Thread: The surface of the sun

I believe that I have put together a very convincing arguement based on images and video from the SOHO, TRACE, and YOHKOH satellites to demonstrate that there is a solid surface to the sun.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

I have built a solid surface model and explained many aspects of the sun's behaviors that have so far eluded explanation using the standard gas model of the sun.

I am serious about this and have put in a great deal of time effort to bring evidence to demonstrate my case. I would appreciate any serious scientific feedback or refutation, but please refrain from arguement by ridicule without at least first reading my website thuroughly and completely.

I didn't read your entire article, however I can buy the not a ball of gas theory. Solid core, molten surface. This would explain first of all the gravitational pull, second the polar discrepancies. Again I'm going just based off the first couple of paragraphs on the website.

So the question is are you just trying to educate people, convince people or have someone debate otherwise?

I was mainly looking for some serious and skeptical feedback. I feel comfortable now with my model, and I believe I can explain it pretty well and deal with any and every objection. I won't know if that true however until I put the idea out there and get some feedback. I'd certainly like to get the information out there as well.

I don't have time to read your website. Nor do I have the knowledge to critique your theories anyhow. But I will respons to (In)Sanity's comments on the sun having a solid and a molten component rather than just begin a big 'ball of gas'.

It's important to realize that a 'big ball of gas' doesn't behave as a 'small ball of gas' would behave. Gas under such heavy gravitational pressures changes in ways that can make it act as a solid and a fluid and a gas (depending upon the location within the sun itself.

Anyway. I was just glancing over an article the other day (didn't make it through. Just glanced and bookmarked it for later... if I remember) and it had a picture that describes what I'm talking about.

Click the thumbnail for a fullsize image.



Basically, the surface layer of the sun, labeled the 'convection zone' in the diagram, acts as a fluid. Beneath this layer, the sun rotates as a solid. And the boundary between the fluid and the solid portions is called the Tachocline. It is the interactions between the solid and liquid portions at the tachochline that contributes to the creation of the Sun's magnetic field.

Heh.
Everything I've said is said in the diagram.
I've yet to read the article. Maybe I'll read it later and then respond to this thread again later. But, then, I'd still have to read the website which I probably never will...

Oh well.

Pretty much how I envisioned it.

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

I don't have time to read your website. Nor do I have the knowledge to critique your theories anyhow. But I will respons to (In)Sanity's comments on the sun having a solid and a molten component rather than just begin a big 'ball of gas'........

Everything I've said is said in the diagram.
I've yet to read the article. Maybe I'll read it later and then respond to this thread again later. But, then, I'd still have to read the website which I probably never will...

Oh well.

I guess I think it's very sad you won't even bother to read what I spent months putting together based on the best satellite technology available.

I can fully explain why it behaves and rotates as solid below a specific depth. The reason it acts this way is because it DOES have a solid surface underneath the layer of the photosphere that Galileo first observed.

Well. It may be sad. Yes. But it's the way it is. Maybe someone will come along with the time and motivation to read your site.

And. As to it being solid. What do you mean by solid? Hydrogen can form a solid and a fluid, you know. It doesn't have to be in a gaseous form all the time.

>>As to it being solid. What do you mean by solid?

Solid as in IRON, or more specifically ferrite. I added a new page yesterday as well called "observations".

I did read most of the site.

Unfortunately, I am not qualified to comment.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

>>As to it being solid. What do you mean by solid?

Solid as in IRON, or more specifically ferrite. I added a new page yesterday as well called "observations".

This is a special kind of iron which remains solid and structurally sound at 10,000 degrees?

Originally Posted by Anarchofascist

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

>>As to it being solid. What do you mean by solid?

Solid as in IRON, or more specifically ferrite. I added a new page yesterday as well called "observations".

This is a special kind of iron which remains solid and structurally sound at 10,000 degrees?

Welcome to the forum.

Solid as in Ceramic would make it more believable.

I am not as deeply acquanted with the subject, but the suggestion of a solid surface of the sun sounds reasonable, or at least has a potential for argument. Could be a big breakthrough. I will mention the idea to all solar scientists I know (well, at least one).

I'll take all the help I can get.

I tried and failed for over 20 year to explain the sun's activities using the gas model. Once I realized there was a ferrite surface beneath the photosphere, everything started to make sense, from the electrical arcs, to solar eruptions, to solar moss. Suddenly all the pieces fit together. Once I saw the images to support the idea I felt quite confident it's a LOT better model than the gas model as far as explaining the activities we see on the sun.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I'll take all the help I can get.

I tried and failed for over 20 year to explain the sun's activities using the gas model. Once I realized there was a ferrite surface beneath the photosphere, everything started to make sense, from the electrical arcs, to solar eruptions, to solar moss. Suddenly all the pieces fit together. Once I saw the images to support the idea I felt quite confident it's a LOT better model than the gas model as far as explaining the activities we see on the sun.

I read it, but like others I have no idea. You seem like you might be on the right path. It's not like the gas model has been proven so keep on doing what you're doing!

I do have some questions because, to me the sun looks like a core. If you were to strip away the earths crust and mantle, would the core be a sun?? When I look at the sun I guess I see magma and that is why I ask. A super-heated, exposed (I guess) core, from a dying planet???

Sorry for the stupid question, just curious because I don't know anything about the sun.

Originally Posted by btimsah

I read it, but like others I have no idea. You seem like you might be on the right path. It's not like the gas model has been proven so keep on doing what you're doing!

I do have some questions because, to me the sun looks like a core. If you were to strip away the earths crust and mantle, would the core be a sun?? When I look at the sun I guess I see magma and that is why I ask. A super-heated, exposed (I guess) core, from a dying planet???

Sorry for the stupid question, just curious because I don't know anything about the sun.

The sun has a lot more mass than earth, and it's probably composed of a lot of heavy metals. It takes more mass than earth to make a sun, a lot more metals, and some calcium, silicon and neon. The sun contains roughly 98% of the mass of this solar system. That's the kind of mass it takes to be a sun. Maybe not that much mass is necessary, but far more than earth contains. Jupiter emits more energy than it absorbs, so it must take a mass somewhere between something the size of Jupiter (roughly 2% of the sun) and the sun to have enough energy to create a glowing sun.

invert_nexus, that picture is great.

Maybe the colloquial "big ball of gas" sun description isn't supposed to be taken as a proper scientific description. It's interior seems to be more like liquid and solid than it does gas.

Wouldn't a solid ferrous shell at the tachocline produce noticable effects. I can imaging fractional effects shuffling the heavier atomic products to particular layers, but whether that would be counter-acted by the general turmiol I don't know. I find it hard to think it would be solid though, even if it was in a layer, but rather would slither around like an oily film, bubbling with swirling hydrogen too.

Although really, I would expect the iron to build up in the centre, since it would exert more force toward the centre under the pull of the gravity than the hydrogen would, unless magnetic effects counter-acted this.

Man, where have all the skeptical thinkers gone!?!?

Characteristic of the crank no. 1: Nonsensical claims about what science does and does not believe:

The critical thing to notice here between these different videos is that Galileo's entire perspective was limited by what he could could OBSERVE with very limited technology in a very narrow wavelength range. The Doppler images from SOHO show a UNIFORMLY rotating and SOLID surface, whereas the images of the photosphere show that the photosphere behaves very differently from the surface of the sun itself.

For the next 400 years, scientist tried desperately to understand the sun and create models of the sun that were based on Galileo's early assumptions and early gas model framework.

Codswallop. Galileo may have deduced the gaseous nature of the sun's atmosphere from his observations, but if you truly think that 20th Century astronomers and cosmologists were making deductions about the Sun's behaviour and characterstics based entirely upon the fact that three hundred years ago the guy who invented the first telescope said, "It must be made of gas", then you have a great deal to learn about science, my friend.

Characteristic of the crank, no. 2. You have claimed several times that you can't make the gas model for the Sun work. But you aren't claiming that other scientists aren't completely happy with the "gas" model, only that you can't "make it work". Perhaps if you actually studied the long literature on the subject you might come closer to understanding. Perhaps if you read a relatively simple book like Isaac Asimov's The Collapsing Universe you'd find the solution to your problems.

