PDA

View Full Version : Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen



Pages : [1] 2

ToSeek
2002-Jan-09, 03:01 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109075137.htm

Any comments from those more knowledgeable than me?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-01-09 11:36 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Jan-09, 03:07 PM
Hm.. I guess it isn't impossible...

When I was taking cosmology, the prof gave us the four equations that can be solved to give the interior conditions of a star... Pressure, temperature, gravity, um...mumble... something else... (It's been a while, and I was a maths student...) If the sun had a solid, non-fusing core, the equations would have a different solution, and (in theory) the sun would have different characteristics...

Also, since the sun is, to most appearances, a fairly ordinary, if somewhat brightish, star -- wouldn't the same origin be necessary for all G0 stars?

Heavily dubious...

Silas

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-09, 04:01 PM
That news release says that he has been trying to convince others of that hypothesis for forty years. The evidence for it can't be too strong--maybe the latest is stronger?

Bob S.
2002-Jan-09, 04:14 PM
Some of his theory isn't really new. Now, is it or is it not true that heavier elements are cooked up in the cores of larger stars and get scattered to the cosmos when those same stars explode? So naturally one could assume that our solar system with its abundance of heavy elements (relative to what? I don't know) came from the dusty remains of an ancient supernova.

What bucks intuition is the implication that our sun then formed around the remaining supernova core. Afterall, aren't the remnant cores of supernova also supermassive, many times the mass of our sun? Aren't they spinning neutron stars, and any mass falling on them would be crushed also to neutron density? Or am I missing something?

Silas
2002-Jan-09, 06:23 PM
On 2002-01-09 11:14, Bob S. wrote:
Some of his theory isn't really new. Now, is it or is it not true that heavier elements are cooked up in the cores of larger stars and get scattered to the cosmos when those same stars explode? So naturally one could assume that our solar system with its abundance of heavy elements (relative to what? I don't know) came from the dusty remains of an ancient supernova.

What bucks intuition is the implication that our sun then formed around the remaining supernova core. Afterall, aren't the remnant cores of supernova also supermassive, many times the mass of our sun? Aren't they spinning neutron stars, and any mass falling on them would be crushed also to neutron density? Or am I missing something?



I'd have to hope that he's only talking about iron that originally came from a supernova core, scattered to the nine winds, and gravitationally clumped along with all the other star stuff when our sun began to form...

If one phrases it "weakly," sure, it makes sense: the gases in space are richer in iron, now, than 12 billion years ago, and thus newer stars have more iron in 'em than old ones did.

(Just as babies born today have radioactive strontium and cobalt and uranium atoms in 'em because of bomb tests, whereas babies born in 1940 didn't have 'em...)

If *that's* all the guy is saying, then it's old news... So I 'spect he's got a lot more in his bonnet...

Silas

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-09, 07:33 PM
No, he thinks the Sun is mostly iron.

I have many, many problems with this theory. One involves formation: does every star form this way? That implies billions of supernovae, and also brings uip a chicken-and-egg problem; how did the first stars form?

If the Sun is special, why? And why does it look spectrally just like a lot of other GV stars in our neighborhood?

I have not read his paper in detail, but he makes a point of there being too few neutrinoes from the Sun. This is an old problem, and may very well be solved with neutrinoes having mass (they change flavor on thier way from there to here, so we don't detect 2/3 of the ones created int he solar core). And how does his model produce the neutrinoes we do see?

I have been to some, um, alternative talks at AAS meetings (where this was announced) and I am quite sure others brought up these and similar points. I doubt that will make a press release though.

frenchy
2002-Jan-09, 08:45 PM
The BA's points have been made and many others have been repeated many many times to the person in question.

He doesn't have a working model for his Iron-Sun, only a basic idea, a disputed interpretation of isotopic ratios, hand waving and back of the enveloppe type arguments. I personally give no credence to his idea until he actually gives quantitative predictions for helioseismology and abundance evolution in the Sun and the solar system.

As far as the Sun being a nearly unique object in the Universe, why not? But then again why? A few isotopic ratios are not convincing when the rest of astrophysics argues against his idea.

Bob S.
2002-Jan-10, 03:23 PM
No, he thinks the Sun is mostly iron.

I have many, many problems with this theory. One involves formation: does every star form this way? That implies billions of supernovae, and also brings uip a chicken-and-egg problem; how did the first stars form?

I guess the implication would be that only stars with rocky inner planets would be formed this way. Stars without planets or stars with inner gas giants would form by the standard model.

I don't have so much of a problem with the idea that buried deep within the heart of the sun is a core of solid iron plasma. (Wouldn't heavier elements sink to the core of the sun just as they do on other worlds?) And we may never see it or detect it because we can only see the outer shell. But the author suggesting that the main source of heat of the sun comes from gravitaitonal compression of this iron core (like what powers the fires deep within our own world) is a bit of a stretch.
I guess that's why it's here in "Against the Mainstream". eh? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-10, 03:36 PM
It's interesting to note that one of the first scientific theories of the sun's composition was that it was a ball of iron glowing white-hot due to gravitational compression.

That theory was abandoned in stages; first, because it wouldn't stay hot long enough for the 5 billion year age of the Earth (as deduced from the ages of the oldest rocks); second, spectroscopy showed the sun's light was primarily from ionized hydrogen, with a dash of helium; and third, our understanding of thermonuclear reactions provided an abundant source of energy that would last over geologic time.

I don't think the discrepancies in the current model of solar functioning are large enough to suggest such a radical reinterpretation.

One silly question: if the planets are made from detritus ejected by a supernova, what made it stop so close to the sun? Why isn't it all rushing madly away from the supernova remnant at ludicrouspeed?

Russ
2002-Jan-10, 03:59 PM
I'll take a stab at some serious thoughts here. (adjusts glasses, ahem)

While I'll grant to Dr. Manuel there is a "small" ball of Iron at/near the core of the Sun, I find it highly doubtful that it is a major component.

If the Sun were infact mostly iron I think it would show up in the mass-to-volume (density) ratio. Per my "baby astronomy" class in college, the density of the Sun is consistant with a compsition of 99.XXXX% hydrogen.

Does anybody know if it is possible to calculate if it is possible for the Sun to look/behave as it does, having a mass that is (arbitrarily selected) 51% Iron? I select 51% because it is the minimum whole percentage that permits the Sun to be "mostly iron" as Manuel claims.

I have no scientific calculations to support this but my sense of the "Force" is that the answer is no. An iron ball with 51% the mass of the Sun would have a huge surface gravity and would cause the Hydrogen layers to fuse faster and, therefore, release more energy than is currently observed.

Anybody have any better thoughts?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-10, 04:01 PM
One silly question: if the planets are made from detritus ejected by a supernova, what made it stop so close to the sun? Why isn't it all rushing madly away from the supernova remnant at ludicrouspeed?


That's not silly at all! Remember, though, that the first extrasolar planets discovered were around a pulsar, a supernova remnant.

Not all of the star blows outward; there can be a "stalled" part that can recollapse onto the remaining remnant (neutron star). Some theorists think this material can be enough to further collapse the neutron star into a black hole! But there is evidently (literally) enough material that does not escape to form planets in some cases.

Not that I am advocating this guy's theory. I just want to note that some objections to it don't really apply. There are already enough problems with his theory!

frenchy
2002-Jan-10, 05:37 PM
Although I agree there is evidence for the possibility of planetary formation after a SN Dr Manuel's idea as he states it requires that the matter from which the planets form are chemically differentiated, i.e. heavy elements near the SN remnant (the proto-Sun) and lighter elements on the edge (to allow the formation of giant planets). AFAIK there is no evidence for this.

On a similar topic, he argues that the Sun was also formed as a chemically differentiated object and not homogeneous as is generally assumed based on our coarse understanding of star formation.

As far as the iron core goes, helioseismology constrains the temperature in the core to better than 1%. The PP reaction rate has a quoted uncertainty of a few percent (5% max if memory serves). If one screws with the chemical composition of the core, one cannot reproduce the seismic Sun. One then has to postulate other wierd stuff such as unforeseen physics dealing with opacity, equation of state or nuclear reactions. While not impossible, it seems improbable. And the more recent solar neutrinos results from SNO would confirm our current understanding of solar physics.

One other point, non-standard models of the Sun can be made for the current Sun. That isn't too hard, just tweak the structure a little and correct the sound speed with other tweaks and so on. The trick is to have the non-standard models agree with the current Sun after 4.6 billion years of evolution when the non-standard physics has a good chance of changing the way the Sun evolves (wrt standard models).

