It means he got stuck in his argument.Originally Posted by R.A.F.
I'm curious...exactly what do you mean by this??
Order of Kilopi
It means he got stuck in his argument.I'm curious...exactly what do you mean by this??
Banned
I think you are again jumping to conclusions until we understand the implication of "universal acceration" as it relates to the density of the sun. I can't make such assesments from the observational evidence I have obtained to this point in time, and I make no such statement of faith.
It DOES matter, as does the SOURCE of the acceleration of our universe. Until we understand the implications of an iron sun and the source of acceleration, it's WAY premature to make such a statement IMO.Doesn't matter. Mean density is 1.4. The density of ferrite alloys is around 6.5 to 6.7. That means the layer is either not very thick (microns, perhaps?), or the sun is hollow.
No, actually I'd expect a spike in the oxygen/neon range, and/or the helium/hydrogen/neon ranges. It depends on how all these layer interact. I'm still learning as as I go. I'm checking into that idea now, but it will take a while.But that's just it. These aren't a huge aggregation of emission spectra- the solar spectra has emmission lines, but for your model to be correct, Neon would have to be the strongest, and our sun would be pink.
Then why does Chandra record a LAYER of iron in the Cassiopiea A remnants? (you'll find an example on my evidence page)Irrelevant, but to put a fine point on it: because you find an element is present (such as iron in a supernova) - does it imply a solid shell of iron? No, not really.
That is ONE possibility of course, but then we also must allow for the possibility that the iron has ALWAYS been present, and hydrogen is merely a by-product of the electrical activity between that calcium and metal layers of the sun. According to Hubble, Iron and silicon and neon have been present in our universe as far back in time as we can currently see. Care to explain that in terms of a gas model? Why is there so much iron in only 1 Billion years if everything began as an explosive singularity?Besides which, iron is the last phase of fusion - products above iron require energy to fuse, rather than the other way around with hydrogen on up. Iron is the break-even, and the fusion-to-iron point is very fast and incredibly energetic, part of the reason for the energy release in a supernova, and the resulting iron content.
How do we know the BB was an "explosive singularity" in the first place as opposed to say a galaxy like collision between intersecting universes, where some matter interacts and some does not?
Why does Chandra find so much ferrite rotating around black holes?
There are SO MANY assumptions that cannot be simply taken for granted as they are today. We must ask some important questions based on this satellite imagery and the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. There is no reason not to explore this stuff unless we are just too myopic to notice the evidence we see to suggest that the sun has a ferrite layer. I'm not closed minded. Are you?
There are two possibilities and two likely influences. The first likely possibility is that the CORE of the sun does indeed produce fusion reactions which release free posititrons and electrons. The other possiblity is based upon magneto affects of having a solid ferrite surface rotating within a universal magnetic field. They math BOTH be power sources for all I know.No, no-- what gives it the energy? Where does this energy to heat the Neon plasma come from? If I turn off a stove the glowing filament cools rapidly. What is heating your solar filament, or rather keeping it heated?
Banned
I mean that the gas model didn't crumble the first time the predictions didn't match the evidence. The test were changed to test for other options and other possibilities. Whether these specific changes applied accurately to this question and whether such changes eliminate other models remains to be seen. That's what I mean.I'm curious...exactly what do you mean by this??
Order of Kilopi
I've already presented evidence that hydrogen and helium dominate. In any event, you are the one making the claim. What is your evidence that the sun contains large percentages of "ferrite," silicon, and neon?What EVIDENCE did you present to DEMONSTRATE that the sun does not contain the silicon and ferrite that the SERTS program reveals again? What EVIDENCE did you present to explain ANY Of the pages on my website again?
You may have an alternate explanation, but if you do understand the subject, you should know how it fits. Please explain it in your own words. It has been pretty well spelled out in other entries and links in this thread anyway.
Why should they exceed "outer" temps?You have INNER temps that SHOULD exceed outer temps,
Please explain why all the provided references that demonstrate that these "inner areas" do exactly this are wrong, or retract this assertion.and INNER AREAS should radiate even if the outer layer did not. You have NO visible light coming from these locations
So in addition to your solid sun proposal, are you also proposing an alternate gravity "theory"? What is this proposal exactly and what evidence do you have for it? Do you agree that mainstream theory does not allow for a solid sun?It DOES matter, as does the SOURCE of the acceleration of our universe. Until we understand the implications of an iron sun and the source of acceleration, it's WAY premature to make such a statement IMO.
So in addition you are also proposing a novel form of long term energy generation? What are the details of this proposal and what is your evidence?There are two possibilities and two likely influences. The first likely possibility is that the CORE of the sun does indeed produce fusion reactions which release free posititrons and electrons. The other possiblity is based upon magneto affects of having a solid ferrite surface rotating within a universal magnetic field. They math BOTH be power sources for all I know.
By the way, do you have relatives in Australia? You remind me of someone ...
Banned
As far as raw spectral data, nobody claimed otherwise. As far as INTERPRETING that data, I cited Dr. Oliver Manuel's work to demonstrate that a SIMPLISTIC notion of trying to assertain the makeup of the sun based strictly on photon count was not scientifically tenable.
The work of Dr. Oliver Manuel, the SERTS data, the satelllite evidence and the general rediculaceness of trying to suggest that comets which are iron rich are not the primary building blocks of suns. What data do you have that PROVES that no ferrite layer exists again?In any event, you are the one making the claim. What is your evidence that the sun contains large amounts of "ferrite," silicon, and neon?
A very SIMPLISTIC concept is "spelled out" in these links, but no correlation between these SIMPLISTIC ideas and observed evidence has been established. Please explain the BLACK areas of the video and photo I presented and THEN we can discuss whether the notion of black body radiation applies to the sun as it relates to the visible photosphere.You may have an alternate explanation, but if you do understand the subject, you should know how it fits. Please explain it in your own words. It has been pretty well spelled out in other entries and links in this thread anyway.
[quote]Why should they exceed "outer" temps?[quote]
Gravity. Where is the nuclear fussion happening again? Isn't that "hot"?
I just posted a sunspot photo and a video of a sunspot. What more would you like? Do you observe the black part being a distinctly different color than the white part, yes or no? Do you see the flare on the layer of the phenumbral filaments, yes or no? Explain this FLARE to me using "black body" explanations again. Explain that BLACK part again using black body explanations and include the fusion part going on in the core. Where is the light from all that heat as it relates to that sunspot?Please explain why all the provided references that demonstrate that these "inner areas" do exactly this are wrong, or retract this assertion.
I'm only going to tackle one problem at a time, but I've seen somone post the math that shows a that gravity can be shown to be a function of acceleration. When I find that work again, I'll post a link on my website. Until then, let's stick with the evidence I've already presented.So in addition to your solid sun proposal, are you also proposing an alternate gravity "theory"? What is this proposal exactly and what evidence do you have for it? Do you agree that mainstream theory does not allow for a solid sun?