They built very sophisticated models based on shear forces caused by the uneven movement of gases from pole to equator to explain the sun's fusion reactions. They have tried desperately and unsuccessfully to understand solar events based on a basic ASSUMPTION that had never been tested and was critically flawed.

Science gets nowhere by making assumptions, and Science is fully cognizant of that fact. The gaseous nature of the Sun is based upon data, not assumptions. And that data was obtained by methods undreamed of by Galileo.

Now, I myself do not know the ins and outs of the scientific work that has gone into solar studies, but here is what I do know. The sun's composition was certainly a major cause for concern, because in the pre-relativistic and pre-Quantum world, the Sun did not make any sense. It was so enormously massive that the pressures at the centre would compress even hydrogen into a solid. Nonetheless (and I stress I do not know exactly how scientists determined this), the sun behaved as if it was gaseous throughout. If it was solid, it would have behaved as if it was solid (with a gaseous photosphere, to be sure), but it did not. It behaved as if it was gaseous throughout. The puzzle then was to determine exactly what kind of structure the Sun could possibly have to allow for this. After the structure of the atom and of subatomic particles was fully understood for the first time, probably around the 1930s, it was recognized that the pressures of the enormous mass would outmatch the electromagnetic force that for normal matter keeps everything apart. The pressure from gravitational force is stronger than the electromagnetic force pushing outwards, and the result is that the atoms literally collapse, into a form known as degenerate matter, where protons, neutrons and electrons are swimming around each other rather than in fixed orbits (grossly oversimplifying). The point is that the density of this plasma gas can be much greater than that remotely obtainable by even a conventional solid. That is why the sun is a gas, and why solid matter can not exist at such temperatures and pressures. They can not - or the entire theory of the atomic structure, the four forces and the quanta would be incorrect.

invert-nexus, that's a very pretty diagram, but I can't help feeling that they must have over-simplified or misunderstood something. Precisely how are "sound waves" supposed to have been sent to the Sun in order to determine the seismology!?

Michael, if I've sounded somewhat harsh and insulting, it's because your website is insulting to scientists whom you have misrepresented as having made assumptions and apparently been unable to solve problems concerning the sun's structure that have, in fact, been long solved. Not only do we fully understand the structure and behaviour of the Sun, we are pretty sure about all stages of a star's possible evolution, from red dwarf to black hole. How do I know? Because first the neutron star was postulated (by Robert Oppenheimer, by the way) and then afterwards they were discovered, in 1968, when pulsars were detected, and it was realised that the neutron star theory was the only way of explaining such extraordinary rapid x-ray pulses.

Friendly Warning. I have not downloaded your journal submission, but if it's got any of that guff about what Galileo is supposed to have thought and any idea that solar scientists have been blindly following his lead, don't expect the rest of your paper to even be read!

Although the debunking was useless, it was nice to read from a gas-model supporter! I think both of you assume different things about the gas-model and study both from completely different angles.

May the best man win.

Silas,

I don't think many people actually read his site. The way I see it, is that this is a discussion site. We don't come here to go somewhere else. If he wants to discuss something, then bring it to the table rather than giving us directions to a restaurant down the street. If we're interested in the sample, then maybe we'll go to the restaurant.

that's a very pretty diagram, but I can't help feeling that they must have over-simplified or misunderstood something. Precisely how are "sound waves" supposed to have been sent to the Sun in order to determine the seismology!?

You've never heard of Helioseismology? Seismology is a misnomer as it is the study of pressure waves (i.e. Sound waves) as they propagate throughout the Sun.

The Sun rings like a bell. Didn't you know that?

Nonetheless (and I stress I do not know exactly how scientists determined this), the sun behaved as if it was gaseous throughout. If it was solid, it would have behaved as if it was solid (with a gaseous photosphere, to be sure), but it did not. It behaved as if it was gaseous throughout.

I, too, cannot claim expert knowledge in this field, but from what I've read on the subject it would seem that both the core and the radiative zone behave as a solid in at least some aspects. It seems that the various sites I have perused looking for corroborating information are leery to say the word 'solid' but they do confirm the rest of the model shown in the picture.

The radiative zone and the core rotate like a solid. Note the 'like a solid' not saying that it is a solid.

The radiative zone rotates as a whole every 27 days. It's conjectured that the core rotates at the same rate but this is yet to be shown.

The surface of the sun rotates at a differential rate. At the equator it rotates at once every 25 days while at the poles it rotates at once every 36 days. It is the shear between these rotation rates that create the tachocline and the solar magnetic dynamo.

Some corroborating websites:
The Internal Rotation of the Sun (Abstract).
Interior of the Sun.


Michael:

The Doppler images from SOHO show a UNIFORMLY rotating and SOLID surface, whereas the images of the photosphere show that the photosphere behaves very differently from the surface of the sun itself.

The photosphere is the surface of the sun. You're trying to say that there is a thin layer of plasma flowing over a ferrite surface?
Why?
Because you've looked at some pictures and videos?

They built very sophisticated models based on shear forces caused by the uneven movement of gases from pole to equator to explain the sun's fusion reactions. They have tried desperately and unsuccessfully to understand solar events based on a basic ASSUMPTION that had never been tested and was critically flawed.

No. They built models explaining the Sun's magnetism and pole shifts using the shear between the convective zone and the radiative zone. The fusion at the core has nothing to do with this shear.



However, spectral analysis of the Sun indicates that it is composed of 92.1% hydrogen, 7.8% helium, with the remaining 0.1% being mainly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon and iron.

How is it that you can show that this data is incorrect?

And how is it that you can suggest that solid iron exists at a temperature of 10,000 degrees at the surface?

Why do you propose the specifics that you propose? Why must it be an iron surface? Why not silicon? Or titanium? Or rock candy?

Your theory is ridiculous.
Not necessarily that it's impossible (although it seems highly unlikely, but if you had data to back it up...), but rather because you've spun up the story out of whole cloth.

Michael sez:

I tried and failed for over 20 year to explain the sun's activities using the gas model.

The suns activities are already well understood - obviously, according to your website, you don't understand the model.

I spent months putting together based on the best satellite technology available.

And came up with the wrong conclusions.

Crackpots crack me up.

Why can't the sun have a solid core? Its not like were ever going to be able to fly in and find out. :?

Why can't the sun have a solid core? Its not like were ever going to be able to fly in and find out.

We might. Who knows what the future will bring. Sun diving may become the rage of the 22nd century. Hell, it may even prove to be an efficacious means of transport. Perhaps certain wormholes or whatnot can only be opened deep in the heart of a gravity well.

Who knows?


Anyway. Why can't the sun have a solid core?
Dunno.
Ask a scientist who understands solar physics. I'm sure there are reasons, otherwise there would be no objections to considering it.
But.
What you don't want to do is ask someone who's spent hours examining jpg's and mpg's and from these determined that what he's seeing is a solid iron surface just below the gaseous surface of the sun.
Or. Maybe you do. I don't know. I know that I don't. But you are btimsah....

i'm just a high school student so i'm really not quallified to discuss this but what the hell.

as i've been told the sun made of hydrogen gas which has taken on another state of matter, refered to as plasma, which happens when the gas is heated, compressed and charged causing it to remain in constant motion.

deep down in the sun we reach a dense core of moltern iron which contains most of the mass, note i said dense not solid.

Wallaby,

deep down in the sun we reach a dense core of moltern iron which contains most of the mass

How could it be possible for a miniscule portion of 0.1 percent of the sun's volume contain most of the mass? Hydrogen and helium are light, but not that light.

However, it could always turn out that the present understanding of the sun's makeup might be wrong.

But one thing is sure. It doesn't have a solid surface.

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

Why can't the sun have a solid core? Its not like were ever going to be able to fly in and find out.