Emperor
2002-Jan-10, 05:58 PM
This is not my theory but in the book I am presently reading the author mentions that all stars have cold cores .
He notes that the super giants such as Betelgeux and Antares contradict present theories of star formation because these stars having huge masses somehow did not adhere to the effects of gravity whereby a star such as our sun accumulated its mass and when its supposedly nuclear core ignited then it pushed away the remaining debri to later form our planets .This then he states must mean that gravity has an ignition limit, that is to say that no matter how slow or fast a proto star forms then the pressure is built up to the same point of ignition hence this means that the two huge stars mentioned above accumulated their mass contradictive to gravity and its effects , how then could these two stars acquire their masses ! .

I tend to agree with the author that we presently observe that all things burn from the outside inwards so his theory that stars have cold cores seems feasible to me that the two mentioned stars are not two bloated super giants but just two huge stars whos ignition burning from the outside inwards is only at the molten stage and is then the reason why these stars are red , but hey you make your own mind up or read the book because I am open to all kinds of open minded views and find this alternative theory feasible and I tend to agree in parts or should I say it opens up new areas to investigate .

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-10, 06:03 PM
Emporer, please post the name of the book and its author. I'm curious.

frenchy
2002-Jan-10, 07:03 PM
It's true that in most cases one only has direct observations of the surface of stars.
In the Sun however, one has meutrino emission which is emitted directly in the core and which might be held has evidence for a cool, but not cold, central core. Helioseismology is also a fairly direct 'observation' of the solar interior. It is an interpretation of surface observations but the theory is fairly straightforward.

The seismology of other stars is also can also be considered in the same way and more and more stars are studied that way and nothing exceptionally surprising has been found so far.

Finally, looking at many stars in clusters enables us to test fairly accurately stellar models as we compare stars of different mass and evolutionary stages but same age and initial chemical composition.

All the evidence so far points to the fact that our models of stellar structure and evolution are pretty good. I know of no alternative model which even attempts to reproduce the wealth of observations that standard models do.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jan-10, 07:04 PM
On 2002-01-10 13:03, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Emporer, please post the name of the book and its author. I'm curious.


Bad Bad Astronomer, Phil! You mispelt his name!

The (spelling police 'r us) Curtmudgeon

Emperor
2002-Jan-10, 07:07 PM
[quote]
On 2002-01-10 13:03, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Emporer, please post the name of the book and its author. I'm curious.

Sure but I did provide the link to its introduction to emphasize a point it makes . its at http://www.spaceskeptic.com/ebook/ebook.php it also turns out that their are two site links one being http://www.spaceskeptic.com and http://www.spaceskeptic.co.uk . Have been trying to get back on the site and could only find it through http://www.google.com .

Have tried sending the author a message but their is no link or address except through a private message on the forums , perhaps you may have more luck than me , I registered as starman because I believe I have had contact with the author on another site .

Mnemonia
2002-Jan-10, 07:51 PM
"We think that the solar system came from a single star, and the sun formed on a collapsed supernova core," Manuel says. "The inner planets are made mostly of matter produced in the inner part of that star, and the outer planets of material form the outer layers of that star."


This fails to explain Kuiper belt objects and the Oort cloud, where most of the solar system's non-gaseous mass is located if you don't count the Sun.



Analyses of meteorites reveal that all primordial helium is accompanied by "strange xenon," he says, adding that both helium and strange xenon came from the outer layer of the supernova that created the solar system.


I don't see how "strange xenon" could not be formed by a nearby supernova. There seems to be no direct evidence that our own Sun was the producer.

Of course he could be right, but it sounds to me like he wishes the Sun was more unique than it probably really is.

Hat Monster
2002-Jan-12, 09:46 PM
And, of course, it would be a real pain to form gas giants, let alone four of them, under the conditions he thinks formed the Sun.

Peter B
2002-Jan-13, 09:24 AM
Emperor, is that book you mention the one by a certain J Reyes? The J Reyes who apparently is also known as Emperor (as pointed out by DStahl)?

Argos
2002-Jan-17, 12:03 AM
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-01-16 19:14 ]</font>

NottyImp
2002-Jan-17, 10:33 AM
"If the Sun is special, why?"

I suppose you could use a version of the Anthropic Principle here. If iron-rich stars are the ones most likely to form rocky inner planets (as opposed to close orbit gas-giants), then given our current understanding, they're the ones most likely to have life in the system able to observe them. Self-selecting really. Just a thought.

flamethrower
2002-Jan-20, 03:50 AM
"We think that the solar system came from a single star, and the sun formed on a collapsed supernova core," Manuel says.

I can agreeably imagine a slow moving neutron star emmersed in a dense molecular cloud for example, an extended period of time accreting enough material onto itself to become the core of a new star.

I wonder how a necessarily >.88 solar mass neutron star by accretion can, at one solar mass, sustain nuclear fusion reactions for the ~4.5 Billion years of our sun's apparent age, let alone its entire 8 Billion-year history as it evolves off the main sequence toward a cold death.

And shouldn't helio-seismology be able to find such a massive solid at the sun's core in the same way as terrestrial seismology observes the effects of Earth's iron core on propagation of seismic waves across the interior?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: flamethrower on 2002-01-19 22:52 ]</font>

lpetrich
2002-Jan-20, 09:42 AM
All stars have cold cores? That's news to anyone who has ever studied stellar structure.

Everything burning from the outside inward? Stellar-structure calculations predict the exact opposite -- nuclear "burning" starts at the center, which is the hottest and most compressed part, and proceeds outward.

Also, the Sun has been shining for something like 4.6 billion years at approximately constant luminosity, which is consistent with continued nuclear reactions, but not with gravitational collapse.

As to massive stars like Betelgeuse and Antares being too massive, my understanding is that there is such an upper mass limit, but that it is something like 60 to 100 solar masses, above the masses of B and A.

snowflakeuniverse
2003-Dec-03, 04:25 PM
Stars with a Heart of Iron. Pg 25 December 2 2003

Early in the evolution of the universe, the lightest of elements are formed in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. The heavier elements are formed within the cores of stars, with the heaviest elements forged from the crucible of exploding stars. The standard model asserts that these heavy elements could only form after the universe was billions of years old, as the result of a heavy star living out its entire life. According to the proposed uniform expansion of space theory, the effect of gravity is so intense near the beginning of time that the entire lifetime of a star could be over in the first million years of the universe’s existence.

The proposed theory addresses one of the concerns that The Bad Astronomer had regarding the Iron core theory proposed by Professor O.K Manuel. A more current link to the professor Manuel’s work is web.umr.edu/~om

The following topics are mentioned in this posting
1. A brief amateur explanation of Professor O.K. Manuel’s work
2. Evidence of Iron distribution and sifting within galaxies
3. Arguments that entirely gaseous stars are unstable
4. Iron cores provide stability
5. Arguments that the mathematical modeling used to presently describe stellar structure may not be that accurate.
6. Future post, quasars and galaxies

Professor Manuel

Part of the problem for Professor Manuel is that he is not part of the Astronomical Club. He is a Nuclear Chemist who analyzed the elements found within meteorites and moon samples. He discovered traces of Strange Xenon. He realized that this element, at the relative concentrations found, could only be formed as a result of a star going supernova over about 5 billion years ago. (I am probably off a little on the date). This meant that our sun had to have at it’s core the remnants of a super nova since it is the only star close enough to eject this kind of material. He subsequently checked data from NASA’s Galileo probe for strange xenon on Jupiter and sure enough he found it there. He had no theoretical bias as to how the universe formed; he just looked at the elements there and concluded that there had to be a nuclear fusion explosion. (Such an element would not be found in the traditional model in which the solar system formed from the collapse of a hydrogen cloud.)

He also points to the evidence indicated by the high iron content of the cores of planets. If our sun formed only from a gas cloud, then it would be anticipated that the heaviest elements would have sifted towards the center sun billions of years ago. If our sun exploded, it would have ejected some of the heavy elements out, which became the cores of the planets. The reason the material did not flow directly back into the sun after the nova is that our star must have had a very high rate of rotation. Also if there is significant material already around orbiting the sun, it would impart it’s angular momentum to the gathered ejected material.

It would be interesting to see if someone familiar with stellar physics tried to model a stellar structure with an iron core with an H - He atmosphere above an Iron core which produced the observed level of neutrino production.

