming from a sunspot so I don't see your point.

It is a VERY useful method! We see a HUGE difference between the light emitted from the sides of the penumbra and the umbra layer. Why?

Does that clear things up? Incidentally, wavelength doesn't a change photon's "type." A photon is still a photon.

Sort of, and yes, I know. Ferrite photons however come from a VERY specific type of ferrite ion. They aren't being emitted by hydrogen, but FERRITE ions. Why are these ferrite ions coming from a SOLID surface that ROTATES UNIFORMLY for 8 straight days?

I answered you directly. To repeat: You're incorrect. Visible light is emitted at the center of the sunspot. This has been very well established and carefully measured. See my previous posts and the links I provided for details.

No, it's not "carefully measured", or "well established". You have ASSERTED these things as fact, but a simple glance at the top photo of my sunquake page will demonstrate that is a FALSE statement. SOME PHOTONS might come from that region, but not VISIBLE photons. Why not?

Numerous reasons - relative availability of elements in space, examination of the sun and stars, examination of planets, examination of stellar nurseries, models of the effect of different masses on formation, models of the effect of a star on planetary formation, etc. And there is the simple observational fact that the sun CANNOT have the same relative percentage of elements as the earth.

Every single one of the things you mentioned is BASED ON A GAS MODEL. We do not KNOW the conditions BEFORE our universe formed, so it is premature to act like we KNOW what materials were or were not present at the start. Hubble suggests that the iron and silicon existed as far back in time as we can see. How do you KNOW that these things didn't predate this physical universe?

Some might consider that ironic. From your statements and questions about sunspots (among other things) it seemed reasonable to conclude that you are not familiar with a number of facets of mainstream astronomy.

I'm very familiar with mainstream astronomy and I think it's about to be replaced with something a lot more rational, and a lot more scientifically defenseable, and based on OBSERVATION from 21st century satellites. You answers tell volumes. You don't know. The scientific community doesnt' know. The gas model has NEVER offered us any predictive capabilities as it relates to solar flares or the cause of sunspots, etc. None of this satellite imagery was available even 10 years ago. Today however, these satellites speak volumes, and the first they they tell us is that the gas model is dead.

If you want your alternative hypothesis to be taken seriously, you should learn something about what you are arguing against. Your insistence that sunspots are "black" is a perfect example of the problem.

[minor word edits added]

The fact you can't adequately explain the pattern of missing penumbral filaments in that top photo of the sunquakes page, and the fact you've never offered ANY sort of alternative explantion to ANY of the material I presented says volumes. I know what I'm up against, and it's pure myth and self righteous nonsense. What I presented was based on 21st century technology and pure observation. I've offered a WORKING model that has predictive capabilities and explanative capabilities. You can't even explain a sunspot adequately, and the reason for the UMBRA in particular, but you'll act all smug anyway. Go figure.

[Michael Mozina]

I've gone to a great deal of trouble and person expense to present a RANGE of satellite evidence to consider. None of you have presented an ALTERNATIVE explantion for ANY of the pages on my website, or any of the observations I have made. I find that simply FASCINATING, since you all seem sure I'm wrong but none of you can explain these things. Why is that? How does ferrite float on hydrogen? How does ferrite remain solid at 20K degree temps? What's that ridge doing in the tsunami video? What's that running difference movie from SOHO caused by? Do any of you have any alternative explanations for ANY of the evidence I have presented?

[Michael Mozina]

No....I'm darn sure a few people have so far challenged your hypothesis given that it really don't make a whole lot of sense in light of the data we have of the sun. For one thing I haven't noticed your position on solar neutrinos and how you think they're produced with your ideas. Also you have to account for the makeup of solar wind and what constitutes it:

From link

http://web.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

"73% ionized hydrogen and 25% ionized helium with the remainder as trace impurities; these components are present as a plasma, consisting of about 95% singly ionized hydrogen, 4% doubly ionized helium, and less than 0.5% other ions (often called minor ions)."

Unless you understand energy states of valence shells and heat distribution within the MODEL, you won't begin to comphrend anything from only looking at the raw numbers of photons. That is NOT a sceintifically sound way to MEASURE the COMPOSITION of the sun. That is an OVERLY simplistic concept. Read Dr. Manuels work. He's got all the credentials and knowledge of this subject you are looking for. His studies of lunar soil samples lead him to conclude the sun was mainly iron. My visual evidence suggests he was EXACTLY right. You do of course have to know something about energy states of valence shells and have a rudimentary understanding of nuclear chemistry. Dr. Manual came to exactly the same conclusions I did from a completely DIFFERENT field of science. Care to explain this?