We might. Who knows what the future will bring. Sun diving may become the rage of the 22nd century. Hell, it may even prove to be an efficacious means of transport. Perhaps certain wormholes or whatnot can only be opened deep in the heart of a gravity well.

Who knows?


Anyway. Why can't the sun have a solid core?
Dunno.
Ask a scientist who understands solar physics. I'm sure there are reasons, otherwise there would be no objections to considering it.
But.
What you don't want to do is ask someone who's spent hours examining jpg's and mpg's and from these determined that what he's seeing is a solid iron surface just below the gaseous surface of the sun.
Or. Maybe you do. I don't know. I know that I don't. But you are btimsah....

I'd rather ask the guy who's examined the sun using advanced images of the surface of the sun. After all, I am btimsah.

I'm not sure what examining sruface images is going to do for you (they are pretty though).

There is a thing called "Helioseismology" that gives great insight into the interior structure of the sun:

http://soi.stanford.edu/results/heliowhat.html

Note, no solid "subsurface" or solid core.

Google is a wonderful thing...

Google is a wonderful thing...

Psst...
So is reading posts. I already posted some links on helioseismology...
Well. Yours will probably get clicked more. Mine was in a huge post. I bet you're not the only one not to read it... The curse strikes again...
I forgive you. Go with God, my son.

Edit: Shit. Actually. I had my threads mixed up. I did post the link in here, but it wasn't a huge post.
Oh well.

invert,

Sorry if I missed it. Blessings on you also.

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

Anyway. Why can't the sun have a solid core?
Dunno.
Ask a scientist who understands solar physics. I'm sure there are reasons, otherwise there would be no objections to considering it.

Actually you don't need to be a solar scientist at all. You just have to consider a basic fact of chemistry, which is that no form of chemical or atomic interaction (in the absence of radioactive elements) can take place in a solid. If there were a solid core it could not be fissioning hydrogen or any other element to produce the energy that it does.

that makes me... incredibly stupid.

some how i have confused my self but the origional point i was driving at was, the sun has no solid surface.

wow......can you people explain all thsi to me in " dumb english"?/ as in something I would actually understand

[arrogant harshness removed]

Science can be a tough subject, but we're not talking incredibly complex jargon here, just mainly common sense. Although you do need some basic background in physics - nothing much, just the structure of the atom and the four forces of nature, and the fact that gravity is proportional to mass.

Originally Posted by wallaby

that makes me... incredibly stupid.

some how i have confused my self but the origional point i was driving at was, the sun has no solid surface.

Stupid? Why? The sun is a complex thing. There's no solid surface because visual and spectroscopic observations show that it is a gas. There is no solid in the mid layers because the only model that supports the energy transport that we observe, is a gas. There is no solid or liquid core since the only way fusion can occur is in a plasma. Helioseismology supports these ideas and observations.

Originally Posted by Silas

Man, where have all the skeptical thinkers gone!?!?

Characteristic of the crank no. 1: Nonsensical claims about what science does and does not believe:

Typical irrational debate tactics of those who have no scientific refute. Attack the messenger and use as many ad homs as possible. Feel better about yourself now? There is nothing about this data that is a "crank", nor anything about me that is a "crank". The only "crank" here is you and this irrational attitude of ad hom debate tactics.

Codswallop. Galileo may have deduced the gaseous nature of the sun's atmosphere from his observations, but if you truly think that 20th Century astronomers and cosmologists were making deductions about the Sun's behaviour and characterstics based entirely upon the fact that three hundred years ago the guy who invented the first telescope said, "It must be made of gas", then you have a great deal to learn about science, my friend.

Not EVERY sientist has believed in the gas model, and not EVERY aspect of Galileo's observations were false. The only false assumption that Galileo made and astronomers today still make is *ASSUMING* that the nothing solid exists beneath the visible photosphere.

Characteristic of the crank, no. 2. You have claimed several times that you can't make the gas model for the Sun work. But you aren't claiming that other scientists aren't completely happy with the "gas" model, only that you can't "make it work". Perhaps if you actually studied the long literature on the subject you might come closer to understanding. Perhaps if you read a relatively simple book like Isaac Asimov's The Collapsing Universe you'd find the solution to your problems.

The bottom line here is *YOU* cannot and will not explain ANY of the observations on my website with a GAS MODEL. Let's start with some rudimentary issues. What causes solar moss? What causes sunspots? What causes them to rotate unevenly whereas things in the layer SOHO sees move UNIFORMLY from pole to equator? What are all these STRUCTURES that last for hours and days and weeks?

Start with just the first image on my website that was put together by Lockheed Martin. What is that STRUCTURE we see in that image? What causes the lighting conditions in that video? What are the shadows in other words? What are the bright areas? What is the VISCOSITY of that LAYER in comparison to the layers above it?

Now, I myself do not know the ins and outs of the scientific work that has gone into solar studies, but here is what I do know. The sun's composition was certainly a major cause for concern, because in the pre-relativistic and pre-Quantum world, the Sun did not make any sense. It was so enormously massive that the pressures at the centre would compress even hydrogen into a solid. Nonetheless (and I stress I do not know exactly how scientists determined this),

So really, you don't personally have a clue how "they" determine this, yet you still wish to lecture us about it, but somehow *I'M* the crank?

the sun behaved as if it was gaseous throughout.

No, it does not. If it did, you would not see the SURFACE and the ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY at the surface.

If it was solid, it would have behaved as if it was solid (with a gaseous photosphere, to be sure), but it did not.

The photosphere does act just like a plasma. If you look at the tsunami page of my website, you will see a wave pass through it, just like a wave passed through a liquid. If you look to left side of that same video, you will see a STRUCTURE that has VISCOSITY that is obviously different than the viscosity of the photosphere. What is it?

The point is that the density of this plasma gas can be much greater than that remotely obtainable by even a conventional solid. That is why the sun is a gas, and why solid matter can not exist at such temperatures and pressures. They can not - or the entire theory of the atomic structure, the four forces and the quanta would be incorrect.

That is rediculace. First of all, there is nothing to suggest that what is under the surface is not plasma. There is nothing to suggest the sun is SOLID throughout and evidence to suggest magma flows. There is nothing about this idea that defies any laws of physics.

invert-nexus, that's a very pretty diagram, but I can't help feeling that they must have over-simplified or misunderstood something. Precisely how are "sound waves" supposed to have been sent to the Sun in order to determine the seismology!?

Friendly Warning. I have not downloaded your journal submission, but if it's got any of that guff about what Galileo is supposed to have thought and any idea that solar scientists have been blindly following his lead, don't expect the rest of your paper to even be read!

Friendly warning: A lot of people go through life blindly assuming that science is always "right" and that every scientific discovery is already made. Some people assume that argument by ridicule and appeals to authority have some useful place in science. Such arguements are devoid of scientific content.

If you have a serious, rational explanation using the gas model for even ONE of the images (pages) on my website, put it on the table. If not, I'd say the real crank here is you.

Originally Posted by Silas

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

Anyway. Why can't the sun have a solid core?
Dunno.
Ask a scientist who understands solar physics. I'm sure there are reasons, otherwise there would be no objections to considering it.

Actually you don't need to be a solar scientist at all. You just have to consider a basic fact of chemistry, which is that no form of chemical or atomic interaction (in the absence of radioactive elements) can take place in a solid. If there were a solid core it could not be fissioning hydrogen or any other element to produce the energy that it does.

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Publi...171_000828.avi

Lets start with the first image. This was put together by Lockheed Martin. The information about the image can be found at their website and mine.

What are these structures?

According to nuclear chemistry, the sun is mostly made of iron:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp...ron/index.html

Dr. Manuel's analysis and belief our sun formed from supernova remnants has recently been confirmed:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

Kristian Birkeland had the electrical solid surface sun figured out 100 years ago:

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/

Check out the images from his experiments from a hundred years ago and how well those align with satellite observation.

Michael, you have posted here because you “would appreciate any serious scientific feedback or refutation” of your ideas. I expect you to accept that this will involve me attacking those ideas with all the energy, vigour and persistence I can muster. That is the scientific method.