Evidence of Iron

Another possible indication of an Iron core for our Sun is the existence of an Iron core in our Earth and most of the Planets. If our solar system did not form from ejecta from a supernova but from the gaseous particles in space, it would be anticipated that a kind of sifting of elements should occur within galaxies and solar systems as matter coalesced in space. Heavier elements and structures should accumulate towards the center. If the Earth has a substantial iron core, so too should the sun but to an even greater degree.

An indication that such sifting exists even on a galactic scale is evidence by the two types of variable Cepheid stars observed in Galaxies. It is with some hesitancy this factor is presented as evidence since it is somewhat ambiguous. Type 1 Cepheid stars have a regular cycle and tend to be located in Spiral arms of galaxies near Population I stars, such as our sun. I suggest that these variable stars have some iron at their core to provide stability. Type 2 Cepheid stars are irregular variable stars that tend to be located at the outer boundary of galaxies, and at the core. The reason for their irregularity is that they lack a sufficient iron core and will have a tendency to oscillate apart. The ambiguous aspect of this example is the observed occurrence of Type 2 at the core of galaxies. If matter coalesced with the heaviest and largest clumps forming to the center, irregular Cepheid stars should be found at the edges but not at the core. The reason for this exception is because of the increased density of the gas fond at the core of galaxies. It allows the creation of some stars with a minimal amount of iron at their cores.

Gas Stars are unstable

It is argued that stars composed of mostly hydrogen that are formed at the beginning of the universe are extremely unstable and explode or nova due to a positive feed back process. As the pressure increases in a gaseous star due to the rapid influx of matter, the energy production increases, temperature increases, which then expands the core of the gaseous star. This expansion then shoves outwards the atmosphere above it. Once the atmosphere is moving outward from the core, there is a pressure decrease at the core. This then causes the rate of energy production at the core to decrease, which also tends to further decrease the pressure in the core. This loss of pressure within the star then allows the atmosphere of the star to fall back to the core. When the atmosphere finally falls back to the core, the pressure dramatically increases, so the rate of energy production is even greater than when the process originally started off at. This process cycles over and over with increasing intensity until the star novas (throws off the outer atmosphere). The process of a star throwing off its atmosphere increases the core pressure enough to begin the formation of heaver elements. If a star novas with some heaver elements within, the result is a type II supernova.

Iron (and neutron) cores

Iron cores are necessary for the stability of stars at the quasar stage of a galaxies development. The stability that an iron core provides is from the cores ability to absorb energy, damping the cycle that would normally lead to a nova. If the atmosphere starts to collapse on an iron core, the temperature is increased. The iron core can absorb this heat without the associated increase in energy output. It is also possible, at the right pressure, for some of the atoms of Iron or other heaver elements, to fuse with other elements forming radioactive nuclear matter, resulting in further absorption of energy. Also since the core retains heat, it tends to maintain at a constant temperature even if the atmosphere were to “bounce” off the core, decreasing the pressure. Just as the Iron core absorbs heat, it also can release the heat if the atmosphere were to expand above the core. This constant heat source stabilizes the stellar core, preventing novas from occurring. Most stable stars in the universe in this theory are therefore composed of iron; it is the only way stability can be established, (my opinion).

Are present modeling methods accurate?

There is a tendency to think the status quo is right, particularly if the existing models of stellar evolution have been around for a while. It should be pointed out that present theoretical determinations of the structure of our sun are based upon a process called numerical integration, and numerical iteration, which is based upon guesses as to the interior structure of our sun and repeated adjustments are made in order to maintain stability.(“This layer must be this thick in order to….. etc.) There are more than a few graduate students who have chaffed at the assumptions necessary to account for stellar stability. I used to know of one student who no matter how he worked the numbers concluded that stars should blow up. None of these techniques, I think, adequately transfers to a simple and consistent basis describing energy production from stars, particularly when applied to variable stars.

The next posting will be called quasars and supernova fires and it will provide a model for the production of iron and neutron cores in quantities sufficient to resolve one of the issues mentioned by the BA.

(A brief aside. A couple of years ago I contacted the American Astronomical Society about presenting a paper on the uniform expansion of space. I could not get a sponsor, but when I stated over the phone that I predicted that most stars have to have iron cores for stability, I did get some interest. Now I know why, Professor Manuel was already registered at the conference to present a paper stating that our sun had an iron core).

Snowflake.

Eta C
2003-Dec-03, 05:26 PM
I have not read his paper in detail, but he makes a point of there being too few neutrinoes from the Sun. This is an old problem, and may very well be solved with neutrinoes having mass (they change flavor on thier way from there to here, so we don't detect 2/3 of the ones created int he solar core). And how does his model produce the neutrinoes we do see?

If he's basing much of his argument on the solar neutrino problem then he's definitely wrong. The "problem" has been resolved in the last two years via exactly the mechanism the BA suggests here. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/) measured the total neutrino flux from the sun. This included all three flavors. The total flux was nicely in line with the predictions of the standard solar models.

Spaceman Spiff
2003-Dec-03, 07:18 PM
Let me add my two cents regarding the evidence provided by helioseismology.

Go to GONG's website on helioseismology (http://gong.nso.edu/helioseismology.html), and learn what these oscillations can tell us about the interior of the Sun. Here is a quote:

"Helioseismology utilizes waves that propagate throughout the Sun to measure, for the first time, the invisible internal structure and dynamics of a star. There are millions of distinct, resonating, sound waves, seen by the doppler shifting of light emitted at the Sun's surface. The periods of these waves depend on their propagation speeds and the depths of their resonant cavities, and the large number of resonant modes, with different cavities, allows us to construct extremely narrow probes of the temperature, chemical composition, and motions from just below the surface down to the very core of the Sun."

I'd have to dig for the reference, but I've read that they've been able to detect the sudden drop in the hydrogen abundance and rise in the helium abundance with the transition into the solar fusion core. All of this is just nonsense --- unless Dr. Manuel can provide a theory for the interior structure (and energy generation) that matches those inferred from the helioseismology and neutrino measurements to fractions of 1%, as is currently the case for the standard solar model.

I'll second the quote from Wolfgang Pauli, quoted just above me.

snowflakeuniverse
2003-Dec-03, 09:46 PM
Hi Spaceman Spiff

Some of the current research about our sun is beginning to show, based upon the study that Helioseismology, that the sun has an interior of iron. How much is a matter of debate, but the research indicates that a core of hydrogen is clearly wrong. If you wish to check this out yourself

Title - Seismic Test of Solar Model, Soplar Neutriono and Implication for Metal-rich Accretion
Authors - Winnick,R.A Demarque,p Basu,S
Affiliation - Department of Astronomy, Yale university,
Journal, - the Astrophysical Journal, Volume 576, Issue 2 pp 1075 1084

This is a copy of the abstract
Abstract
The Sun is believed to have been the recipient of a substantial amount of metal-rich material over the course of its evolution, particularly in the early stages of the solar system. With a long diffusion timescale, the majority of this accreted matter should still exist in the solar convection zone, enhancing its observed surface abundance, and implying a lower abundance core. While helioseismology rules out solar models with near-zero metallicity cores, some solar models with enhanced metallicity in the convection zone might be viable, as small perturbations to the standard model. Because of the reduced interior opacity and core temperature, the neutrino flux predicted for such models is lower than that predicted by the standard solar model. This paper examines how compatible inhomogeneous solar models of this kind are with the observed low and intermediate degree p-mode oscillation data, and with the solar neutrino data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Collaboration. We set an upper limit on how much metal-rich accretion took place during the early evolution of the Sun at ~2 M⊕ of iron (or ~40 M⊕ of meteoric material).

While this abstract relates primarily to iron within the convection zone, it does state that “selioseismology rules out solar models with near-zero metallicity cores” Our sun has a metal core, how big it is, is a matter of discussion.
Snowflake.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Dec-03, 10:08 PM
snowflakeuniverse, I believe you are severely misunderstanding that article. By "metals", astronomers mean anything heavier than hydrogen and helium. That includes oxygen, calcium, magnesium, etc. and not metals the way laymen think of them.

So a zero-metallicity core means just H and He, with no Ca, Si, S, Mg, etc. It does not mean metal like iron.

When they say it is over-abundant, they also don't mean there is a vast amount of metals in the core. They mean it has more than what is usually considered to be normal. Normal can mean as little as one atom per 100,000 being a metal.