Novel form of energy generation? I'm afraid I don't follow. The first suggestion was the "accepted" idea of how the sun works. The second suggestion is based on the idea that a solid ferrite layer that has a moving inner magnetic core, will likely experience magneto affects during this movement of the magnetic field past the surface features. It's not that "novel" frankly, and it's a well understood part of science. You can find a magneto in your car and in your lawn mower. It's not that novel an idea anymore.So in addition you are also proposing a novel form of long term energy generation? What are the details of this proposal and what is your evidence?
No.By the way, do you have relatives in Australia? You remind me of someone ...
Established Member
It's a nice pic. It would have been even nicer had you credited the Big Bear Solar Observatory for it either here or on your website. The photo can be seen on the BBSO page here, most of the way down the page of thumbnails, taken June 14th, 1989.
[edited to fix link]
Psi-less
Established Member
So, to summarize, I understand you to be saying your model may be correct because our understanding of the relation of mass to gravitational acceleration may be misunderstood, which is another way of saying a gram might not be a gram.
This is quite far fetched, possibly more so than your conjecture of a solid surfaced sun.
Pending definition of the proper understanding of mass (in your hypothesis) and gravitation, actually an entire redefinition of GR and QM, I don't currently feel that further discussion will be fruitful.
When you have redefined in full the GR and QM understanding of the universe I will continue my critique.
Established Member
Boy, you want it all don't you. Actually we can "see" inside the sun by observing acoustical propagation through it. Check out SOHO's images of the opposite side of the sun as an example of this capability. All of these measurements point to a high density hydrogen composition for the sun.My model DOES because it it based ENTIRELY on observation. You must disprove my model if you expect me to take you seriously. I can poke holes in the gas model, beginning the mystical concept that somehow suns are immune from being composed of the same materials as everything else in the solar system. That alone sounds rather like a WEAK and very questionable assumption. I can prove via Hubble that iron and silicon and neon were present WAY before gas model predictions would have predicted. There's another hole. I can note that Galileo didn't have the technology to see beneath the visible photosphere. There's another hole. Now unless you can show me that the gas model is superior to the idea I presented, I have no reason to believe you, expecially if you can't explain solar moss, or 11 year cycles or flares sunspot activity.
In any case, if you want me to take you seriously you'll have to show how a solid sun that has no fusion reactions emits neutrinos. However I suspect you won't so we'll continue to not impress each other and further discussion is pointless. On the other hand, your not taking me seriously is not something that concerns me much.
You misunderstand. There's no "assumption" involved. These experiments can determine the direction that the observed neutrinos are coming from and therefore confirm that they do, in fact, come from the sun. No leap of faith involved. Just good solid scientific procedure. The best events actually occur at night. Then the earth acts as a shield and we actually observe the neutrinos that penetrate the entire earth on their way from the sun.I would assume so, though I would expect it to be LESS than the gas model predictions, and I'm unconfortable with the "assumption" that all neutrinos that we measure on earth must come from our own sun. I think that's a significant leap of faith I'm not yet prepared to make.Does the solid surface model even predict a neutrino flux?
No double standard involved here. I, and other scientists, would reject you model as an option because it is wrong in so many ways that the mainstream solar model is not. You admit that it may not account for any neutrino production. You also predict that neon is the predominant producer of light. This is clearly in conflict with observation. Although some neon is present, the bulk of the solar spectrum is due to hydrogen and helium as other posters have pointed out. Also you can't account for the temperature of sunspots.Did the gas model get "scrapped" the first time neutrino measurements didn't jive with predictions? You seem to have two different standards here, one for the gas model, and one for my model. Why?How well does it match? This should include both statistical and systematic errors. If the solid sun model only predicts 1/3 of the observed nu flux then it is clearly in conflict with observation and you need either to modify it to take the increased nu flux into account or possibly scrap it and start over.
The mainstream solar model, although it originally did not predict the observed nu-e flux, did correctly match most of the observations. In light of the neutrino "problem" there were two possible paths, both of which were considered by scientists back in the 60's
1) The solar model is wrong. This option was rejected since there was so much that it did explain well (luminence, etc).
2) There's something about neutrinos we don't understand. It turned out that this was the case. At the time of the original measurements, the nu-tau was undiscovered. Also the concept of mixing was not as well established. Since then we've learned more about neutrinos, and have resolved the problem.
I'm not an astronomer or plasma physicist (I'm a particle physicist hence my focus on the neutrino side) so I'll defer some of these to others. In the meantime there are some astronomy and plasma physics texts I could recommend. As to prominences (what you call arcs), they are electrical. They are plasma discharges funneled through the sun's magnetic field. No need to invoke exotic models. As to the ultimate cause of the sunspot cycle, this remains an outstanding problem. However it's no reason to toss out the baby and start from scratch.Then explain solar moss for me, and the sun's 11 year suspot cycle. Explain the arcs we see and tell me how you know they aren't electrical in nature?A new theory can it be considered as a competitor to current theories only when it explains observed phenomena as well as the current models. Until then, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And trust me (I'm a doctor 8) ) It ain't broke despite your protests to the contrary.
You're right, we have not idea what new theories may produce. However I seriously doubt that we'll find a solid sun. Pauli's quote applies here.You don't know the half of it yet.By the way, the SNO observation does require some major changes be made to theory. In the standard model of particle physics neutrinos are massless and do not oscillate. By confirming oscillations, SNO showed that neutrinos do indeed have mass. This is going to cause some changes to the theory.
No theory involved here. These are MEASUREMENTS (as you would put it.) SNO measured the total neutrino flux from the sun and found that it matched what the standard solar model predicted. They didn't force anything. I strongly suggest you do some reading on how REAL science is done before you continue to cast aspersions on scientists whose work you fail to understand.And again, the fact that something is FORCED to match predictions for one model is not evidence that this model is accurate. Again, the original predictions did NOT match what we saw, and your ROCK SOLID evidence is not ROCK solid at all, it is THEORY to this point with SOME observational support. Care to explain how you KNOW that neutrino activity is only caused by our sun, and these measurements are not influenced by other sources?In any case, what the SNO measurement does do is confirm the current solar models which involve fusion reactions. And by the way, a 5.3 s.d. measurement is about as rock solid as they get. What that means is that the probability that the measurement is a mistake is less than a fraction of a percent. And by the way, it's not just a SINGLE experiment. Others have confirmed it (Super K in Japan being one).