Before tackling your observations and postulates let me address one other peripheral issue. You have said “I ……… have put in a great deal of time effort to bring evidence to demonstrate my case.” And later, “it's very sad you won't even bother to read what I spent months putting together.”
Consider this from an objective outsiders point of view: one researcher spends months and comes up with a hypothesis that is in distinct contrast with the theory developed through the work of hundreds of researchers devoting entire careers to the topic. Who would you be inclined to believe?

But perhaps you are correct. Let’s look at the facts. I shall base the bulk of my remarks on the full presentation of your hypothesis in the word document you provided. (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Th...ceOfTheSun.doc) I assume this is more detailed than the popular treatment you have presented on your website. (Nicely designed by the way.) Let me know if this is not the case.

Before that you raised some questions and made some statements in your most recent posts:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The only false assumption that Galileo made and astronomers today still make is *ASSUMING* that the nothing solid exists beneath the visible photosphere.

These assumptions are the underpinnings of the hypothesis. All hypotheses begin with assumptions. These are then tested against observation and experiment. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they are tested. This assumption has been tested and validated in many distinct ways.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What causes solar moss?

Given that its discovery is relatively recent it is not surprising that the full details of its origin and development have not been fully addressed. Nevertheless, there is nothing about its character that does not tie it closely to magnetic effects associated with coronal loops, and mass and energy transfers in the transition zone. It certainly seems to be a visible artefact of the process whereby the chaotic magnetic fields at the surface of the sun become well structured fields around the coronal loops. Additionally the moss is associated with the hottest and highest-pressure coronal loops, which we might reasonably expect to be more complex in character. What do you find inconsistent in all of this?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What causes sunspots?

Sunspots, seen as cool regions on the surface of the Sun, are a thermal phenomenon. Sunspots are always associated with bipolar magnetic loops that break through the solar surface. Thus to explain the origin of sunspots we have to understand how the magnetic field originates inside the Sun and emerges at its surface. The field predicted by mean-field dynamo theories is too weak by itself to emerge at the surface of the Sun. However, because of the turbulent character of solar convection the fields generated by dynamo are intermittent - i.e., concentrated into ropes or sheets with large spaces in between. The intermittent fields are sufficiently strong to be able to emerge at the solar surface, in spite of the fact that their mean (average) value is weak. It is suggested here that magnetic fields emerge at the solar surface at those random times and places when the total magnetic field (mean field plus fluctuations) exceeds the threshold for buoyancy. The clustering of coherently emerged loops results in the formation of a sunspot. A non-axisymmetric enhancement of the underlying magnetic field causes in the clustering of sunspots forming sunspot groups, clusters of activity and active longitudes. The mean field, which is not directly observable, is also important, being responsible for the ensemble regularities of sunspots, such as Hale's law of sunspot polarities and the 11-year periodicity.Origin of Sunspots, Ruzmaikin, Alexander Space Science Reviews, v. 95, Issue 1/2, p. 43-53 (2001)

Your problem with that?

This post is already quite long. I’ll pause at this point to await an initial response.

While I await your reply I noted a couple of points in a later post.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

According to nuclear chemistry, the sun is mostly made of iron:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp...ron/index.html

This is a very misleading statement. A single scientist (supported by a single colleague) makes this claim that runs counter to the beliefs, supported by evidence, of every other solar astronomer on the planet. Since he published this view in 2002 there have been no other supporting works published. The idea is dead.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Dr. Manuel's analysis and belief our sun formed from supernova remnants has recently been confirmed:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

Michael, you make it very difficult to honour your request that respondents to your idea not indulge in ad hominem attacks. Either you are ignorant (in the best sense of the word, i.e. lacking in knowledge) or you are lying.
No planetologist, geologist, or astronomer that I know of would deny that the bulk of planetary matter is derived from supernovae. This is not in dispute. Dr Manuel's theory, however, requires that the sun itself is the remnant of a supernova. That is a totally different matter. Do you recognise this? If so, in the spirit of proper scientific enquiry would you please amend your prior post.

Question for all,, if the suns fusion occurs in its inner core and surrounding layers, and then it takes such a long time for the energy to reach the surface, why isnt the surface visibly more uniform than it is?

could fusion be taking place a bit closer to the surface?

i would think fussion takes place whereever there is hydrogen and sufficient heat.

Originally Posted by Clarky

why isnt the surface visibly more uniform than it is?
could fusion be taking place a bit closer to the surface?

The chaotic character of the surface is consistent with the heating of a large gaseous mass from below that is also subject to complex electromagnetic fields. There is a lot of energy in the system. We shouldn't expect uniformity.
Fusion could be taking place closer to the surface, but observations, theoretical considerations and computer simulations are all consistent with a deep source for the fusion, coupled with the long delay you have noted for photons to reach from the fusion source to the surface. For fusion to be taking place nearer the surface our interpretation of the suns structure (temperature and pressure profile) as revealed by current theory and confirmed by helioseismology would have to be totally wrong. This seems very unlikely.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Michael, you have posted here because you “would appreciate any serious scientific feedback or refutation” of your ideas. I expect you to accept that this will involve me attacking those ideas with all the energy, vigour and persistence I can muster. That is the scientific method.

What has been missing to this point in time is the SCIENCE you intend to use to explain these images with the gas model. That is what is missing in your "attack". Personal attack and ad hominem is NOT a scientific refute of any sort.

Before tackling your observations

Meaning you won't touch a single observation with a ten foot pole!
That is EXACTLY what I expected. You have no explanation I presume?

and postulates let me address one other peripheral issue.

Here is where you just bailed on the request I made (explain any page of images) and you go into an appeal to authority routine....

You have said “I ……… have put in a great deal of time effort to bring evidence to demonstrate my case.” And later, “it's very sad you won't even bother to read what I spent months putting together.”
Consider this from an objective outsiders point of view: one researcher spends months and comes up with a hypothesis that is in distinct contrast with the theory developed through the work of hundreds of researchers devoting entire careers to the topic. Who would you be inclined to believe?

For 45 years I was inclined to believe the "party line". Then I saw the satellite images. These DIRECT OBSERVATIONS trump a ton of THEORY however. You'll figure that out the first time you try to step up to the plate and explain these images with the gas model, assuming you ever actually give it a serious shot.

But perhaps you are correct. Let’s look at the facts. I shall base the bulk of my remarks on the full presentation of your hypothesis in the word document you provided. (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Th...ceOfTheSun.doc) I assume this is more detailed than the popular treatment you have presented on your website. (Nicely designed by the way.) Let me know if this is not the case.

You can start with the manuscript or simply pick a page on the website and go for it.

These assumptions are the underpinnings of the hypothesis. All hypotheses begin with assumptions. These are then tested against observation and experiment. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they are tested. This assumption has been tested and validated in many distinct ways.

Of course when we TEST the THEORY, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Those running difference images show persistent structures that rotate uniformly and form RIGID structures that deflect shock waves. If you care to explain these observations for me and explain why we see these structures in these images, perhaps we can actually get to serious discussion. As it is, you've yet to deal with any observations, or any content.

Given that its discovery is relatively recent it is not surprising that the full details of its origin and development have not been fully addressed.

I addressed this phenomenon far better than Lockheed Martin addressed this issue.

Nevertheless, there is nothing about its character that does not tie it closely to magnetic effects associated with coronal loops, and mass and energy transfers in the transition zone.

Meaning what? What drives those coronal loops and how do you know it is not electricity that creates them?

It certainly seems to be a visible artefact of the process whereby the chaotic magnetic fields at the surface of the sun become well structured fields around the coronal loops.

HOW does that occur? I explained how the choatic magnetic field form. You did not. That makes my explanation superior to yours unless you can explain the CAUSE of the 'chaos'

Additionally the moss is associated with the hottest and highest-pressure coronal loops, which we might reasonably expect to be more complex in character. What do you find inconsistent in all of this?

The fact it ignores the ELECTRICAL nature of the event for one thing. You also ignored how such coronal loops get HOT in the first place and why that HEAT forms LOOPS rather than BLOBS.