There is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen indicating an iron core in the Sun, and a vast amount of evidence (which I have posted in other threads) that the core is not a big ball of iron.

Spaceman Spiff
2003-Dec-04, 04:43 PM
snowflakeuniverse, I believe you are severely misunderstanding that article. By "metals", astronomers mean anything heavier than hydrogen and helium. That includes oxygen, calcium, magnesium, etc. and not metals the way laymen think of them.

So a zero-metallicity core means just H and He, with no Ca, Si, S, Mg, etc. It does not mean metal like iron.

When they say it is over-abundant, they also don't mean there is a vast amount of metals in the core. They mean it has more than what is usually considered to be normal. Normal can mean as little as one atom per 100,000 being a metal.

There is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen indicating an iron core in the Sun, and a vast amount of evidence (which I have posted in other threads) that the core is not a big ball of iron.

Let me add a few more cents (sense) to what the BA said.

First, advanced models of the Sun now include the effects of heavy element differentiation (diffusion) over time. Heavier elements have some tendancy to drift toward the center of the Sun over long periods of time, though the Sun's convection zone keeps things well-mixed in its upper layers. Second, 40 Earth masses of meteoric material as an upper limit to the amount of heavy element accretion? The Sun's heavy element content is approximately 2% by mass, 40 Earth masses is just 1.2x10^-4 of the Sun's total mass, or about 0.5% the mass of the present convective envelope. Astronomers should and will continue to "punch at" the standard solar model, and this is a good jab but it looks to be a small brush at best. In any case, this has no bearing on the "iron core" idea, in fact if it has any relevance at all, this paper suggests that the Sun's convective envelope might have been enriched in the heavier elements (by this small amount), and that the deeper interior of the Sun has fewer of the heavy elements that had been presumed (even with diffusion), with a slight excess just beneath the convective boundary. However, the authors conclude that their best non-standard model does not match the helioseismology data as well as those of the standard model.

Finally, here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209134) is a paper that uses helioseismology to set an upper limit to the heavy element abundance in the Sun's core.

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-04, 11:29 PM
Let's see if I got this right:



Iron (and neutron) cores
Iron cores are necessary for the stability of stars at the quasar stage of a galaxies development. The stability that an iron core provides is from the cores ability to absorb energy, damping the cycle that would normally lead to a nova. If the atmosphere starts to collapse on an iron core, the temperature is increased. The iron core can absorb this heat without the associated increase in energy output. It is also possible, at the right pressure, for some of the atoms of Iron or other heaver elements, to fuse with other elements forming radioactive nuclear matter, resulting in further absorption of energy. Also since the core retains heat, it tends to maintain at a constant temperature even if the atmosphere were to “bounce” off the core, decreasing the pressure. Just as the Iron core absorbs heat, it also can release the heat if the atmosphere were to expand above the core. This constant heat source stabilizes the stellar core, preventing novas from occurring. Most stable stars in the universe in this theory are therefore composed of iron; it is the only way stability can be established, (my opinion).

That's exactly backwards on what the mainstream says about stellar evolution according to this (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101stars.html)


Death of a Massive Star
Massive stars burn brighter and perish more dramatically than most. When a star ten times more massive then Sun exhaust the helium in the core, the nuclear burning cycle continues. The carbon core contracts further and reaches high enough temperature to burn carbon to oxygen, neon, silicon, sulfur and finally to iron. Iron is the most stable form of nuclear matter and there is no energy to be gained by burning it to any heavier element. Without any source of heat to balance the gravity, the iron core collapses until it reaches nuclear densities. This high density core resists further collapse causing the infalling matter to "bounce" off the core. This sudden core bounce (which includes the release of energetic neutrinos from the core) produces a supernova explosion. For one brilliant month, a single star burns brighter than a whole galaxy of a billion stars. Supernova explosions inject carbon, oxygen, silicon and other heavy elements up to iron into interstellar space. They are also the site where most of the elements heavier than iron are produced. This heavy element enriched gas will be incorporated into future generations of stars and planets. Without supernova, the fiery death of massive stars, there would be no carbon, oxygen or other elements that make life possible.

So the mainstream says that when a star (and this would happen ONLY in large stars) ends up with an Iron Core the consecuences are that the star explodes and turns into a supernova. So, basically Dr. Manuel's hypothesis must explain a LOT of what is currently observed in addition to the evidence he claims supports his hypothesis. No wonder he has spent 40 years trying to convince Astronomers about it.

snowflakeuniverse
2003-Dec-11, 05:03 PM
Hi Spaceman Spiff

First off, it is important to establish how much iron in the core of the sun we are talking about. I think you have the idea that I believe that 50% or more of the core of the sun is Iron. I do not, It does not correspond to the observed core temperatures found from SOHO, nor does it correspond to the amount of Iron expected from a star that became a supernova 5 billion years ago (Unless adjusted for the effects of a uniform expansion, according to my proposed theory.) It is my contention that as much as 1/70 of the mass of the sun is in the core, mostly as iron plasma.

I think it is interesting to note that as we know more about our sun due to the observations of SOHO, the amount of “metals” is increasing. Adding the effect of metals in the core of the sun is necessary for making sure the standard model adheres to observation. I mentioned previously the paper that asserted as much as 40 Earth masses of metals should be in the suns atmosphere. If this is indicated in the atmosphere, how much should be in the core?

The observation of metals in the atmosphere of the sun and the core was even mentioned in the reference you posted as “proof” of the lack of iron in the sun.

It is logical to conclude there must be some kind of iron core in the sun, as described in the following posting to Bad Astronomer.

Before you dismiss the idea of an iron core of any kind because you seem to think we know everything already and such an idea is preposterous, consider the following look at the second paragraph of the article you suggested as the most current accurate description of metals in the sun by H.M Antia and S. M. Chitre called “Helioseismic limit on heavy element abundance”.

1. The very first sentence in the second paragraph states the following

“ In general, the computed luminosity in a seismically computed solar model is not expected to match the observe solar luminosity.” (The Standard Solar Model does not produce enough luminosity.)

2. The second sentence of second paragraph states the following

“it is possible to constrain” (make an adjustment to make the model conform to observation.)

3. The third sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The main source of error in these estimates is the uncertainty of the z profile” (we have no idea what is in the interior of the sun so we are going to have to guess)

4. The fourth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“In all these works the plasma screening of nuclear reaction cross-sections was calculated using intermediate screening formulation of Groboske et al” (O.K. another attempt to adjust things in order to work things out)

5. The fifth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The treatment of screening in stellar nuclear reaction rates is not yet adequately understood (Dzitko et al. ) (O.K so even the adjustment techniques are questionable)

I could go on and on and on, when it comes to the core of the sun, we are just guessing because we do not really know absolutely what is in there, The big general picture is right, but the details are still being resolved.



Snowflake

snowflakeuniverse
2003-Dec-11, 05:22 PM
Hi Bad astronomer

Thank you for your response.

As far as I have been able to tell, it is only within the last few years that the standard model of solar structure has started to include the effect of metals. This has started to change, now that SOHO has given us a rough look at the interior and discovered that the temperature distribution are not quite right. The core is too cool and a band in the interior is too hot.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that some consideration for metals should have been made. Assuming that the solar system coalesced from the same cloud of material, it would be expected that just as the planets formed around iron cores, so to should the sun. Before the sun had enough mass to support fusion, metals would accumulate in the core, just like metals accumulated in the Core of Earth and the core of Jupiter. Evidence of a metal core was always there, its effect was not considered.

Once the sun accumulated enough matter, fusion would begin. Still, there would be an influx of metals via meteorites. Because there is evidence of a meteor era based upon craters on the moons, there had to be an influx of meteors falling into the sun at the same time. The radiative energy would prevent the atoms of large metals from falling down to the core so the atoms would be suspended between the radiative zone and the outer turbulent convection zone. These suspended atoms are responsible for the temperature spike detected by SOHO at about .68 R. If the amount of metals suspended is as much as 40 Earth masses, (as indicated by a previous study mentioned earlier by Winnick,R.A Demarque,p Basu,S of Yale), then how much more should there be trapped in the core? 70 solar masses?



The metals that accumulated in the sun before fusion occurred would be contained in the interior not only by self-gravitation but also from the same radiant pressure that suspend atoms in the convection zone. The sun has a metal core, with Iron plasma representing the largest constituent.