Also, haven't you even wondered once that are just plain don't know how to interpret the data you sift through because you don't have a background to actually understand it?

Based on your simplistic concept about knowing the sun's relative composition based SOLEY on photon count, I think it's YOU that lack the background to actually understand the data, not me. If you have a beef with the math, take it up with Dr. Manuel. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain it to you. He was very patient with me on the phone, and is a wonderful person.

[Michael Mozina]

No....I'm darn sure a few people have so far challenged your hypothesis given that it really don't make a whole lot of sense in light of the data we have of the sun. For one thing I haven't noticed your position on solar neutrinos and how you think they're produced with your ideas. Also you have to account for the makeup of solar wind and what constitutes it:

I think the electrical activity at the surface causes it. Why doesn't the expected number of neutrino's from gas model predictions match the observed number?

[Omicron Persei 8]

No....I'm darn sure a few people have so far challenged your hypothesis given that it really don't make a whole lot of sense in light of the data we have of the sun. For one thing I haven't noticed your position on solar neutrinos and how you think they're produced with your ideas. Also you have to account for the makeup of solar wind and what constitutes it:

I think the electrical activity at the surface causes it. Why doesn't the expected number of neutrino's from gas model predictions match the observed number?

They do! Neutrinos changing flavors has been theoretically predicted and the experimental evidence of neutrino mass furthers the case. What nuclear reaction from "electrical activity" (how nicely vague) in the photosphere would create those neutrinos?

And for iron isotopes in the the lunar regolith? Read below:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1500.pdf

They conclude that iron isotope levels may be related to vapor deposition in soil reworked from meteorite impacts. Besides all samples from Apollo showed varying amounts of isotopes in regards to the type of soil it was. If solar wind was indeed depositing more iron ions onto the sureface there would be a more even distribution due to relatively similar surface exposure.

[Omicron Persei 8]

Unless you understand energy states of valence shells and heat distribution within the MODEL, you won't begin to comphrend anything from only looking at the raw numbers of photons. That is NOT a sceintifically sound way to MEASURE the COMPOSITION of the sun. That is an OVERLY simplistic concept. Read Dr. Manuels work. He's got all the credentials and knowledge of this subject you are looking for. His studies of lunar soil samples lead him to conclude the sun was mainly iron. My visual evidence suggests he was EXACTLY right. You do of course have to know something about energy states of valence shells and have a rudimentary understanding of nuclear chemistry. Dr. Manual came to exactly the same conclusions I did from a completely DIFFERENT field of science. Care to explain this?.

What do you have against absorption and emission spectral readings?

Also here are som direct solar wind measurements:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apol...ments_SWC.html

http://space.umd.edu/wind/Data.html

Also Manuel prescribes to a different theory than yours:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html

[Iris]

The observations I have made will speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how many degrees Bill Gates might have or not have, his software revolutionized the planet.

Bill Gates was writing softwares. It went with his qualifications.

My path isn't even relevant IMO. I've presented scientific evidence that warrants a scientific refute. Instead, everyone has AVOIDED providing alternative explanations for the phenomenon I have observed and commented on. Instead they are fixated on the messenger. I find that distracting.

The messenger is important.

Since I didn't propose anything of the sort, this is nothing but a strawman and has nothing to do with any of the material I have presented. I have presented a RANGE of material from a total of 6 different satellites. If you have something to refute as it relates to MATERIAL, great. If this is going to be a pick on Michael routine, I'm not going to participate in such rediculace nonsense. I am a self employed businessman who writes software for a living. I'm 45 years old and have been out of college now for over 20 years. I'm investing money in getting this idea out there for others to comment on. Its the MATERIAL that is relevant here, not the individual.

I said I won't try to dismantle your theory. I'm not qualified. I'm a common person that wish to know who you are exactly. After all you are standing up against researchers who walk about carefully to not release too many woohoo theories. They do not want to confuse everyone.