Many explanations have been provided. You choose to ignore them. When faced with a measurment your theory cannot match (SNO neutrino measurements), you try to claim it's flawed, despite the evidence to the contrary. Typical ATM behavior here. Quick to find the dust motes in the eye of mainstream models while ignoring the telephone pole stuck in one's own eye.Again however, it is critically important to realize that two competing ideas can BOTH be supported by the SAME set of evidence. The fact that things the gas model predicts are accurate does not mean that ALL of them are. The fact we find iron and silicon and neon as far back in time as Hubble can see poses HUGE problems for gas model theorists. I'm sure they will go back and "play with the numbers" like they do with neutrino counts, but that sounds pretty suspicious to me since none of you have offered a single explaination for ANY of the observed phenomenon on my website, and I have offered explanations for every single one.
Banned
Er, thanks for the link, but do any of you care to explain it?It's a nice pic. It would have been even nicer had you credited the Big Bear Solar Observatory for it either here or on your website. The photo can be seen on the BBSO page here, most of the way down the page of thumbnails, taken June 14th, 1989.
[edited to fix link]
Psi-less
Banned
No. This is called a "strawman". What I said is that according to nuclear chemistry and the laws of physics and 6 different satellites, the sun has a solid calcium ferrite surface that emits hydrogen. I believe it would be premature of me to simply "guess" at the interior of the sun since I simply DON'T KNOW at this point.
Do you see the difference between my explanation and YOUR strawman?
What is "far fetched" is to believe that calcium ferrite floats on helium. THAT is fetched. Nothing I have suggested is "far fetched" in comparison to THAT whopper of a concept.This is quite far fetched, possibly more so than your conjecture of a solid surfaced sun.
Because you say so, or because you checked it out already? Here I hand you the basis of a unified field theory on a silver platter and you turn your nose at it without a second thought? Gee, I'm beginning to think this website is appropriately named afterall. There sure is a lot Bad Astronomy practiced around here.Pending definition of the proper understanding of mass (in your hypothesis) and gravitation, actually an entire redefinition of GR and QM, I don't currently feel that further discussion will be fruitful.
Fine. Think of gravity as a function of acceleration caused by the electromagnetic field of the universe. Continue your critique at your leisure.When you have redefined in full the GR and QM understanding of the universe I will continue my critique.
Established Member
Firstly, it was a gentle reminder that copyright extends to images as well as to the written word. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by the ""cracks" we see below the glowing layer of the phenumbral filaments." I see light colored lines crossing the area of the large sunspot, but those *are* filaments. Where am I supposed to be looking? As for the "flared aspect", all I see is a normal umbra inside a light, filamentary penumbra. Again, what am I supposed to be seeing? And no, this isn't meant to be snide, I'm honestly not seeing whatever it is you're looking at. If I can't see it, how can we discuss it?
Psi-less
Banned
Of course.
Actually we HEAR the sounds that pass through the sun BECAUSE of the solid calcium ferrite layer. Otherwise it wouldn't RING at all. When they talk about a large "increase in density", how is that functionally different from a calcium ferrite surface again?Actually we can "see" inside the sun by observing acoustical propagation through it. Check out SOHO's images of the opposite side of the sun as an example of this capability. All of these measurements point to a high density hydrogen composition for the sun.
I see evidence of fusion happening at the calcium ferrite layer and evidence of the production of hydrogen in BBSO images. I'll take you seriously when you start taking me seriously and start taking Dr. Oliver Manuel seriously. This is good science. The kind of stuff I'm seeing around here isn't. You folk seem down right MYOPIC in your view and REFUSE to even consider a viable alternative. How fair is that? That's about the most psuedo-scientific an attitude as I can think of. If you have a valid criticism of my model, or a BETTER explantion of the observations I have made, then put them on the table. Otherwise this "tude" is just getting old.In any case, if you want me to take you seriously you'll have to show how a solid sun that has no fusion reactions emits neutrinos. However I suspect you won't so we'll continue to not impress each other and further discussion is pointless. On the other hand, your not taking me seriously is not something that concerns me much.
That's great. There is just one problem. You don't know that ALL the neutrino's of the universe come from the sun, rather than simply pass THROUGH the sun. You don't KNOW their cause. You know where they are FOCUSED and where they emit FROM, relative to earth. That's what you KNOW. The rest involves a great deal of speculation at this point.You misunderstand. There's no "assumption" involved. These experiments can determine the direction that the observed neutrinos are coming from and therefore confirm that they do, in fact, come from the sun. No leap of faith involved. Just good solid scientific procedure. The best events actually occur at night. Then the earth acts as a shield and we actually observe the neutrinos that penetrate the entire earth on their way from the sun.
Michael>>Did the gas model get "scrapped" the first time neutrino measurements didn't jive with predictions? You seem to have two different standards here, one for the gas model, and one for my model. Why?Name ONE! You can't. You've never offered a viable alternative to ANY of the observations I have made. PERIOD! You THINK it's wrong. That's all. You have no scientific evidence to support your FAITH that it is wrong.No double standard involved here. I, and other scientists, would reject you model as an option because it is wrong in so many ways that the mainstream solar model is not.
I ADMIT that I haven't TRIED to account for it. GEEZ! Must I do the work of a billion or so scientists just so you'll even CONSIDER the model? What kind of a rediculace double standard is that? I can explain solar moss. Can you? I can explain an 11 year activity cycle. Can you? You keep ALEDGING that something is wrong with this model but you have NOT demonstrated this *SCIENTIFICALLY*.You admit that it may not account for any neutrino production.
I can SEE that is true with my naked eyes, yes.You also predict that neon is the predominant producer of light.
That is FALSE. It is in direct AGREEMENT with VISIBLE OBSERVATION!This is clearly in conflict with observation.
And I have explained that as well, since heat is radiating to the outer layers and the outer layers EMIT the most photons. That is NOT in direct conflict with my model, in fact my model PREDICTS this behavior.Although some neon is present, the bulk of the solar spectrum is due to hydrogen and helium as other posters have pointed out.
Yes, I can. The low temps come from the LOWER regions of the silicon layer that rises up in the heated column If you look at the the activity that goes on in the silicon layer, it often resembles a tornado, where cooler silicon is caught in the middle. All of this is in DIRECT alignment with observation.Also you can't account for the temperature of sunspots.
No, it did not. The gas model predicted that heavier atoms didnt' form for BILLIONS of years. We know via Hubble that silicon and iron and neon go back in time as we can see.The mainstream solar model, although it originally did not predict the observed nu-e flux, did correctly match most of the observations.
We don't even KNOW for sure whether such a thing would falsify my model to begin with, nor do we KNOW that these observations ONLY support the gas model.In light of the neutrino "problem" there were two possible paths, both of which were considered by scientists back in the 60's
I've explained it pretty well, right down to the NEON responsible for the luminence.1) The solar model is wrong. This option was rejected since there was so much that it did explain well (luminence, etc).