Sunspots, seen as cool regions on the surface of the Sun, are a thermal phenomenon. Sunspots are always associated with bipolar magnetic loops that break through the solar surface. Thus to explain the origin of sunspots we have to understand how the magnetic field originates inside the Sun and emerges at its surface.

But *I* do understand *AND EXPLAIN* how the magnetic field originates as it does. Again however, you failed to do this. Why then should I believe your explaination is valid?

The field predicted by mean-field dynamo theories is too weak by itself to emerge at the surface of the Sun. However, because of the turbulent character of solar convection the fields generated by dynamo are intermittent - i.e., concentrated into ropes or sheets with large spaces in between. The intermittent fields are sufficiently strong to be able to emerge at the solar surface, in spite of the fact that their mean (average) value is weak. It is suggested here that magnetic fields emerge at the solar surface at those random times and places when the total magnetic field (mean field plus fluctuations) exceeds the threshold for buoyancy. The clustering of coherently emerged loops results in the formation of a sunspot. A non-axisymmetric enhancement of the underlying magnetic field causes in the clustering of sunspots forming sunspot groups, clusters of activity and active longitudes. The mean field, which is not directly observable, is also important, being responsible for the ensemble regularities of sunspots, such as Hale's law of sunspot polarities and the 11-year periodicity.

Origin of Sunspots, Ruzmaikin, Alexander Space Science Reviews, v. 95, Issue 1/2, p. 43-53 (2001)

Your problem with that?

You mean besides the fact you never explained what constrains the heat in loops, what forms loops, how such 'ropes' that are orders of magnitudes larger than anything seen in plasma physics? You mean those small details?

I can explain these "loops" quite easily with electricity, and I can show you evidence to demonstrate there is electricity flowing through the loops, starting with the magnetic fields that surround them.

Your reaction here was typical. You avoided the observations altogether and failed to address even ONE SINGLE IMAGE or OBSERVATION on my website. I'm not impressed.

Step up to the plate now and EXPLAIN one of the images using the gas model and tell me how your expaination is superior to mine.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

While I await your reply I noted a couple of points in a later post.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

According to nuclear chemistry, the sun is mostly made of iron:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp...ron/index.html

This is a very misleading statement. A single scientist (supported by a single colleague) makes this claim that runs counter to the beliefs, supported by evidence, of every other solar astronomer on the planet. Since he published this view in 2002 there have been no other supporting works published. The idea is dead.

No, you are simply WRONG. You failed to note the work of Dr. Kristian Birkeland, Dr. Charles Bruce and many others who have also demonstrated valid alternatives to gas model theories. The idea is not only NOT dead, it's right on the money. The sun *IS* formed of supernova remnants, and supernova's are mostly made of iron.

Michael, you make it very difficult to honour your request that respondents to your idea not indulge in ad hominem attacks. Either you are ignorant (in the best sense of the word, i.e. lacking in knowledge) or you are lying.
No planetologist, geologist, or astronomer that I know of would deny that the bulk of planetary matter is derived from supernovae. This is not in dispute. Dr Manuel's theory, however, requires that the sun itself is the remnant of a supernova. That is a totally different matter. Do you recognise this? If so, in the spirit of proper scientific enquiry would you please amend your prior post.

I resent your comment about LYING and your whole attitude in fact. Now what logic is there is suggesting all the inner planets are made of heavy materials, but the sun is nearly devoid of them? You are essentially suggesting that somehow the sun is immune from the gravitational forces that pulled the iron together to form planets. That isn't even logical.

Not only am I not lying, I'm not ignorant, and I"m not lacking in knowledge. Quite the opposite is true. I've spent the time to educate myself and I'm basing my beliefs on DIRECT OBSERVATION. That's the thing you are avoiding like that plague here. You WON'T and CAN'T address the images, so you attack me personally. How sad and how unscientific.

Michael, do you want to try any of that without the emotion, without, the distortions, without the personal invective? I thought you wanted to discuss this intelligently. Was I wrong?

I will tackle a single point right now. (No, I am not bailing out on addressing your other issues - strange as it may seem I have a life to lead outside this discussion. You are the plaintiff here. Try acting like it.)

You made this statement:
"Now what logic is there is suggesting all the inner planets are made of heavy materials, but the sun is nearly devoid of them? You are essentially suggesting that somehow the sun is immune from the gravitational forces that pulled the iron together to form planets. That isn't even logical."

Michael it is wholly logical.
You appeared to get upset when I suggested you were ignorant. That is a puzzling reaction for a scientist. We are all ignorant. As individuals we are ignorant of most of what we know as a species. As a species we are ignorant of most of what is to be known. Did you somehow avoid this condition?
Again, here, you appear to be ignorant. It is the only available explnation since you have assured me you are not a liar, and I readily accept your word for that.
Here is why my contention (which I agree suffers from the weakness that it matches the view of the vast majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, planetologists, geologists, geochemists and geophysicists on the planet) is logical.
The composition of the interstellar cloud from which the sun and solar system are believed to have formed is predominantly hydrogen and helium. Iron is a significant minor constituent.
When the planets condensed, first into dust , then fragments, pebbles, planetesimals etc, they did so under the influence of the temperature gradient that existed in the solar nebula.
Consequently only the high temperature minerals and elements condensed in the inner solar system: hence the inner planets had a high proportion of iron. The hydrogen and helium and lighter components were blown away as the sun exited its T-Tauri stage.
The gross distribution of elements in the sun and the rest of the solar system is very well explained by this model. It is wholly logical.
Either you are ignorant of this model, or you have found some fatal flaw in it. If the latter please explain what this flaw is.

I look forward to a response that is not couched in the same openly hostile terms as your previous two.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Michael, do you want to try any of that without the emotion, without, the distortions, without the personal invective? I thought you wanted to discuss this intelligently. Was I wrong?

You are absolutely right actually. I would prefer a "scientifically" oriented debate.

I will tackle a single point right now. (No, I am not bailing out on addressing your other issues - strange as it may seem I have a life to lead outside this discussion. You are the plaintiff here. Try acting like it.)

That sounds more like a religious discussion than a scientific investigation of the images and how they relate to various and competing models. Why am I the only one on trial here? What does this information have to do with me personally?

M>You made this statement:
"Now what logic is there is suggesting all the inner planets are made of heavy materials, but the sun is nearly devoid of them? You are essentially suggesting that somehow the sun is immune from the gravitational forces that pulled the iron together to form planets. That isn't even logical."

Michael it is wholly logical.
You appeared to get upset when I suggested you were ignorant. That is a puzzling reaction for a scientist. We are all ignorant. As individuals we are ignorant of most of what we know as a species. As a species we are ignorant of most of what is to be known. Did you somehow avoid this condition?

If you had FIRST put up a gas model explanation for one or more of my observations, and THEN tried to use that explanation to demonstrate my ignorance, I would not have a problem. Calling me ignorant, without a valid way to compare models, and without giving me anys sort of explanation whatsoever hardly seems fair or helpful.

Again, here, you appear to be ignorant. It is the only available explnation since you have assured me you are not a liar, and I readily accept your word for that.

One of the two of us is more "ignorant" than the other as it relates to this particular subject. Which of the two of is more ingornant on this topic remains to be seen.

Here is why my contention (which I agree suffers from the weakness that it matches the view of the vast majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, planetologists, geologists, geochemists and geophysicists on the planet) is logical.
The composition of the interstellar cloud from which the sun and solar system are believed to have formed is predominantly hydrogen and helium. Iron is a significant minor constituent.

The key phrase in that explanation is "believed to have". The gas model is predicated on the concept of a Big Bang that turned all energy into subatomic particles. That is a statement of faith, not a proven fact. There is in fact evidence now of plentiful amounts of iron that goes back as far as we can see. There is no evidence that iron has ever been in short supply.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html

When the planets condensed, first into dust , then fragments, pebbles, planetesimals etc, they did so under the influence of the temperature gradient that existed in the solar nebula.
Consequently only the high temperature minerals and elements condensed in the inner solar system: hence the inner planets had a high proportion of iron. The hydrogen and helium and lighter components were blown away as the sun exited its T-Tauri stage.