Evidence of this iron core is also indicated by SOHO. The core is cooler than expected from models based upon a core of hydrogen. This cooler core would be expected since the core would no longer be an active zone for fusion.

While an iron core would decrease energy production at the center of the sun, overall there would be an increase in energy production since there would be a larger volume of hydrogen subjected to higher pressures just above the plasma core. This is also observed and explains the problem noted by by H.M Antia and S. M. Chitre in their published article “Helioseismic limit on heavy element abundance”. The problem they alluded to was “ In general, the computed luminosity in a seismically computed solar model is not expected to match the observe solar luminosity.”

So the sun has metal mixed in it’s atmosphere, and it has a metal core. This is indicated by SOHO and expected as a result of our understanding of the evolution of the solar system. The next issue is how much.

I will soon be making a posting called, “Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago?’. In the posting I will propose that as much as 1/70 of the mass of the sun is located in the core as Iron plasma. This amount is compatible with the observations of SOHO and Professor Manuel’s work, if my proposed uniform expansion of space theory is applied.

Snowflake

snowflakeuniverse
2003-Dec-11, 05:39 PM
Hi Sigma_Orionis

Thank you for your response.
You noted that my explanation of the instability of young stars appears to conflict with the current description of an supernova explosion of a massive star that is older.

There is no conflict or ambiguity; For one thing it is an evolutionary process that builds up the iron core that is necessary for a supernova. I am just arguing that without iron cores to absorb energy, there is a positive feed back process that results in instability. Usually the result of this instability would be a nova, not a supernova.

Is there any evidence of this instability associated with the lack of an iron core?

Generally the existence of an iron core can be inferred by the observation of metal in the atmosphere in a star. (Although many stars with no iron in the atmosphere can have iron in their cores. (My opinion, most astronomers do not even consider metals in the cores of stars)). Population II stars have 1/10 to 1/100 the observed evidence of metals, and they make up the majority of variable stars, that are variable due to the atmosphere expanding and then collapsing.

You also made note of the difficulty of Professor Manuel having his proposed explanation of the core of the sun being mostly iron. In order for this to happen, as you note, a star would have to be much bigger. The mass issue would not be a problem if the effect of gravity were a function of cosmic time. If the effect of gravity in the past was more than 10 times what it is now, the suns present mass would be sufficient to become a supernova. This will be a topic I will be posting called “Did the sun blow up 5 billion years ago”


Snowflake

Spaceman Spiff
2003-Dec-11, 07:09 PM
Hi Spaceman Spiff

First off, it is important to establish how much iron in the core of the sun we are talking about. I think you have the idea that I believe that 50% or more of the core of the sun is Iron. I do not, It does not correspond to the observed core temperatures found from SOHO, nor does it correspond to the amount of Iron expected from a star that became a supernova 5 billion years ago (Unless adjusted for the effects of a uniform expansion, according to my proposed theory.) It is my contention that as much as 1/70 of the mass of the sun is in the core, mostly as iron plasma.

I think it is interesting to note that as we know more about our sun due to the observations of SOHO, the amount of “metals” is increasing. Adding the effect of metals in the core of the sun is necessary for making sure the standard model adheres to observation. I mentioned previously the paper that asserted as much as 40 Earth masses of metals should be in the suns atmosphere. If this is indicated in the atmosphere, how much should be in the core?

The observation of metals in the atmosphere of the sun and the core was even mentioned in the reference you posted as “proof” of the lack of iron in the sun.

It is logical to conclude there must be some kind of iron core in the sun, as described in the following posting to Bad Astronomer.

Before you dismiss the idea of an iron core of any kind because you seem to think we know everything already and such an idea is preposterous, consider the following look at the second paragraph of the article you suggested as the most current accurate description of metals in the sun by H.M Antia and S. M. Chitre called “Helioseismic limit on heavy element abundance”.

1. The very first sentence in the second paragraph states the following

“ In general, the computed luminosity in a seismically computed solar model is not expected to match the observe solar luminosity.” (The Standard Solar Model does not produce enough luminosity.)

2. The second sentence of second paragraph states the following

“it is possible to constrain” (make an adjustment to make the model conform to observation.)

3. The third sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The main source of error in these estimates is the uncertainty of the z profile” (we have no idea what is in the interior of the sun so we are going to have to guess)

4. The fourth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“In all these works the plasma screening of nuclear reaction cross-sections was calculated using intermediate screening formulation of Groboske et al” (O.K. another attempt to adjust things in order to work things out)

5. The fifth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The treatment of screening in stellar nuclear reaction rates is not yet adequately understood (Dzitko et al. ) (O.K so even the adjustment techniques are questionable)

I could go on and on and on, when it comes to the core of the sun, we are just guessing because we do not really know absolutely what is in there, The big general picture is right, but the details are still being resolved.



Snowflake

Here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9706192) is another, independent, set of observational constraints. The total heavy element abundance by mass within the Sun's core is at most 3.4%, of course with its own and different set of associated uncertainties.

The current review comparing the standard solar model (SSM) with time dependencies, neutrinos and helioseismology is here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0010346). As for the statement by Antia and Chitra regarding "There is no guarantee for the resultant seismic model to yield the observed solar luminosity,...", I don't know precisely what they are getting at. Nor do they say by how much one might miss it, without tweaking the pp reaction cross section, as they suggest. The paper by Bahcall et al. linked just above shows that the SSM clearly nails the solar luminosity. Maybe Antia and Chitra are simply stating that the pp cross section hasn't been confirmed in total experimentally.

Nevertheless....

Yes, there remain uncertainties, including those pertaining to cross sections of some of the fusion reactions. Here is a review (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210127)of the current uncertainties in the standard solar model. Nobody says nor have I said that the book on the Sun is closed. Science books are never closed. Here is a summary (http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/abs:+EXACT+standard%5fsolar%5fmodel/0/1/0/2002,2000,2001,2003,1999/0/1?skip=0&amp;query_id=6f238b0ba022e436)of papers placed upon astro-ph archive over the past 4 years, with the key words "standard solar model" appearing in the abstract. Please distinguish between those articles that ended up appearing in peer reviewed journals and those THAT DID NOT or possibly have not yet.

There is a difference between open and honest inquery, such as those outlined in the references I have provided (and from which you have quoted, above), and unsubstantiated and wild speculation. The extreme iron abundance in the Sun's core that you suggest is the tamest. Your exploding Sun and uniformly expanding space (which Tim Thompson (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=177545#177545) and I have (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=174683#174683) told you is not observed --- that it does not expand uniformly is NOT an assumption) do not have enough merit for serious scientific discussion.

You are suggesting that the core of our Sun (which is approximately 25% of the Sun's total mass, if we think we know anything about the Sun) is perhaps 1/70 the total solar mass in iron. So that makes the iron content in the Sun's core out to be 0.057 (5.7%) by mass. You don't state what the mass abundances of the other heavy elements should be. What the consequences would be --- other than a higher required core temperature to generate sufficient pressure --- or which of the present uncertainties in the SSM would have to conspire together to allow for such a possibilty, or whether such a conspiracy can occur to do so, I have no idea. This isn't my field of expertise.

You may be right that some important ingredient is missing infrom our understanding of the interior workings of our Sun, but that doesn't give your idea merit on its own. As it is said "stopped clocks are correct twice per day." Should atmospheric physicists pay attention to somebody who stands up and yells that "since we don't understand EVERY last detail behind the mechanisms resulting in rainbows, my leprechaun idea deserves merit"? You haven't given one reason (that is physically motivated) as to why a solar physicist should pay any attention. So I guess you'll need to keep working on it.

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-11, 10:47 PM
Hi Sigma_Orionis

Thank you for your response.
You noted that my explanation of the instability of young stars appears to conflict with the current description of an supernova explosion of a massive star that is older.

There is no conflict or ambiguity; For one thing it is an evolutionary process that builds up the iron core that is necessary for a supernova. I am just arguing that without iron cores to absorb energy, there is a positive feed back process that results in instability. Usually the result of this instability would be a nova, not a supernova.

The mainstream says this (http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/novae.htm) about the causes for novae



Is there any evidence of this instability associated with the lack of an iron core?

Well that is the crux of your argument. AFAIK there is none, have you found any evidence or maybe references to someone making such a correlation?




Generally the existence of an iron core can be inferred by the observation of metal in the atmosphere in a star. (Although many stars with no iron in the atmosphere can have iron in their cores. (My opinion, most astronomers do not even consider metals in the cores of stars)). Population II stars have 1/10 to 1/100 the observed evidence of metals, and they make up the majority of variable stars, that are variable due to the atmosphere expanding and then collapsing.