Great. How do we know that these measurements FALSIFY my model again?2) There's something about neutrinos we don't understand. It turned out that this was the case. At the time of the original measurements, the nu-tau was undiscovered. Also the concept of mixing was not as well established. Since then we've learned more about neutrinos, and have resolved the problem.
Great. Explain solar moss for me. Explain the sun's 11 year cycle. Explain the arcs. Explain the flare in the penumbral filaments. Explain ANYTHING better with the gas model than with my model for that matter!A new theory can it be considered as a competitor to current theories only when it explains observed phenomena as well as the current models. Until then, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And trust me (I'm a doctor 8) ) It ain't broke despite your protests to the contrary.
So, from your study of plasma physics, what would you say the odds are that a calcium ferrite layer is going to float on top of a relatively thick layer of helium plasma in the gravity confiines of the sun?I'm not an astronomer or plasma physicist (I'm a particle physicist hence my focus on the neutrino side) so I'll defer some of these to others. In the meantime there are some astronomy and plasma physics texts I could recommend. As to prominences (what you call arcs), they are electrical.
What CAUSES and CARRIES the magnetic field you talk about? What is causing the EMISSIONS of photons from within the arcs themselves?They are plasma discharges funneled through the sun's magnetic field. No need to invoke exotic models.
I think there was never a baby in that bathwater to begin with.As to the ultimate cause of the sunspot cycle, this remains an outstanding problem. However it's no reason to toss out the baby and start from scratch.
Now you simply need to explain how these meausrements disprove my model and how you know it's not the ferrite layer that doesn't cause these neutrinos to change "flavors" in the first place?You're right, we have not idea what new theories may produce. However I seriously doubt that we'll find a solid sun. Pauli's quote applies here.
When you can show me how these measurements FALSIFY MY MODEL, then and only then can you lecture me about REAL SCIENTISTS. Until then, I claim your emperor has no clothes.No theory involved here. These are MEASUREMENTS (as you would put it.) SNO measured the total neutrino flux from the sun and found that it matched what the standard solar model predicted. They didn't force anything. I strongly suggest you do some reading on how REAL science is done before you continue to cast aspersions on scientists whose work you fail to understand.
I'm perfectly willing to HEAR from you how these specific measurements conflict with my model, and how you are certain it's not the ferrite that causes these nutrinos to change flavors. Then you can climb on that soap box of yours. Until then, climb down before you hurt yourself.Many explanations have been provided. You choose to ignore them. When faced with a measurment your theory cannot match (SNO neutrino measurements), you try to claim it's flawed, despite the evidence to the contrary. Typical ATM behavior here. Quick to find the dust motes in the eye of mainstream models while ignoring the telephone pole stuck in one's own eye.
Banned
I appreciate the reminder. I certainly wasn't trying to take credit for ANY of the photographic evidence I have presented.
That is YOUR opinion of course, but then why do we see light from there, and not from the right and left of it? This "black body" explanation sure sounds rather flimsy based on the FLARES of the sides and the CRACK in the layer below (IMO).Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by the ""cracks" we see below the glowing layer of the phenumbral filaments." I see light colored lines crossing the area of the large sunspot, but those *are* filaments.
In the center, and along the right side. You can see a crack in the ferrite layer below, silicon that is clear between the neon layer and calcium ferrite layer. We can see the SIDES of the neon layer, and BLACK areas underneath the neon layer. It's the NEON layer that produces the "light" we see with our eyes, and it is a relatively THIN layer compared to the silicon.Where am I supposed to be looking?
The FLARE pattern in the top. Why is there an UMBRA at all, expecially along the SIDES of this sunspot?As for the "flared aspect", all I see is a normal umbra inside a light, filamentary penumbra. Again, what am I supposed to be seeing?
I'm not trying to be snide either. If you want a full explanation of that photo, read the sunquakes page of my website. The idea here is that the silicon is rising based on the heat from the crack in the surface below. ALong the right side you can see another jagged crack, and these two cracks create the unique pattern we see in the penumbral filament layer that is made of neon. The light comes from the neon. When it is pushed out of the way by the rising silicon, it cannot emit light in that area. Once things cool off, the neon layer closes back up, and we have light again.And no, this isn't meant to be snide, I'm honestly not seeing whatever it is you're looking at. If I can't see it, how can we discuss it?
Established Member
I'm going to pass on the bulk of your screed and focus on a couple of issues here in a small screed of my own.
Have you read the articles Mike? I have. Here are the references
1) Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral Current Interaction in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Q.R. Ahmad et. al, Physical Review Letters, Volume 89 Number 1, page 011301-1.
And an update in 2004
2) Measurement of the Total Active 8B Solar Neutrino Flux at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory with Enhanced Neutral Current Sensitivity, SnN. Ahmed et al., Physical Review Letters Volume 97 Number 18 Page 181301-1.
I invite you to read these and find the mistakes. When you're done, tell us what they are here. After that, write the authors and tell them where their mistakes are. After that write to PRL and demand they withdraw these obviously flawed papers. After that write the Nobel committee and demand they withdraw the 2002 prize.
Do you think scientists are stupid? Of course the SNO researchers know they neutrinos they are observing are from the sun. They can cut out any from extra solar sources. You're grasping at straws. You know that your solid sun theory can't predict the observed flux, so you're trying to discredit the experiment. That might work elsewhere, but not on this board. Many of the members, such as myself, are physicists and astronomers. We know what burdens of proof we had to meet as we wrote up our dissertations and the burdens we still have to meet when presenting new results. You have no idea of the nitpicking and arguments that go on. Any experiment with the implications of the SNO results underwent extreme scrutiny. Frankly, you wouldn't last a day. And it's not because scientists are bound by some orthodoxy. It's because your ideas, as Pauli would have said, are "not even wrong."
If your model can't give us quantitative predictions of what the neutrino flux should be it's already falsified in comparison to the standard solar model. I haven't seen any numbers from you yet. Until you give us some quantiative predictions for observables such as the neutrino flux there's no reason to take your model seriously. This statement reflects one of the classic logical errors. The burden is not ours to show why your model is wrong. The burden is for you to show why it's right! In order to do that, you have to make some quantative predictions. Show me the numbers!When you can show me how these measurements FALSIFY MY MODEL, then and only then can you lecture me about REAL SCIENTISTS. Until then, I claim your emperor has no clothes.No theory involved here. These are MEASUREMENTS (as you would put it.) SNO measured the total neutrino flux from the sun and found that it matched what the standard solar model predicted. They didn't force anything. I strongly suggest you do some reading on how REAL science is done before you continue to cast aspersions on scientists whose work you fail to understand.
If you want to be a real scientist, Mike, act like one. Make quantitative predictions from your model. Show how they match observations. All you've done is wave your hands and make invalid criticisms of the SNO experiment and other observations. You say the ferrite causes the oscillations. How? What's the mechanism? What amount of mixing occurs. The SNO people answered all of these questions (see the papers). I want similar stuff from you. Give me numbers, error bars, show why your model is better. The burden of proof is yours.