This is all a nice theory and all, but how do you know it's true, and what possible mechanism allows the solar system to separate itself into light and heavy dust clouds before forming suns and planet? Listen to what you are suggesting. I'm saying all the bodies are of similar content. You are trying to suggest one of them is VASTLY (not just a little) but VASTLY different in composition than any other body that is next to it. That sure sounds like a case of special pleading to me. What makes it unique from other bodies that formed from supernova remnants?

I'm saying "duck, duck, duck, duck, duck". Your trying to suggest "duck, duck, duck, duck, goose" without explaining how gravity is so picky about how it separates elements.

The gross distribution of elements in the sun and the rest of the solar system is very well explained by this model. It is wholly logical.
Either you are ignorant of this model, or you have found some fatal flaw in it. If the latter please explain what this flaw is.

I'm glad you asked. There are three actually I can think of off the top of my head. The first links kick out the pillar of the gas model that tries to suggest that only hydrogen formed from a purely subatomic interaction at 0,0,0,0. There is no evidence such a precise focus of energy ever took place to begin with.

The second pillar of the gas model is it's assertion that you can look only at photons recieved and somehow decide not only which atoms are present (which I have no problem with), but erroneously asserts that abundance measurements of element can be determined without first having some idea of how the elements are arranged or how heat flows, or anything at all about the obect in question.

The third obvious thing that comes to mind is the lack of acceptace of the flow of electrical current through these arcs that light up like Christmas trees. I can provide more if you like.

I look forward to a response that is not couched in the same openly hostile terms as your previous two.

I'll tell you what. I'm sorry if I came off hostile the first go round. Let's try this again without all the emotion and stay focused on the science. I'll bookmark this forum this time so I do not forget to respond the next time. Thank you for emailing me to remind me of our conversation.

Michael, thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. I want to provide detailed responses to each of your points. Since astronomy is a hobby and not a vocation for me I want to research each point carefully. (For one thing that should let us focus on the meat of the differences of our two viewpoints.) This may take a couple of days. Please bear with me.

The single point I shall address immediately, since it is non-technical, is to answer these questions:
"Why am I the only one on trial here? What does this information have to do with me personally?"
You are not on trial, but your ideas are. All scientific ideas are constantly on trial: certainly yours can be no exception.
However the character of your ideas mean that they will be subject to an especially arduous trial. Again, this is the scientific method. Today, when a metamorphic petrologist examines a gneiss he does so with a view to elucidating the history of the mountain chain at whose heart it lies. She need not spend time proving the processes by which this gneiss was formed. Her predecessor a century and a half ago would, however, have been engaged in an acromonious debate on this very point.
Novel ideas, ideas that flout accepted wisdom, require substantial evidence to support them. I do not say that accepted wisdom is correct, only that if it is to be replaced we need to be very sure we are replacing it with a more robust structure. The onus of that proof lies with those proposing the radical idea. It is not up to 'the establishment' to continually defend their position, for it has been painfully arrived at over years and decades.
That said I shall defend 'acce[ted wisdom' as far as I am able, and as far as it is consistent with the facts. If the facts demonstrate that your notions have credibility you will find me one of your most ardent supporters.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Michael, thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. I want to provide detailed responses to each of your points. Since astronomy is a hobby and not a vocation for me I want to research each point carefully. (For one thing that should let us focus on the meat of the differences of our two viewpoints.) This may take a couple of days. Please bear with me.

Take your time. I missed that last response by weeks.

The single point I shall address immediately, since it is non-technical, is to answer these questions:
"Why am I the only one on trial here? What does this information have to do with me personally?"
You are not on trial, but your ideas are. All scientific ideas are constantly on trial: certainly yours can be no exception.
However the character of your ideas mean that they will be subject to an especially arduous trial. Again, this is the scientific method.

As long as you make some attempt to explain these observations using some other method, preferebly using a method that is more to your liking, I have no problem then "comparing" models and seeing how well each model and idea hold up to real world scrutiny with real world observation. I think you'll find this model holds up well to observational data, and these satellite observations cause *very* perplexing problems for the gas model in particular. I think you'll discover that the first time you try to explain any of the pages of my website using a gas model.

Today, when a metamorphic petrologist examines a gneiss he does so with a view to elucidating the history of the mountain chain at whose heart it lies. She need not spend time proving the processes by which this gneiss was formed. Her predecessor a century and a half ago would, however, have been engaged in an acromonious debate on this very point.
Novel ideas, ideas that flout accepted wisdom, require substantial evidence to support them. I do not say that accepted wisdom is correct, only that if it is to be replaced we need to be very sure we are replacing it with a more robust structure. The onus of that proof lies with those proposing the radical idea. It is not up to 'the establishment' to continually defend their position, for it has been painfully arrived at over years and decades.
That said I shall defend 'acce[ted wisdom' as far as I am able, and as far as it is consistent with the facts. If the facts demonstrate that your notions have credibility you will find me one of your most ardent supporters.

I believe from your responses and the thoughtful nature of your responses that you are sincere. I appreciate that. I will answer any and every question you put to me that I can answer. Keep on mind that few folks can answer every detail about every aspect of the gas model, but I can at least defend this model very well, even if it has not had the benefit of thousands of researchers working on it for the past hundred years. Even still, this model is based on pure observation so I will be able to explain every image on my website, and I think you'll find that many of my observations cast a serious doubt on the validity of the gas model. As long as you and I both keep an open mind and level head, I'm sure we will work through whatever current disagrements they have.

I will say right now that I believe that it is a strength not a weakness to change one's mind based on rational thought and rational arguement. I will listen and consider every scientific point you make. I trust you will afford me the same courtesy and that we'll both keep an open mind about this issue. I certain will. I know how "inreadible" it all sounds at first glance, believe me.

Originally Posted by superluminal

Originally Posted by wallaby

that makes me... incredibly stupid.

some how i have confused my self but the origional point i was driving at was, the sun has no solid surface.

Stupid? Why? The sun is a complex thing. There's no solid surface because visual and spectroscopic observations show that it is a gas.

First of all, the VISUAL evidence suggests it has a solid layer. If you disagree, pick a page from my website and explain it with gas model principles. You'll see what I mean.

Secondly, it's not nearly as complex and gas model theorists would have you believe. Dr. Kristian Birkeland figured out most of the basics about 100 years ago.

Spectral analysis cannot be used to suggest that anything is a gas. Spetral analysis makes no prediction about how things are 'put together' which is why it is not a fully reliable method as it relates to relates to determining ABUNDANCE of elements, though it is very effective as determing the PRESENSE of elements.

There is no solid in the mid layers because the only model that supports the energy transport that we observe, is a gas.

That is a false statement. The 'energy transport' that we actually observe at the surface is electrical in nature and the gas model fails to even explain cause of these emissions very well.

There is no solid or liquid core since the only way fusion can occur is in a plasma.

You don't even know that fusion is even involved. That is a THEORY, not observational fact.

Helioseismology supports these ideas and observations.

No, actually it doesn't, it supports my model. Helioseismology suggests that the surface of the sun exists at 4800km below the surface of the photosphere where the sound waves run into the surface.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm

Why does the sun change density and/or heat so radically at 4800km?

the sun is very hot.
the gas is Ionized, we call this type of gas Plasma.
the extreame temperature and high density state of the plasma compresses this gas.

compresed gas that is dense may appear solid i suppose but it still remains as a gas because it lacks the complex bonding we find with a solid or liquid.

lets not forget that it is made primarily of hydrogen, helium. which are gasses in case you forgot

Originally Posted by wallaby

lets not forget that it is made primarily of hydrogen, helium. which are gasses in case you forgot

Remember this is only true for a certain range of temperatures and pressures. I am not up on current theories regarding the internal structure of Jupiter, but at one time it was thought to have an extensive liquid hydrogen region and possibly a solid hydrogen core.