The explanation for cepheids (Population I which are not iron poor or Population II) can be seen here (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980425c.html) I couldn't find any references about the mayority of cepheids being Population II, could you please give me one?




You also made note of the difficulty of Professor Manuel having his proposed explanation of the core of the sun being mostly iron. In order for this to happen, as you note, a star would have to be much bigger. The mass issue would not be a problem if the effect of gravity were a function of cosmic time. If the effect of gravity in the past was more than 10 times what it is now, the suns present mass would be sufficient to become a supernova. This will be a topic I will be posting called “Did the sun blow up 5 billion years ago”


Snowflake

You propose that gravity as a funcion of time in this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9619) thread. Well yes both proposals seem agree with each other, however they also have to agree with everything that has been observed and explained by mainstream theories in order to be taken seriously by astronomers. I am no scientist just a science enthusiast, so frankly all I can give is my opinion.

[Editted for clarity]

Spaceman Spiff
2003-Dec-12, 12:33 AM
For one thing it is an evolutionary process that builds up the iron core that is necessary for a supernova. I am just arguing that without iron cores to absorb energy, there is a positive feed back process that results in instability. Usually the result of this instability would be a nova, not a supernova.

A star needn't have an "iron" core to remain stable. This is just something you have created out of the vacuum.



Generally the existence of an iron core can be inferred by the observation of metal in the atmosphere in a star. (Although many stars with no iron in the atmosphere can have iron in their cores. (My opinion, most astronomers do not even consider metals in the cores of stars)).


That you would say such a thing means that:
1. you are not familar as to how stars are modeled astrophysically - heavy elements including iron are part of the computations; heck, the heavy element abundance, both in bulk and as a function of depth from the photosphere to the core, are crucial. They are crucial because they participate in setting the opacity, the pressure, the energy generation rate, the temperature gradient, and loads more.
2. you either are not familiar with or ignore the fact that astronomers do consider heavy element diffusion in their models. This fact is mentioned in the references I've quoted above.



Population II stars have 1/10 to 1/100 the observed evidence of metals, and they make up the majority of variable stars, that are variable due to the atmosphere expanding and then collapsing.


It is not just their atmospheres expanding and collapsing, it is a whole outer region of the star's envelope...
These pulsating variable stars do so primarily because of the presence of the Helium ionization zone that prevents gravity and pressure from establishing an equilibrium there. If this zone occurs neither too deep (where such oscillations from a thin zone are damped out) nor too high (where there is too little mass to push around to make any difference), the result is a pulsating star of a type such as the Cepheids or RR-Lyrae.

Jpax2003
2003-Dec-12, 05:59 AM
As a non-physicist, I have some questions that might seem silly.

1. What effect would iron and other metals have on the magnetic fields of the sun? Also, how would they influence the 11 year solar cycle?

2. Are we observing spectra from iron and other materials?

3. What happens to the heavy material of larger impactors of the sun?

4. I've heard the corona is much hotter than the photosphere (millions of degrees). Is this hot enough to fuse anything that might find it's way there?

5. How accurate is helioseismology? Are we only seeing the near side, or do we have satellites orbiting that can see the other sides in order to get a better 3d picture?

6. Does helioseismology take impactors into account and how?

Perhaps this info is widely known, but I do not know it. I just think that perhaps it would be easier to answer the simple questions before trying to answer the larger ones.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Jan-20, 12:25 PM
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft has revealed of the process and activity inside the Sun, the old Skylab included eight separate solar experiments and told us much, the Ulysses Mission - has also been telling us much the Deep Space Voyage - Ulysses explored the Sun's atmosphere over the solar poles in 1994 and 1995 but this tough little craft is still going on, &amp; in the future a Solar Orbiter
http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/SEMTWG1A6BD_index_0.html
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31705
NASA is working hard on ideas like Stero and SDO
http://stp.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/stereo/technology.htm
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Perhaps these future missions will answer the question and disprove his ideas once and for all ?


this is the guy Dr. Oliver , thinks we have an Iron Sun and has perhaps has some evidence to prove it, but he also needs to answer some of the flaws in his ideas.

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&amp;Topic=2421&amp;srow=41&amp;erow= 50
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abbre-resume.html

alfricnow
2005-Jan-20, 07:45 PM
I do think the sun would have had a lot of heavy stuff at the begining of its life just from the cloud of debri it came from...
... but wouldnt all the intence heat have broken most of it down into the basic elements by now?

Andreas
2005-Jan-20, 09:19 PM
I do think the sun would have had a lot of heavy stuff at the begining of its life just from the cloud of debri it came from...
... but wouldnt all the intence heat have broken most of it down into the basic elements by now?
You're misunderstanding either the subject or what happens in the sun. If you think molecules in the cloud, "breaking down to the basic elements" means that the heavy elements are still there (well, they are the basic elements).

If you're thinking the atomic nucleuses are themselves broken down to lighter elements, then that is impossible. The sun gets its energy from the fusion of light (hydrogen) to heavier (helium) elements. Splitting up nucleuses means you have to put energy into it (unless it's elements heavier than iron). Now since the energy comes from fusion, it can't be used for fission again, or you'd be using up all energy again.

Ricimer
2005-Jan-20, 10:01 PM
I'll finish reading the rest of the thread when I get time, but I've personally talked to the guy, listened to him speak as well, at the annual MARAC meeting in Kansas City...a minor astronomy convention.

My opinion: He's wrong, and his ideas are based on a erroneous viewpoints. I'll talk about him in the next day or so when I've got time.

alfricnow
2005-Jan-21, 07:31 AM
no what I was saying is the cloud of "dust" that made up the sun to start with must of had big chunks of iron and stuff in it and as time wore on with the intense heat all that stuff being multen and all it seems to me it would all be just layers of multen goo heavy near the cor lighter at the surface.

Ricimer
2005-Jan-21, 04:01 PM
problem with the iron core is that it is so hot, it isn't anything resembling solid. And as a gas (or plasma rather) it mixes freely with the surrounding material.

Yes, there is iron in the core, but Dr. Manuel (the subject of the original post) says it's the majority of it.

And, the sun is actually powered by a neutron star core (not iron) with neutron emission providing the power...

Kesh
2005-Jan-21, 09:49 PM
Taikonaut, why did you resurrect a thread that's more than a year old? #-o

Anyway, this is just ol' Doc Manuel. He spent 60+ pages equivocating about his theory on this Universe Today thread (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544). Despite the fact that his theory doesn't work, his typical response was "read my paper again."

Sound familiar? 8-[

His theory seems to hinge on his belief that the core of the sun is a neutron-star fragment (or an actual neutron star... he never clarified that), and the large amount of iron in the inner planets means that the sun is primarily iron.

It seems logic need not apply in his theory.

George
2005-Jan-21, 10:47 PM
(Forgive me if this is somehow redundatant)

To have a supernova, don't you need an iron core > 1.4 solar masses? Also, I think this is the typical mass of a neutron star. So, is this iron core suppose to be huge? [Not that it is suggested the core is greater than the mass of the Sun (my Dad used to say Texas was bigger than the whole U.S. - but, like me, he likes to look stupid intentionally at times :) )]

The solar core is suppose to have a radius about 25% of the solar radius (about 1.6% of the vol. of the Sun). If much of this is replaced with iron, then fusion must occur from a shell around it. This shell would be at a lesser density. You need temperature and density for fusion. The H->He fusion shell would not have the predicted density unless the increase in iron mass increased the gravitational force. However, this would mean the Sun is heavier than measured - not likely big time.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Feb-18, 10:52 AM
He has many ideas and thoughts on the issue, I think he says the interior of the Sun likely consists of elements that might be a little like the make up common metals, and meteorites,
he remarks that measurements can perhaps show the model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is obsolete.
http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf
He also points out to raw xenon isotope data, he also explains the mass fractionation, he most recently made news in Feb 2005
http://www.umr.edu/index.php?id=1586&amp;backPID=245&amp;tt_news=568

you can see more articles on his website

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

Their recent headline reads ' Far out: UMR scientist's views on solar system gain credibility ' but I don't think he has answered all the questions, and the theory seems to have flaws. Thanks Kesh for the universetoday link, I was wondering if there was any on-line info on his theory being questioned by other people

Kristophe
2005-Feb-18, 04:25 PM
Flaws? Yeah, there's a biggie: Neutron stars are degenerate. Adding mass to them makes them do funny things like collapse. I think that would be bad for us.

electromagneticpulse
2005-Feb-18, 06:25 PM
No, he thinks the Sun is mostly iron.