I was not "picking" on you. I was merely asking a little question which could have been answered in a series of 3 posts: me asking the question, you answering, me gratefully thanking you for your time. The fact that you look extremely aggressive and on the defensive, dodging a simple question makes me smile. Usually, when someone is asked what studies he went through, he answers politely and with pride. Now I have pretty much my part of answer. So I shall bow and let you return to your scientific talk which I humbly admit I cannot take part of.

[Michael Mozina]

They do! Neutrinos changing flavors has been theoretically predicted and the experimental evidence of neutrino mass furthers the case[

It has been "theoretically predicted" only because they CAN'T EXPLAIN why the experimental results don't match expectations. You'll note that there is no OBSERVED evidence to suggest this actually happens or EVER will explain the missing neutrinos.

What nuclear reaction from "electrical activity" (how nicely vague) in the photosphere would create those neutrinos?

Well, for one thing, it's pretty clear the calcium ferrite interaction is releasing hydrogen atoms as a byproduct of the reactions going on. I've emailed Dr. Manuel with some ideas about the overall reaction, and I'd like his feedback before I comment any further. Suffice to say the gas model's prediction failed yet AGAIN to accurately predict what we OBSERVE.

And for iron isotopes in the the lunar regolith? Read below:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1500.pdf

They conclude that iron isotope levels may be related to vapor deposition in soil reworked from meteorite impacts. Besides all samples from Apollo showed varying amounts of isotopes in regards to the type of soil it was. If solar wind was indeed depositing more iron ions onto the sureface there would be a more even distribution due to relatively similar surface exposure.

I'm not sure how the term MAY helps your case to be honest. Part of Dr. Manuels work relates to analysis of comets and the fact comets have heavier materials in them than the the sun suggests that their is a problem with the model. One would expect that gravity would take over and the sun would contain A LOT of these same materials.

[Michael Mozina]

Bill Gates was writing softwares. It went with his qualifications.

Bill Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft. Does his lack of a degee make his accomplishments any less significant in your mind?

The messenger is important.

No. The MESSAGE is important. The messenger is simply a messenger.

I said I won't try to dismantle your theory. I'm not qualified. I'm a common person that wish to know who you are exactly. After all you are standing up against researchers who walk about carefully to not release too many woohoo theories. They do not want to confuse everyone.

If I'm right, those researchers of yours have released almost nothing
BUT "woohoo theories" that happen to agree with other "woohoo" theories of the past. There is nothing about my model which is not based on DIRECT observation.

I was not "picking" on you. I was merely asking a little question which could have been answered in a series of 3 posts: me asking the question, you answering, me gratefully thanking you for your time. The fact that you look extremely aggressive and on the defensive, dodging a simple question makes me smile. Usually, when someone is asked what studies he went through, he answers politely and with pride. Now I have pretty much my part of answer. So I shall bow and let you return to your scientific talk which I humbly admit I cannot take part of.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm proud of my accomplishements as a husband, as a father and as a businessman. Pride however can be a dangerous thing, as can appeal to authority arguments. I've not DODGED anything. In fact I've put my work out on the web for all the world to see and critique. Others here presumably have the qualifications to poke holes in my observations and interpretations, but they have NOT done so. In fact, none of them can really adequately explain ANYTHING that takes place below the observable photosphere. I can. Now if they cannot explain what causes sunspots, and 11 year cycles and solar moss activity and siesmic activity on the sun, and I can, then the onus of responsibilty is on THEM to BETTER explain the phenomenon I have observed. So far that's NOT happened.

You can choose to believe what you like. I choose to believe in the laws of physics and direct observation. Degrees and individuals are irrelevant.

[Michael Mozina]

Don't think that I have not noticed the fact that none of those who disagree with my interpretations have offered a BETTER explanation for the sunquake video, the tsunami structure under the wave, the shock wave video, the running difference image videos, etc. None of you have even attempted to address the actual content of my website. To me that speaks VOLUMES.

[Iris]

Bill Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft. Does his lack of a degee make his accomplishments any less significant in your mind?

Absolutely not. I know how to program myself and I don't have a diploma in this. But there is a difference between typing and explaining how the universe works. Windows is not the Sun! The Sun works in a strict way, but a computer world can be molded and folded to whatever you WISH.

No. The MESSAGE is important. The messenger is simply a messenger.

You're more than a messenger. You're the CREATOR of your theory. Are you not?

If I'm right, those researchers of yours have released almost nothing
BUT "woohoo theories" that happen to agree with other "woohoo" theories of the past. There is nothing about my model which is not based on DIRECT observation.