Originally Posted by wallaby

the sun is very hot.
the gas is Ionized, we call this type of gas Plasma.
the extreame temperature and high density state of the plasma compresses this gas.

compresed gas that is dense may appear solid i suppose but it still remains as a gas because it lacks the complex bonding we find with a solid or liquid.

lets not forget that it is made primarily of hydrogen, helium. which are gasses in case you forgot

I did not forget. The 'assumption' that the sun is primarily made of hydrogen and helium is based on the idea that you can count photons to determine actual composition.

The analogy I would use here to show the limitation of this method of determining solar abundance is this:

At night we see a distant light on the ocean. We examine the photons that arrive via spectral analyis. Having come from a bulb on a boat, we see that it has tungstun. By your logic we conclude the object in question is made of tungstun. All you see in spectral analys is what elements exist, not their relative elemental abundances.

There are other and more valid ways of determining solar composition. My personal favorite is nuclear chemistry:

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

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by wallaby

lets not forget that it is made primarily of hydrogen, helium. which are gasses in case you forgot

Remember this is only true for a certain range of temperatures and pressures. I am not up on current theories regarding the internal structure of Jupiter, but at one time it was thought to have an extensive liquid hydrogen region and possibly a solid hydrogen core.

This whole "method" of dermining elemental abundances from photons recieved is itself a dubious way to calculate relative abundances of elements. If the hydrogen is hot, it will emit more photon than relatively cool iron. There is no way to count photons and suggest this tells the actual elemental abundance levels without first understanding the heat distribution of the object in question. That is particularly true for something as hot as the sun. I grant you that hydrogen atoms are hot on the sun and release a lot more photons than the cooler iron layer. That does not mean there is more hydrogen than iron, only that the hydrogen emits more photons than the iron.

FYI- I've updated the website to include links to the field of heliosiesmology that suggest that a transitional layer sits at about 4800km below the surface of the photosphere. That is same surface that Lockheed is imaging using the Trace satellite.

Michael, I've gone back over your posts and mine a number of times and frankly I don't know where to begin. You appear not only to be disregarding a century or two of solar observation, but discarding some pretty well established methodologies. I know you would like me to consider your observations and I want to get round to them, but......

A couple of weeks ago you said: This whole "method" of dermining elemental abundances from photons recieved is itself a dubious way to calculate relative abundances of elements.
I believe you are serious in this statement which I find staggering, bewildering and several other adjectival modifiers. I'd like to put that one out of the way first:

Quantitative spectroscopy is a standard technique that has evolved over a period of more than one hundred years. Please define specifically what is dubious about it. We use, without problem, variations of the technique in scores of different commercial, industrial and medical applications without the hint of a problem. Your suggestion that the temperature can effect the results is spurious, since the spectrum contains the 'fingerprint' of the temperature it derived in.
Do you stand by your statement, and if so, why?

Michael, I've gone back over your posts and mine a number of times and frankly I don't know where to begin. You appear not only to be disregarding a century or two of solar observation, but discarding some pretty well established methodologies. I know you would like me to consider your observations and I want to get round to them, but......

Actually, I'd say that you are overlooking a century's worth of work by Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel.

A couple of weeks ago you said: This whole "method" of dermining elemental abundances from photons recieved is itself a dubious way to calculate relative abundances of elements.
I believe you are serious in this statement which I find staggering, bewildering and several other adjectival modifiers. I'd like to put that one out of the way first:

Quantitative spectroscopy is a standard technique that has evolved over a period of more than one hundred years. Please define specifically what is dubious about it. We use, without problem, variations of the technique in scores of different commercial, industrial and medical applications without the hint of a problem. Your suggestion that the temperature can effect the results is spurious, since the spectrum contains the 'fingerprint' of the temperature it derived in.
Do you stand by your statement, and if so, why?

Start with the data from the SERTS program. Why are the spectral numbers different between a whole sun view and a limb line view? Why do the iron ions increase over ten fold in the limb lines?

http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/qs_lines_1991.txt
http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/limb_lines_1991.txt

Here is how solar abundances SHOULD be determined IMO:
http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

I'm studying the data now. May take a while. I have to go back a few decades in my educational memory.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I'm studying the data now. May take a while. I have to go back a few decades in my educational memory.

That is fine, take your time. There is a distinct difference between the spectral output of limb lines vs. the whole sun. When you understand why there is nearly ten times the abundance of iron ions in limb lines, you'll start to understand the nature of my discomfort with the way gas model theorists try to link the number of photons counted with atomic abundance.

IMO Dr Manuel's approach is much more comprehensive and more logical as it relates to solar system formation theory. More specifically however, it is a method of analysis and that is based on a strong understanding of nuclear chemistry.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I believe that I have put together a very convincing arguement based on images and video from the SOHO, TRACE, and YOHKOH satellites to demonstrate that there is a solid surface to the sun.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

I have built a solid surface model and explained many aspects of the sun's behaviors that have so far eluded explanation using the standard gas model of the sun.

I am serious about this and have put in a great deal of time effort to bring evidence to demonstrate my case. I would appreciate any serious scientific feedback or refutation, but please refrain from arguement by ridicule without at least first reading my website thuroughly and completely.

Fasinating......but do you seriously expect scientific feedback on something this specialized on a forum like this? Well I can offer some comments and questions.

What I cannot figure out is how iron, which has a melting point of 1811 K, can be solid on a surface which is 5600 K since the pressure should be fairly low at the surface also.

These observations may indicate a high iron content, though I would expect a spectral confirmation of this, and the observations may indicate static structural features, but considering the temperature and pressure a dynamic structure seems like a much more likely explanation to me.

I hope you realize that the sun cannot possibly be solid iron. The average density is only slightly higher than water. This is measurable. Are you suggesting an iron shell propped up by the intenal pressure? A shell of any thickness would leave almost no mass left over for the center of the sun. Considering the temperature and pressure again this means a layer of iron floating on a sea of hydrogen of a much lower density. It defies common sense which would expect the density of iron to increase towards the center of the sun not towards its surface, which would mean only a trace of iron on the surface.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Fasinating......but do you seriously expect scientific feedback on something this specialized on a forum like this? Well I can offer some comments and questions.

It seems you just answered your own question (I think).

What I cannot figure out is how iron, which has a melting point of 1811 K, can be solid on a surface which is 5600 K since the pressure should be fairly low at the surface also.

During sunspot activity, we see temperatures in the 3800K degree range. This plasma has already been heated which is why it is rising through the penumbral filament layer. The actual temperature under the penumbral filamenants is closer to 2000K IMO.

These observations may indicate a high iron content, though I would expect a spectral confirmation of this, and the observations may indicate static structural features, but considering the temperature and pressure a dynamic structure seems like a much more likely explanation to me.

The structure isn't all that dynamic, at least not in relationship to the dynamic changes we see in the photosphere. Care to explain those running difference images and what causes this "structure" to exist for days on end?

I hope you realize that the sun cannot possibly be solid iron.

I did not suggest it was. I can really only see what is on the outside of the crust, not what is inside.

The average density is only slightly higher than water. This is measurable. Are you suggesting an iron shell propped up by the intenal pressure? A shell of any thickness would leave almost no mass left over for the center of the sun. Considering the temperature and pressure again this means a layer of iron floating on a sea of hydrogen of a much lower density. It defies common sense which would expect the density of iron to increase towards the center of the sun not towards its surface, which would mean only a trace of iron on the surface.

That really depends on how you choose to compute "average density" and whether or not you include any movement of the universe itself into such calculations. There is also a density/temperature/pressure issue here to consider.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The structure isn't all that dynamic, at least not in relationship to the dynamic changes we see in the photosphere. Care to explain those running difference images and what causes this "structure" to exist for days on end?