I have many, many problems with this theory. One involves formation: does every star form this way? That implies billions of supernovae, and also brings uip a chicken-and-egg problem; how did the first stars form?

I guess the implication would be that only stars with rocky inner planets would be formed this way. Stars without planets or stars with inner gas giants would form by the standard model.

I don't have so much of a problem with the &lt;i>idea&lt;/i> that buried deep within the heart of the sun is a core of solid iron plasma. (Wouldn't heavier elements sink to the core of the sun just as they do on other worlds?) And we may never see it or detect it because we can only see the outer shell. But the author suggesting that the main source of heat of the sun comes from gravitaitonal compression of this iron core (like what powers the fires deep within our own world) is a bit of a stretch.
I guess that's why it's here in "Against the Mainstream". eh? &lt;IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">


From my understanding (please correct me if i'm wrong) a supernova explosion goes off much like a super massive expansion into a red giant with enough force that the majority of the mass is sent out at just a fraction off the speed of light (depending on their mass).

Now if you got thousands of billiard balls and put them into a full circle around a central one. The last of the material the star can fusion is used up and the explosive force of the star stops, now everything of the star surrounding the core collapses this creates immense pressure on the middle, which causes fusion reactions past the efficiency limit (iron). This creates an explosive force far bigger than the original fusion force. Now back to the billiards, if the middle one explodes it is a basic representation of the explosion in the core of the star with the outer billiards moving a lot faster than the middle ones.

So we are left with a lot of matter spewed everywhere but still remaining matter, the sun would have started with a heck of a lot of iron alone. 0.14% of the sun is physically iron but it is also 26 times heavier than hydrogen. (if my math is right) The iron on the percentage alone is 2.784488 × 10^27 kg with earth being 5.9742 × 10^24.

Making a big assumption but the majority of the heavy stuff would be near the core of the old star so it wouldn't be a complete start over from a hydrogen cloud, the sun would start sweeping up hydrogen and helium like Jupiter would have. As it got bigger it pulled in more and more until it reached the size of the sun.


My main problems with his theory are:
1, Heavier elements as Bob S. said would sink to the core, they take much more energy to turn into liquid/gas/plasma's but as they radiate more heat on the surface they would sink get close to the core and get hot enough to move back out from the core. The majority being a heavy element the heat from fusion wouldn't be enough to keep the iron from sinking to the core and breaking up the reaction.
2, a star of iron wouldn't fusion and wouldn't produce the alpha and beta particles the sun releases or neutrino's for that matter.
3, the spectral analysis is completely wrong for that amount of iron.

Kristophe
2005-Feb-18, 06:54 PM
The core of a star doesn't explode, though. It implodes. Fusion stops, the radiation pressure in the core drops to zero, and the core collapses in upon itself in a fraction of a second. Electron degeneracy is overwhelmed, the iron nuclei undergo photosidintegration, and the whole thing is essentially turned into neutrons, causing the core to rebound. Neutrino flux skyrockets, and the neutrinos tear the outer laters of the star apart.

Stars expand into red giants because their luminosity output shoots through the roof when fusion jumps to the envelope surrounding the core. In order to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, the star expands. Supernovae are not in hydrostatic equilibrium. The shockwave from the core rebound and the pressure from the neutrinos overwhelm gravity. Fusion of elements heavier than iron take place in the outer envelope of the star as it's being torn apart.

A large percentage of metals in the sun would throw off all stellar models dramatically. Basically, none of the current models can readily deal with ultra high metalicity. Computers just sort of spit them back.

Besides, the current models work astonishingly well for conventional stars. Low metalicity models match observation readily. It ain't broke, so to speak...

electromagneticpulse
2005-Feb-18, 08:26 PM
The core of a star doesn't explode, though. It implodes. Fusion stops, the radiation pressure in the core drops to zero, and the core collapses in upon itself in a fraction of a second. Electron degeneracy is overwhelmed, the iron nuclei undergo photosidintegration, and the whole thing is essentially turned into neutrons, causing the core to rebound. Neutrino flux skyrockets, and the neutrinos tear the outer laters of the star apart.

Stars expand into red giants because their luminosity output shoots through the roof when fusion jumps to the envelope surrounding the core. In order to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, the star expands. Supernovae are not in hydrostatic equilibrium. The shockwave from the core rebound and the pressure from the neutrinos overwhelm gravity. Fusion of elements heavier than iron take place in the outer envelope of the star as it's being torn apart.

A large percentage of metals in the sun would throw off all stellar models dramatically. Basically, none of the current models can readily deal with ultra high metalicity. Computers just sort of spit them back.

Besides, the current models work astonishingly well for conventional stars. Low metalicity models match observation readily. It ain't broke, so to speak...

Well I did say please correct me :D

That's my new thing for the day learnt :wink:

I realised after i posted that if that was correct the sun would have a high percentage of heavy (past iron) elements in it where as it doesn't.

Also i thought neutrino's passed through almost all matter unless it was extremely dense. Somehow i feel i'm building up to my 7 learnt things of short term memory :D

Russ
2005-Feb-18, 10:02 PM
I note that no one posted a reply to my question from page one of this topic, so I will repeat:

If 51% of the Sun's mass was iron, would it not have less volume for its' current mass? I would think that its' density would just have to be higher.

Am I missing something here?

Kristophe
2005-Feb-18, 10:30 PM
I note that no one posted a reply to my question from page one of this topic, so I will repeat:

If 51% of the Sun's mass was iron, would it not have less volume for its' current mass? I would think that its' density would just have to be higher.

Am I missing something here?

That's pretty much right. It also wouldn't be undergoing fusion, however, so it'd likely be a lot denser still.



Also i thought neutrino's passed through almost all matter unless it was extremely dense. Somehow i feel i'm building up to my 7 learnt things of short term memory

I'd imagine the Si shell surrounding a collapsing Fe core would be pretty darn dense. I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of stellar evolution, but this just happens to be the very chapter we covered in class yesterday. 3D computer models indicate that most of the shockwave is due to neutrinos slamming into the inner wall of the inert Si shell. I trust my professor's notes on it. He studies stellar collapse.

electromagneticpulse
2005-Feb-19, 12:07 AM
Also i thought neutrino's passed through almost all matter unless it was extremely dense. Somehow i feel i'm building up to my 7 learnt things of short term memory

I'd imagine the Si shell surrounding a collapsing Fe core would be pretty darn dense. I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of stellar evolution, but this just happens to be the very chapter we covered in class yesterday. 3D computer models indicate that most of the shockwave is due to neutrinos slamming into the inner wall of the inert Si shell. I trust my professor's notes on it. He studies stellar collapse.

I would have to agree and even if most neutrino's did pass through it would be significant and just checked wikipedia for a little spruce up on supernova's and found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_1987A).

Model studies indicate that 99% of the energy radiated by supernovae is in the form of neutrinos.

total neutrino count of 10^58 with a total energy of 10^46 joules.

So with an already extremely dense core and giga yotta yotta loads of neutrinos (we need bigger SI prefixes) i think if one in a million hit the outer core would still have ripped it apart.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-20, 02:51 AM
Today there have been several posts about the work of Dr. Oliver K. Manuel concerning the composition of the Sun (If you've read this thread, he claims that the Sun must have element and isotope abundances matching the Earths, and must therefore be mostly made of Iron. He also postulates that it has a small neutron star in its core which he says can generate enough energy to explain the Solar output.

TodayMichael Mozina wrote in the Advice for Bastions of the Establishment thread:

How do you KNOW (from a scientific perspective) that his life's work is simply "wrong". It seems to me that anyone is capable of dismissing an idea out of hand. It takes a true scientist to point out the error within the work. Where is the error you see in his work? Why are there now satellite observations that corroborate his theories? What are the "structures" seen in running difference images of the sun?

To which I give this somewhat oversimplified answer.
I have studied carefully the work of Dr. Manuel, and have never said that the entire body of his work was wrong. He has done some good and interesting work on measuring isotope abundances. I have however said that his Iron Sun idea is wrong.