I can't show how these measurements conflict with your model until you tell me what your model predicts for that measurement. After all it's your model, not mine (or SNO's). Do some science for a change. And, as I said before, the scorn of someone like you is not scorn that bothers me. Frankly, you're the one who's going to feel some intellectual pain in this particular exchange.I'm perfectly willing to HEAR from you how these specific measurements conflict with my model, and how you are certain it's not the ferrite that causes these nutrinos to change flavors. Then you can climb on that soap box of yours. Until then, climb down before you hurt yourself.Many explanations have been provided. You choose to ignore them. When faced with a measurment your theory cannot match (SNO neutrino measurements), you try to claim it's flawed, despite the evidence to the contrary. Typical ATM behavior here. Quick to find the dust motes in the eye of mainstream models while ignoring the telephone pole stuck in one's own eye.
Banned
Yes, I've been their Eta. It is your own strawman you speak of when you talk about me claiming they made mistakes. I did NOT say that, YOU DID!
HOW do they do that EXACTLY? Assuming we know the DIRECTION they travel from, how does that eliminate all other influences again?Do you think scientists are stupid? Of course the SNO researchers know they neutrinos they are observing are from the sun. They can cut out any from extra solar sources. You're grasping at straws.
No, I do NOT know that, and I have NO REASON to "discredit" anything, certainly not their work. I simply DISPUTE that these finding RULE OUT or FALSIFY the model I have presented in any way. My model does predict nuclear fusion at the core resulting in free electrons. You seem not to grasp my model very well, or it's implications.You know that your solid sun theory can't predict the observed flux, so you're trying to discredit the experiment.
Oh yes I do! I've seen them here for myself. I came here SPECIFICALLY because it WAS frequented by astronomers and physicists and I wanted to see how the model would hold up to scrutiny. So far, so good IMO. I'm seeing an aweful lot of ASSUMPTIONS and few explanations for the observations on my website using the gas model.That might work elsewhere, but not on this board. Many of the members, such as myself, are physicists and astronomers. We know what burdens of proof we had to meet as we wrote up our dissertations and the burdens we still have to meet when presenting new results. You have no idea of the nitpicking and arguments that go on.
Please quit putting words in my mouth about "all scientists being stupid". I HATE that kind of underhanded debate tactic.
If the gas model could even hold up to the basic question of how the sun is somehow immune from being composed of the same materials as comets and planets, you might have a case. If it didn't predict that heavier materials didn't form for for several billion years AFTER the BB, you might have a case. If you could adequately explain solar moss, then you might have a case. As it is, you have no case, and have offered me NO LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR ANY OF THE MATERIALS I HAVE PRESENTED. PERIOD.Any experiment with the implications of the SNO results underwent extreme scrutiny. Frankly, you wouldn't last a day. And it's not because scientists are bound by some orthodoxy. It's because your ideas, as Pauli would have said, are "not even wrong."
There we go with this little myopic view of the world. I've already explained to you that I have TRIED to even start to predict such things in this model, but assuming the core in my model is more or less like the CORE of the standard model, I have no reason to doubt they would both generate neutrinos.If your model can't give us quantitative predictions of what the neutrino flux should be it's already falsified in comparison to the standard solar model.
Now instead of focusing on ANY of the materials that I *DID* present, you focus on ONE THING that I did not. Why? It's not like I didn't offer you PAGES of observations to explain with your beloved gas model.
OH BULL! I don't have to do the work a a billion scientists just to be taken seriously. I've done my part. Dr. Manuel has spent a lifetime proving his case as well. You'll sit there and focus on ONE tree and ignore the ENTIRE FOREST? Give me a break.I haven't seen any numbers from you yet. Until you give us some quantiative predictions for observables such as the neutrino flux there's no reason to take your model seriously.
No it's not. The burden is on BOTH of us. I can poke holes in your model using a variety of observations I have put on my website. I have offered a WORKING model that explains solar moss, 11 year cycles, electrical arcs, and ferrite emissions. You've done nothing to poke any holes in the observations I have made. I don't OWE you squat. You owe ME an explanation for these observations to DEMONSTRATE THE WORTHINESS OF YOUR GAS MODEL!This statement reflects one of the classic logical errors. The burden is not ours to show why your model is wrong.
I showed the whole model. I gave you Dr. Manuel's work so you could review the math. You want MORE MATH? Give me a break. This is why science is in such terrible shape in this country. Pure unadulterated nonsense! You have to DISPROVE my model as well as EXPLAIN my observations via a gas model. You've not done either of these things.The burden is for you to show why it's right! In order to do that, you have to make some quantative predictions. Show me the numbers!
I am a "real scientist", and you need not act like a child.If you want to be a real scientist, Mike, act like one.
I made 26 of them in my manuscript. Care to falsify even one of them for me?Make quantitative predictions from your model.
I already did that.Show how they match observations.
No. What I did was point out that these observations neither falsify my model nor completely validate the gas model. The hand waving is all yours.All you've done is wave your hands and make invalid criticisms of the SNO experiment and other observations.
By providing the "surface" for sound waves to "bounce" off of.You say the ferrite causes the oscillations. How?
Sound waves hit FERRITE, and bounce back.What's the mechanism?
Mixing of sound waves and ferrite? Please explain? You mean do they transfer energy like other forms of energy? Probably.What amount of mixing occurs.
You've evidently created a strawman in your own mind. I never claimed their work was in error, only that it did not disprove my model, nor validate yours exclusively.The SNO people answered all of these questions (see the papers). I want similar stuff from you. Give me numbers, error bars, show why your model is better. The burden of proof is yours.
Pick ANY of the 26 items I have predicted and falisify a single one of them. Go right ahead.I can't show how these measurements conflict with your model until you tell me what your model predicts for that measurement.
If you call this intellectual exchange at this point, I pity you. This is childish nonsense devoid of scientific criticism.After all it's your model, not mine (or SNO's). Do some science for a change. And, as I said before, the scorn of someone like you is not scorn that bothers me. Frankly, you're the one who's going to get hurt in this particular intellectual exchange.
Order of Kilopi
Please provide specific obvervational results with references for your claims.
Well, given that it is so simplistic, why don't you explain it in your own words?
Why do you keep asking a question that at least three people here have answered, repeatedly, with numerous references? It is very simple.
Something relevant, like a logical argument with real data that contradicts the evidence that has been provided to you. Care to try?
So now you have a flywheel in the middle of the sun? Care to explain how it would keep generating power for billions of years?