Nothing I can argue with since I do not know anything past "oooh shiny" about the Sun. But your theories so far leave a tingling "careful" warning in my head. And same about everyone here I believe.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm proud of my accomplishements as a husband, as a father and as a businessman. Pride however can be a dangerous thing, as can appeal to authority arguments. I've not DODGED anything. In fact I've put my work out on the web for all the world to see and critique. Others here presumably have the qualifications to poke holes in my observations and interpretations, but they have NOT done so. In fact, none of them can really adequately explain ANYTHING that takes place below the observable photosphere. I can. Now if they cannot explain what causes sunspots, and 11 year cycles and solar moss activity and siesmic activity on the sun, and I can, then the onus of responsibilty is on THEM to BETTER explain the phenomenon I have observed. So far that's NOT happened.

You can choose to believe what you like. I choose to believe in the laws of physics and direct observation. Degrees and individuals are irrelevant.

Bark? Now now. No need to get aggressive. As far as I'm concerned I've remained courtous. I believe myself in the laws of physics. You were refusing to answer a simple question about your studies. If that's not dodging... I have no idea what that is. The fact that you keep shouting "the message is important, not me!" says more than VOLUMES to me. Do YOU understand your praised laws of physics as much as you claim, Mr. Mozina?

I'll formulate back my question if you wish, since you have no degree. Where have you learned all you know about reading the pictures (Because you create theories by observation, you surely know a lot about how to interpret pictures from those satellites!) and physics? Are you a Bill Gates of physics??? I'm not trying to down you here. I just want to know how you did all this. It's part of the path of explaining your theory, in my opinion, to tell us everything you went through.

[Omicron Persei 8]

Don't think that I have not noticed the fact that none of those who disagree with my interpretations have offered a BETTER explanation for the sunquake video, the tsunami structure under the wave, the shock wave video, the running difference image videos, etc. None of you have even attempted to address the actual content of my website. To me that speaks VOLUMES.

Well I think a lot of us don't have all the time in the world. You're lucky you caught me on a holiday.

Well, for one thing, it's pretty clear the calcium ferrite interaction is releasing hydrogen atoms as a byproduct of the reactions going on. I've emailed Dr. Manuel with some ideas about the overall reaction, and I'd like his feedback before I comment any further. Suffice to say the gas model's prediction failed yet AGAIN to accurately predict what we OBSERVE.

So how does that paragraph help to convince me of your theory? What NUCLEAR reaction is taking place to release those neutrinos and nuclear byproducts? The fusion of the gas model does a pretty good job. And the mass of the neutrinos looks to solve the missing solar neutrinos. You just tell me calcium ferrite is releasing hydrogen?

[Eta C]

They do! Neutrinos changing flavors has been theoretically predicted and the experimental evidence of neutrino mass furthers the case[

It has been "theoretically predicted" only because they CAN'T EXPLAIN why the experimental results don't match expectations. You'll note that there is no OBSERVED evidence to suggest this actually happens or EVER will explain the missing neutrinos.

Well, Michael, I hate to break the news to you (actually I don't but it makes a good lead in. 8) ) but you're wrong on this one. The solar neutrino "problem" was resolved in 2002 by an experiment at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. To summarize, the "problem" came about since the solar fusion process produces electron neutrinos. Initial observations on earth found only about 1/3 the expected number. However, these experiments were only sensitive to e-neutrinos and there are two other neutrino flavors: muon and tau neutrinos. Some theories gave a possible solution to the problem by having the neutrino change flavor, or oscillate. The SNO experiment confirmed this by directly observing mu and tau neutrinos from the sun in the proper proportion. As the link I gave here says

The upshot: all the nu's from the sun are directly accounted for. The missing nu-e flux shows up as an observable mu-nu and tau-nu flux. This conclusion is established with a statistical surety of 5.3 standard deviations, compared to the less robust 3.3 of a year ago. The measured e-nu flux (in units of one million per cm2 per second) is 1.7 while that for the mu-nu and tau-nu combined is 3.4. (When one includes all the other types of neutrinos, the flux from the sun is billions/cm2/sec.) emphasis mine

Sounds pretty conclusive to me. In fact it was also good enough for the Nobel Prize committee who gave the 2002 Prize in Physics to people involved in this, and other work.