The "dynamic" in dynamic structure does not mean that it is not unchanging. It means that something can be entirely fluid with its material constituents in constant motion and yet have an unchanging structural character. The far from equillibrium environment of the sun's surface (with a constant outward flow of energy) is the exactly the kind of environment where you would expect to see dynamic structure. One of the most famous astronomical examples of a dynamic structure is the red spot on Jupiter. Other examples include the twisted shape of a turbulent flow of water from a faucet. Even the human body is a kind of dynamic struture as its material is constant replaced in the metabolic process.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That really depends on how you choose to compute "average density" and whether or not you include any movement of the universe itself into such calculations. There is also a density/temperature/pressure issue here to consider.

It is a very simple calculation that any high school student can perform. The orbit of any of the planets, just the motion (the mass of the planet does not matter), allows you to calculate the mass of the sun. You divide that by the volume of a sphere and you get 1.4 times the density of water. The conclusion by most scientists is that the sun has a very dense core which supports a fusion reaction that creates an outward pressure that keeps the sun from collapsing to something the size of the earth (like a white dwarf). The results of the hydrostatic equations which model the way the current radius of the sun is maintained, is that the density at the surface (photosphere) is very low (.0004 times that of water).

More questions: Your running difference photos cannot show constancy in time, for that we would need several time separated pictures. Do you have them? How do you know that what you are detecting is physical structure and not things like magnetic or eletrical fields?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The "dynamic" in dynamic structure does not mean that it is not unchanging. It means that something can be entirely fluid with its material constituents in constant motion and yet have an unchanging structural character. The far from equillibrium environment of the sun's surface (with a constant outward flow of energy) is the exactly the kind of environment where you would expect to see dynamic structure. One of the most famous astronomical examples of a dynamic structure is the red spot on Jupiter. Other examples include the twisted shape of a turbulent flow of water from a faucet. Even the human body is a kind of dynamic struture as its material is constant replaced in the metabolic process.

You didn't really address the question. Start with the first image on my website. What is the structure seen in that image? What is the light source? Why are thos structure visible for days and why do they rotate uniformly from pole to equator. We see the plasma of the photoshere rotate differently than this transitional layer, and we find all kind of "structure" in this layer that is unique to this layer.

It is a very simple calculation that any high school student can perform.

It is a very simple calculation to perform if you pretend we live in a heliocentric world. The moment you consider other Z axis movement planes, it's not quite as "simple" as you make it sound.

The orbit of any of the planets, just the motion (the mass of the planet does not matter), allows you to calculate the mass of the sun. You divide that by the volume of a sphere and you get 1.4 times the density of water. The conclusion by most scientists is that the sun has a very dense core which supports a fusion reaction that creates an outward pressure that keeps the sun from collapsing to something the size of the earth (like a white dwarf). The results of the hydrostatic equations which model the way the current radius of the sun is maintained, is that the density at the surface (photosphere) is very low (.0004 times that of water).

Only if you figure our sun is the center of the universe and doesn't move. Where is any consideration for any kind of Z axis movement in these calculations?

More questions: Your running difference photos cannot show constancy in time, for that we would need several time separated pictures. Do you have them? How do you know that what you are detecting is physical structure and not things like magnetic or eletrical fields?

Maybe you should actually read my website and start with the running difference page. I put together a movie of SOHO running difference images over a period of 8 solid days. There is a growing body of evidence that stratification takes place about 4800Km below the surface of the photosphere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Recent Heliosiesmology evidence confirms the existence of a "stratified layer" that sits just under the surface of the photosphere and is centered around .99R. This layer changes with the solar cycle.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Dr. Oliver Manuel has also written a new paper and has included some of the running difference images that give visual confirmation of a stratified layer that is predominantly made of iron that sits just under the visible photosphere.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

Interesting. I wonder if the thought there is the sun synthesized this iron from simpler elements or that something was just absorbed into the sun and was too durable to decompose.

There's a lot of information here. And I've looked over a lot of it, but I'm going to have to clarify something because this may be a language issue.

Do you mean it has a solid surface as in the sun really isn't what we define as a star (big ball of gas) and it is somehow just some very large object that seems to be seriously preoccupied with nuclear fusion? Or do you mean that these big balls of gas have solid surfaces?

I think the second question depends on how you define solid. Do you mean it in like an organized/crystalline arrangement of molecules that forms a body?

The way I've always seen it you have all of this gas that pulls itself together through gravity until it becomes a super dense object, but not a solid. It may appear to be so. If you can take the heat and the gravity, I'm not saying that with the sun being just gas that you couldn't walk on it, it's incredibly dense.

As a side note, for all of you sun explorers, if you need a reason to party on Friday, SOHO turns 10.

Originally Posted by silkworm

Interesting. I wonder if the thought there is the sun synthesized this iron from simpler elements or that something was just absorbed into the sun and was too durable to decompose.

I'm of the impression it's probably the latter more than the former.

Do you mean it has a solid surface as in the sun really isn't what we define as a star (big ball of gas) and it is somehow just some very large object that seems to be seriously preoccupied with nuclear fusion? Or do you mean that these big balls of gas have solid surfaces?

I mean to suggest that the sun is not mostly hydrogen, but rather it is mostly made of iron and has a "crust" just like all the inner planets.

I think the second question depends on how you define solid. Do you mean it in like an organized/crystalline arrangement of molecules that forms a body?

I'm using the term "solid" in a scientific sense. I believe these surface features are true solids, as opposed to liquids, gases or plasmas.

The way I've always seen it you have all of this gas that pulls itself together through gravity until it becomes a super dense object, but not a solid. It may appear to be so. If you can take the heat and the gravity, I'm not saying that with the sun being just gas that you couldn't walk on it, it's incredibly dense.

That is in fact the currently accepted "theory" about the sun, but the stratification we find at such a shallow depth is not predicted by any gas model theory. The only question here is does something solid exist beneath the visible photosphere. I say yes, whereas a gas model theory says no. Then again, gas model theorists seem very reluctant to even attempt to explain the stratified layer seen in heliosiesmology at .995R, or just under the visible photosphere.

As a side note, for all of you sun explorers, if you need a reason to part on Friday, SOHO turns 10.

Happy Birthday SOHO! Just remember that in scientific terms, a decade is a very short period of time. It's exactly these kinds of technologies that make it possible to achieve scientific progress.

Michael,

I'm using the term "solid" in a scientific sense. I believe these surface features are true solids, as opposed to liquids, gases or plasmas.

What I was trying to imply here is that things can appear to be solid without actually being a solid. My thought is that there is so much pressure from gravity at the center of the sun that it could seem to have a crust, but just because something is hard doesn't make it a solid. I'm not trying to get philosophical here, I'm just trying to explain that something has to be "frozen" in order for it to be solid in a scientific sense. Do you know what I mean?

I haven't had much time to thoroughly go through this post with all of the links and everything. I'm in finals and I have 8 huge tests in 2 weeks but I wanted to throw the term "nucleosynthesis" out there in case you haven't heard it.

Originally Posted by silkworm

Michael,

What I was trying to imply here is that things can appear to be solid without actually being a solid. My thought is that there is so much pressure from gravity at the center of the sun that it could seem to have a crust, but just because something is hard doesn't make it a solid. I'm not trying to get philosophical here, I'm just trying to explain that something has to be "frozen" in order for it to be solid in a scientific sense. Do you know what I mean?

Yes, I understand exactly what you mean. Dr. Manuel and I had a similar discussion about the use of the term "rigid" rather than solid to allow for "something else" to cause all this structure, but the most logical and simple method to explain such structure is to simply accept it as a solid surface. It could in fact be "rigid" plasma of some sort, but then you are stuck trying to explain how plasma is "rigid" for days and weeks at a stretch.

I haven't had much time to thoroughly go through this post with all of the links and everything. I'm in finals and I have 8 huge tests in 2 weeks but I wanted to throw the term "nucleosynthesis" out there in case you haven't heard it.

The primary reasons I believe the surface to be solid is that A) it retains it shapes and structures for very long periods of time and these structures rotate uniformly from pole to equate, and B) because I can "see" electrical arcs coming from this "surface structure". It is easy to explain electrical arcs from solids. It's not nearly as simple to explain how we get such behavior out of 'rigid' plasma.