I agree with you. Calm down and stick to the argument. Read the FAQ. Cut out the constant SHOUTING and cries of "Strawman argument!"If you call this intellectual exchange at this point, I pity you. This is childish nonsense devoid of scientific criticism.
Banned
[quote="Van Rijn"]Dr. Oliver ManuelPlease provide specific obvervational results with references for your claims.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/
SERTS DATA:
Website: http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.shtml
Quite Phase Spectral Data: http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/qs_lines_1993.txt
Active Phase Data: http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/ar_lines_1993.txt
Observational evidence
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
Care to explain even ONE of the observations from my website with the gas model?A very SIMPLISTIC concept is "spelled out" in these links, but no correlation between these SIMPLISTIC ideas and observed evidence has been established.
Because I think your answer is OVERSIMPLISTIC given the photo and video I presented. None of you have explained the UMBRA. Non of you have explained why this is looks like a LAYER that suspiciously looks like neon, but for some mysterious reason only you understand, you are certain isn't neon. Care to explain how occum's razor doesn't apply here? My answer seems much simpler than yours and can explain the hole, the flare around the hole, the umbra, the crack below, etc.Why do you keep asking a question that at least three people here have answered, repeatedly, with numerous references? It is very simple.
Your "black body" explanation borders on the "mystical" since you've failed to explain the carrier of these magnetic fields in a "better" way than I have. Like I said, my explanation is based on PURE OBSERVATION.
It was the recognition from the SERTS data that this layer was NEON that really made me a "believer". I'm trying to convey that to you in the "best" way I know how. Forgive me if I am not thurough enough for you, but this is an IMPORTANT revelation, at least it was for me. The clincher for me was the recognition of the silicon beneath the neon that kept things cool and insulated the electrical arcs. These are IMPORTANT issues. I'm doing the best I can given a VERY hostile environment.Something relevant, like a logical argument with real data that contradicts the evidence that has been provided to you. Care to try?
Well, we already know that the sun's magnetic field rotates relative to its spin axis, once every 22 years. If there is a ferrite surface, it will certainly be affected by this magnetic movement relative to it's ferrite surface. That is an inevitable outcome of this interaction. Pure physics and conservation of energy would be my explanation of how it happens.So now you have a flywheel in the middle of the sun? Care to explain how it would keep generating power for billions of years?
I hear you. I will "try" to be more civil in my approach, but I'm growing tired of the ridicule routine. I've spent months of my time developing a cohesive model based on satellite imagery and pure observation. I've pointed you to Dr. Oliver Manuel's work in nuclear chemistry to demonstrate the mathematical support of this observational model. I want and expect to be taken seriously, not because *I* as a person deserve it, but because the *IDEA* deserves consideration. All I'm asking for is a free and open debate without all the underhanded nonsense.I agree with you. Calm down and stick to the argument. Read the FAQ. Cut out the constant SHOUTING and cries of "Strawman argument!"
Established Member
Well, we already know that the sun's magnetic field rotates relative to its spin axis, once every 22 years. If there is a ferrite surface, it will certainly be affected by this magnetic movement relative to it's ferrite surface. That is an inevitable outcome of this interaction. Pure physics and conservation of energy would be my explanation of how it happens.
I'll repeat what everyone is trying to get at...again. Where...is...all...this...energy...coming...from.. .that....powers....the....magnetic...field ...that...interacts...with...your...solid...surfac e? Just answer the question that's all!
In the gas model the compressive force from gravity cause fusion which powers the sun. You are convienetly leaving any sort of power source out of your hypothetical sun. Spin alone wouldn't do it and there isn't enough measured mass to make up for a solid sun.
Established Member
Not a problem. Every time I use an image in a website, I (obviously) ask for permission and ask how they want the image credited if I'm allowed to use it. I'm all in favor of respecting others' intellectual property.
Well, not just my opinion. It was also in my astronomy texts and in the copy of "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun" by Kenneth R. Lang, 2001. As I understand it (and I'm sure if I go astray someone will point it out), it works something like this: sun is hot, filaments (prominences seen "head on" as it were) are less hot and sunspots are cooler yet. As a number of other people have pointed out, sunspots are not black; they appear that way by being near something very much hotter and brighter. Now overlay a line of material cooler than the surrounding area, but hotter than that cooler sunspot and you'll get a light line on a dark body. (Yes, I know it's a clumsy analogy and that the filament is actually arcing over and not laying on the sunspot, but it was a nice, simple mental image). You've still lost me on the "flares". Are you talking about the filamentary penumbra? The little inward-pointing lines edging the sunspot making it look somewhat like an iris or.....?That is YOUR opinion of course, but then why do we see light from there, and not from the right and left of it? This "black body" explanation sure sounds rather flimsy based on the FLARES of the sides and the CRACK in the layer below (IMO).
I'm sorry, but you're throwing out "ferrite layer..., silicon... neon and calcium ferrite layer" as if they're givens. They're not; they're what you're attempting to prove.In the center, and along the right side. You can see a crack in the ferrite layer below, silicon that is clear between the neon layer and calcium ferrite layer. We can see the SIDES of the neon layer, and BLACK areas underneath the neon layer. It's the NEON layer that produces the "light" we see with our eyes, and it is a relatively THIN layer compared to the silicon.
Ummmm...because a typical sunspot is made up of (at least) one umbra surrounded by a penumbra (leaving out "pores", of course).The FLARE pattern in the top. Why is there an UMBRA at all, expecially along the SIDES of this sunspot?
Thanks. Snide never gets anything discussed. And yes, I've already read most of your page(s). The problem I'm seeing with them is that you write as if all of your ideas are a given when they're not. You need to *prove* them, to show that what your proposing explains the observations better than current thought. Get some numbers. Check out all of the links you've been given by various folks--there's some good stuff there. Most importantly, be willing to change your ideas when an idea is proven wrong.I'm not trying to be snide either. If you want a full explanation of that photo, read the sunquakes page of my website. The idea here is that the silicon is rising based on the heat from the crack in the surface below. ALong the right side you can see another jagged crack, and these two cracks create the unique pattern we see in the penumbral filament layer that is made of neon. The light comes from the neon. When it is pushed out of the way by the rising silicon, it cannot emit light in that area. Once things cool off, the neon layer closes back up, and we have light again.
[edited to remove a wandering extraneous "it"]
Psi-less
Established Member
Michael,
your predictions:
17: Silicon layer beneath Neon layer
21: Neon layer cools the lower layers
22: Temperature of silicon layer is highest near the top of the layer.
If the neon layer cools the layer beneath (the silicon layer), wouldn't you expect the temp of that layer to be the lowest near the top, instead of the highest?
Honored Member
Since you disregard objective evidence presented to you that contradicts your suppositions, there's really no point in continuing this "discussion" (I reluctantly call it that in spite of all the "all caps" shouting you're engaging in).http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images...wholeFOV-2.mpg
Here is the video I'd like you to look at. It shows a sunpsot in action. Notice the BLACK area UNDERNEATH the glowing layer. Why is it BLACK underneath that layer again using your black body explanation?
Not in visible light they aren't. They emit HEAT and lots of other photons, but not VISIBLE light.Any basic astronomy text will provide you with the apparent magnitude of sunspots. Of course the values will vary depending on what is taken for the average sunspot, etc. But they all are about equal to or greater than the apparent magnitude of the full Moon, within about 3 orders of magnitude.
Ya, and you've never demonstrated that concept really applies here. I need you to epxlain both the light and dark areas of that sunpot and tell me how that is "relatively" black and "relatively" white? I'm sorry, but your answer just doesn't jive with observation. There is a DISTINCT and hugely noticeable diffeence between the black and the white.Dark and light are always relative terms which depend on not only the luminosity of the object but also its surroundings. A simple example of this is a television. An TV image which, in the middle of the day in a bright, sunlit room, appears dark compared to some other objects in the room, will, that evening in a dark room, now appear bright by comparison.
I am familiar with these theories and I'm trying to epxlain to you why I don't buy them. The explanation you gave me might make some sense *IF* the area beneath the shiny layer wasn't black, and IF that light area descended further into the photosphere, and *IF* you could explain those pieces you see coming off the white layer on the right side. You can't do any of that with your "explanation" because it doesn't apply and never has applied to the workings of the sun's neon layer.I'm surprised that, as a person developing a new theory about the Sun, you would need references for solar information as basic as this.
But, perhaps this might be illuminating.
You've seen the full Moon, right?
Look at all those black areas! There must be no visible light coming from them, seeing as how they're black.
Here's the same view, with a white "X" marking the landing location of Apollo 11. As you can see, they landed in one of the black areas.
Now, let's go down onto the surface of this black area along with the landing crew of Apollo 11.
As you can see, the "black" surface is now quite bright. The reason for this is it's no longer being contrasted with the even brighter lunar highlands, and therefore no longer looks black by comparison.
This is the same reason why the bright umbras of sunspots appear black when contrasted with the brighter photosphere. It all has to do with the effects and limits of contrast that are inherent in photographic (and other visual) media and the human eye, and how the eye interprets such contrasts.
BTW, let's take your approach to sunspot umbras emitting no visible light because they look black and apply it to the above photos (and many other Apollo surface photos). There are no stars in the lunar sky. The sky in the locations where the stars should be is black. Therefore, per your interpretation, the stars in the photos are emitting no visible light. Of course, that is incorrect, as is your interpretation of pictures of sunspots.
Which is the more reliable scientific evidence, the qualitative results of looking at some photographs, or the quantitative results of photometric surveys of sunspots in the visible spectrum?
Please do yourself a favor, and hit the books, specifically on astronomy, mechanics (to learn why ~1,400,000 km diameter hollow metal spheres are unstable in environments with point-source gravity* and temperatures that exceed the solidus for the material), photography, and human anatomy and physiology, specifically, the workings of the eye.
Meanwhile I'm done with this thread. As I wrote above there's no point in having a discussion with someone who denies any evidence that does not support their supposition. Plus, the shouting gets tiresome.
*This treatment is from Kleppner & Kolenkow, An Introduction to Mechanics (p. 101) and deals with the force between a point of mass m at radius r on the x-axis from a spherical shell centered at the origin:
Divide the shell into narrow rings. Let R be the radius of the shell, t its thickness (t << R). The ring at angle theta, which subtends an angle dtheta, has a circumference 2 pi R sin theta, width R dtheta an thickness t, which gives it a volume of
dV=2 pi R^2 t sin theta d theta
and a mass of (M/2) sin theta dtheta where rho is the density of the shell.
Each part of the ring is the same distance r´ from m, and by symmetry the force from the ring is directed along the axis with no transversal component. Since the angle alpha between the force vector and the line of centers is the same for all sections of the ring, the force components along the line of centers add to give
dF=G m rho dV cos alpha / r´^2
for the whole ring. This is then integrated: F = int (G m rho dV/r´2) cos alpha. By expressing cos alpha as a function of polar angle we get:
F = [GMm/2] int_0^pi ( (r - R cos theta) sin theta dtheta)/(r^2 + R^2 - 2 r R cos theta)^2/3
(where int_0^pi is the integral from 0 to pi). Through the substitution u=r-Rcos(theta), du=Rsin theta dtheta we get:
F = [GMm/2R] int_{r-R}^{r+R} (u du) / (R^2 - r^2 +2ru)^(3/2)
which is a standard integral resulting in:
F = (GMm/2R)(1/2r^2)[sqrt(R^2-r^2+2ru)-(r^2-R^2)/sqrt(R^2- r^2+2ru)]_{r-R}^{r+R}
For r<R we get:
F=(GMm/4Rr^2){(R+r)-(R-r)-(r^2-R^2)(1/(R+r)-1/(R-r))} = 0
Established Member
It seems to me that you have a kind of 'romantic' vision about science.
The pure observation is far to be enough to develop a theory...actually you'll need more than months just to understand how those sattelites images have been obtained, what kind of principles, assumptions and technical solutions have been used in designing, building, operating, processing and analizing the data. Hundreds of people are working on that for years...and yet in months you've mastered all the details of their work, whitout even a background in this field?
Also from dr. Manuel's site here ; I don't see how his theory is supporting yours since in his model neither the ferrite or neon layer (which seems to be essential to your model) don't exist.
Banned
Fusion in the core. If you're asking me who created the electromagnetic field, my answer would be "God".
I gather you didn't read the model page of my website? I specifically stated that the FUSION process from the core releases positrons and electrons. I'm also open the the possibility that SOME of the energy comes from magneto affects. I fail to see where I have been vague about this aspect of my model.In the gas model the compressive force from gravity cause fusion which powers the sun. You are convienetly leaving any sort of power source out of your hypothetical sun. Spin alone wouldn't do it and there isn't enough measured mass to make up for a solid sun.
Banned
No. I would expect the highest temps to be in the highest regions, just like the oceans of earth. The neon removes the excess heat off the top.
Banned
Scientific criticism is one thing. Pure unadulterated insult is quite another. I've been involved with computer science now for over 20 years. I dont' have any "romantic" views about it.It seems to me that you have a kind of 'romantic' vision about science.
I spent MONTHS putting together a comprehensive model. I've spent YEARS studing the design of these satellites and the imagery they produce. What "background" does one need exactly to notice that an arc looks like an electrical arc, and running difference images of a ferrite layer rotate uniformly from pole to equator?The pure observation is far to be enough to develop a theory...actually you'll need more than months just to understand how those sattelites images have been obtained, what kind of principles, assumptions and technical solutions have been used in designing, building, operating, processing and analizing the data. Hundreds of people are working on that for years...and yet in months you've mastered all the details of their work, whitout even a background in this field?
http://web.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdfAlso from dr. Manuel's site here ; I don't see how his theory is supporting yours since in his model neither the ferrite or neon layer (which seems to be essential to your model) don't exist.
I take it you didn't read his later work? The ferrite certainly DOES make up the bulk of the sun according to his more recent work. The neon simply isn't as prevelent in comets or lunar soils. The SERTS data certain registers the presence of NEON.
Banned
No, that strawman wasn't illuminating at all, nor relevant at all. When uyou get around to explainig the umbra and why there is a flare at the top of this layer, let me know.
Senior Member
I agree.
Michael, the "critical fire" from us is designed to do one of 2 things. it will either temper your idea, making it stronger, or it will show that your idea has no merit in relation to observed reality.
When things get "personal" on either side that tends to obscure any real discussion, and benefits neither of us. If we all can remember that, this "can be" an interesting discussion.
Banned
I tend to agree. Most of the photos I have presented are from the TRACE and SOHO websites. My tax dollars helped pay for them.
Well, you folks keep saying this alright, but I've yet to see you actually demonstrate that visible light is coming from that hole. I see ENERGY in the form of types of photons coming from that hole, but not visible light.Well, not just my opinion. It was also in my astronomy texts and in the copy of "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun" by Kenneth R. Lang, 2001. As I understand it (and I'm sure if I go astray someone will point it out), it works something like this: sun is hot, filaments (prominences seen "head on" as it were) are less hot and sunspots are cooler yet. As a number of other people have pointed out, sunspots are not black; they appear that way by being near something very much hotter and brighter.
What I'm more curious about however is the UMBRA underneath the penumbral filaments. What lights the filaments, and why does the light end underneath this layer in these photos?
If this was some sort of black body affect, I'd expect the SIDES of the penumbral filaments to extend all the way to the core. I don't see that. I see a disctict LAYER involved, with a distict bottom to this layer that starts to shine, and a distinct top.Now overlay a line of material cooler than the surrounding area, but hotter than that cooler sunspot and you'll get a light line on a dark body. (Yes, I know it's a clumsy analogy and that the filament is actually arcing over and not laying on the sunspot, but it was a nice, simple mental image).
I'm talking about the pattern it makes in the top of the penumbral filaments. The upper layer is flared outward, in making concave pattern in the penumbral filament layer. The upper areas are push out further than the lower portion. The UMBRA begins at a very specific depth in this sunspot. Why? Why does the light start there at that point, and not further down?You've still lost me on the "flares". Are you talking about the filamentary penumbra? The little inward-pointing lines edging the sunspot making it look somewhat like an iris or.....?
Whereas I'm suppose to ACCEPT that somehow the gas model has been proven?I'm sorry, but you're throwing out "ferrite layer..., silicon... neon and calcium ferrite layer" as if they're givens. They're not; they're what you're attempting to prove.
Why? Why is their an "umbra" at all? Why isn't it lit the whole way down to the core if this is black body radiation? Why as different at the base of penumbral filaments from the umbra?Ummmm...because a typical sunspot is made up of (at least) one umbra surrounded by a penumbra (leaving out "pores", of course).
I've already done that as far as I'm concernted. I've explained sunspots, solar flares, 11 year cycles, solar moss, etc. In fact there isn't a lot that seems real mysterious to me at this point.Thanks. Snide never gets anything discussed. And yes, I've already read most of your page(s). The problem I'm seeing with them is that you write as if all of your ideas are a given when they're not. You need to *prove* them, to show that what your proposing explains the observations better than current thought.
I did that with Dr. Manuel's work. Why must *I* do the work of a billion scientists? When is THIS model also "acceptable" in comparison to a gas model that can't explain something a simple as solar moss?Get some numbers.
I've read the material. It leaves too many unanswered questions IMO. The gas model would have us believe that suns are the SINGLE acception when it comes to gravity, and somehow it's immune from being composed of the same things as planets and comets. That's not even logical. There are new studies that suggest that the sun and everything we see formed from earlier supernova explosion.Check out all of the links you've been given by various folks--there's some good stuff there. Most importantly, be willing to change your ideas when an idea is proven wrong.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308
Now I can see how the sun would become a garbage collector for every kind of matter it could round up, but I fail to see how it EXCLUDES heavy materials from it's gravitation attraction, while only letting in the hydrogen. That's not logical IMO. That's a GUESS at best case. When Dr. Manuel did chemical analysis, he didn't find a HYDROGEN sun, but a FERRITE one. I found that surface as well, only using a completely different field of science. That's WAY too much of a coincidence if you ask me.
Banned
It is one thing to present valid scientific cricisms of the observations I have made. It's quite another thing to continue hurling personal insults and engauging in personal attacks. I expect HIGHER STANDARDS from a website that is supposed to be capable of debunking bad ideas. If you have SCIENCE to demonstrate that anything I have said on my website is incorrect, I'm happy to hear you. If however we intent to hurl insults back and forth, I'm not interested.
I'm more than happy to keep this clean and fair and oriented strickly toward the science. That's why I'm here in fact. I'd love to have an HONEST debate, devoid of appeals to authority and devoid of personal insult. Unfortunately it's been anything BUT that to this point in time.When things get "personal" on either side that tends to obscure any real discussion, and benefits neither of us. If we all can remember that, this "can be" an interesting discussion.
I'm still waiting for ANYONE to point out the a single flaw in my predictions, or a single flaw in my observations. Until I see such a thing, I'm going to stick with this model because it works and it explains a range of phenomenon that the gas model can't touch, from the 11 year cycles, to the solar moss phenomenon, to the cause of the umbra and penumbral filaments, etc.
Banned
I've spent MONTHS putting together a comprehensive model, and explaining how this model jives with observation. I'm still waiting for any of you to offer me a "better" explanation for the phenomenon I have listed on my website using the gas model. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how ferrite floats on helium. I'm still waiting for ANY sort of dispute with my observations, or my predictions. So far that has NOT happened. We've gone round and round over TRIVIAL issues IMO, and no one has dealt with the evidence I have presented.
Can anyone explain that sunquake page with a gas model? The shock wave video? The tsunami video? Care to explain how you know these running difference images aren't picking up a ferrite layer, expecially since NASA and Lockheed acknowledge it's presence? The only difference between NASA's layering system and mine is that mine does not defy the laws of gravity the way NASA model defies the laws of gravity. Ferrite doesn't let visible light shine through it, and it's MUCH heavier than helium. Even still, NASA seems to think this LAYER that they acknowledge exists, somehow floats on hydrogen. Anyone care to explain the logic of that idea for me? How is that not a gross violation of a known law of physics?
Posting Permissions