Basically there are several reasons that it is wrong:
- His model of the Sun weighs too much
- His model of neutron stars as energy sources can't work, as the neutrons can't escape the gravity of the neutron star.
- His model of the Sun requires that there be a neutron star in the Sun which is NOT accreting the material around it.
- His model of the Sun requires a neutron star with a mass too small to exist. This is especially true when looking at Red Dwarf stars, and his notion that all stars have the same model as the Sun.
- His model requires that the Sun emit great numbers of low energy anti-neutrinos, which haven't been seen.
- His model can't explain why we see the neutrinos we do see coming out of the Sun, which confirm that the fusion model of the Sun is pretty much on target
- His model does not explain our observations from helioseismology

In short, for his model to be right, many observed phenomena in physics would have to be wrong. They aren't, he is.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-20, 02:55 AM
Here is a link to a more comprehensive (though round-about) thread about the Iron Sun.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=23048

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 03:26 AM
Today there have been several posts about the work of Dr. Oliver K. Manuel concerning the composition of the Sun (If you've read this thread, he claims that the Sun must have element and isotope abundances matching the Earths, and must therefore be mostly made of Iron. He also postulates that it has a small neutron star in its core which he says can generate enough energy to explain the Solar output.

TodayMichael Mozina wrote in the Advice for Bastions of the Establishment thread:


To which I give this somewhat oversimplified answer.
I have studied carefully the work of Dr. Manuel, and have never said that the entire body of his work was wrong. He has done some good and interesting work on measuring isotope abundances. I have however said that his Iron Sun idea is wrong.

Basically there are several reasons that it is wrong:
- His model of the Sun weighs too much

You'll note that you found no evidence of miscalculations in any of his work, you simply throw up objections, much as I might throw out the objection the the gas model crowd has never adequately explained the MECHANISM to explain the arcs. I'll tell you what, you work on explaining the fixed magnetic fields we see in these arcs in absense of the flow of electricity, and I'll work on this problem for you. Ok?


- His model of neutron stars as energy sources can't work, as the neutrons can't escape the gravity of the neutron star.

Why might that be? Suppose it's not a neutron star at all underneath the shell, but a simple fission reactor of sorts?


- His model of the Sun requires that there be a neutron star in the Sun which is NOT accreting the material around it.

Last time I checked, he suggested to me that neutrons were decaying into hydrogen atoms at the "surface".


- His model of the Sun requires a neutron star with a mass too small to exist. This is especially true when looking at Red Dwarf stars, and his notion that all stars have the same model as the Sun.

Again, you seem to be coming back to the mass problem. I'll work on that, while you work on the problem explaining those fixed magnetic loops in plasma without the flow of electrical current.


- His model requires that the Sun emit great numbers of low energy anti-neutrinos, which haven't been seen.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense however.


- His model can't explain why we see the neutrinos we do see coming out of the Sun, which confirm that the fusion model of the Sun is pretty much on target

Of course this "pretty much on target" is based on the notion of neutrino's changing flavors. Why do they do that? What is the mechanism that forces that change in the first place?


- His model does not explain our observations from helioseismology

Of course they do. Why does the sun act as a resonance cavity in the first place? How do you know it's not an iron shell that creates this resonance cavity in the first place?


In short, for his model to be right, many observed phenomena in physics would have to be wrong. They aren't, he is.

What OBSERVED phenomomenon are we talking about exactly? I observe those structures in the running difference images too. The one thing none of you want to do is explain them. Why is that? Why is everyone avoiding explaining those running difference images and the structures we see in these images? How do you know the sun does not have an iron layer releasing electrical arcs again? Why are all those x-rays concentrated in the arcs?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/burkelandyohkohmini.jpg

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 03:28 AM
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

So if our solar system is composed of supernova remnants, and supernovas have burned everything but iron and heavier metals, why is our sun not composed mostly of iron again?

antoniseb
2005-Sep-20, 03:37 AM
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

So if our solar system is composed of supernova remnants, and supernovas have burned everything but iron and heavier metals, why is our sun not composed mostly of iron again?

This article does not say that our solar system is composed exclusively of supernova debris, it says that they found some matter that was clearly from a supernova. The current model is that the Solar System formed in an environment similar to the pillars of creation in the Eagle nebula. More massive stars than the sun exploded and compressed gasses and dust in the nebula to get us started. You knew this was the standard model. Your post implies that you didn't. That's an amusing rhetorical trick, but I'd prefer to keep all the cards in the table face up.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 03:50 AM
This article does not say that our solar system is composed exclusively of supernova debris, it says that they found some matter that was clearly from a supernova. The current model is that the Solar System formed in an environment similar to the pillars of creation in the Eagle nebula. More massive stars than the sun exploded and compressed gasses and dust in the nebula to get us started. You knew this was the standard model. Your post implies that you didn't. That's an amusing rhetorical trick, but I'd prefer to keep all the cards in the table face up.

Here is where the dancing begins. We know this sun cannot possibly be a first generation star, it's too young. We know a supernova went off in the vicinity, and that comets and planets like earth and venus and mercury and mars all have heavy metals and heavy elements, but somehow the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium? Notice a problem with that logic? Wouldn't we expect the heavy elements to be spread "relatively" uniformly around the solar system? Why is all the iron from the supernova somehow missing from our sun? Earth has heavy metals, but not our sun? Why is that?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 03:54 AM
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

Why are all the x-rays concentrated in these arcs, and what holds these magnetic flux tubes in place if not the flow of electricity though streams of iron? Why are all the photons from x-rays to Fe IX/X, Fe XII, FeIV all concentrated in these arcs if not because electricity is flowing through iron ions?

Dark Helmet
2005-Sep-20, 04:09 AM
Well, the Sun will eventually be mostly Iron, after it Red Giant's.

But not quite yet full of Fe.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-20, 04:16 AM
Well, the Sun will eventually be mostly Iron, after it Red Giant's. But not quite yet full of Fe.

The Sun will not make Iron. It will get to be a white dwarf with a whole lot of Carbon, Oxygen, and Neon.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 04:36 AM
The Sun will not make Iron. It will get to be a white dwarf with a whole lot of Carbon, Oxygen, and Neon.

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_000828.avi

It is already mostly made of iron. Perhaps you could get Lockheed Martin to explain the structures in this image. They have yet to respond to any of my questions about this image.

Keep in mind that these same structures stay visible over many hours in SOHO running difference images. What are they? Why do electrical arcs emit from this layer?

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

This composite image with Trace (blue) and Yohkoh (yellow) of solar moss activity demonstrates that the heat in the iron is concentrated in the arcs. The surface that emits those arcs, the one with all those structures in it, is millions of degrees cooler than the x-ray areas of the arcs.

upriver
2005-Sep-20, 04:38 AM
Having to do with iron sun formation..... Read this Micheal.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32514

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 04:40 AM
Having to do with iron sun formation..... Read this Micheal.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32514

VERY nicely done. Thanks for the link. It will take me awhile to fully digest it, but thanks for the link.

Maksutov
2005-Sep-20, 05:03 AM
Here we go again folks. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=537942&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=425135&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437891&postcount=1)

The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-20, 05:09 AM
The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.

*chuckle* yeah, ironic. Thanks Maksutov for bringing some light to this whole mess.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 05:09 AM
Here we go again folks. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=537942&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=425135&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437891&postcount=1)

The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.

Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.

The issue here is what *ERROR* in Dr. Manuel's work you believe invalidates his findings. I've yet to hear that explanation. I've also pointed out the similarities between the images that Dr. Birkeland created in his lab, and how well they correlate to the images from Yohkoh. Dr. Bruce has documented a variety of solar phenomenon that support this model. That is far more than I knew when I first began these debates. I think it is important that we look at all the historical scientific data that supports the electrical discharge theory that Dr. Bruce outlined over 50 years ago. If you have some objection to any of their work, I'm all ears, but so far, I've seen little in the way of scientific refute of any of it.

Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?

Baloo
2005-Sep-20, 08:25 AM
Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.


Nice. Did you've studied also some basic concepts as

relatively "mystical" terms like "black body radiation"
?
(the context of this quote here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=436909&highlight=black+body#post436909))

If not any further discution will have the same faith as the other topics...

N C More
2005-Sep-20, 12:59 PM
Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?

Well, I don't know for sure what Mak was specifically thinking but here's a few synonyms for the word "disprove". Should give you a rough idea:

abjure, abnegate, ban, begrudge, call on, contradict, contravene, controvert, curb, decline, disacknowledge, disallow, disavow, disbelieve, discard, disclaim, discredit, disown, doubt, enjoin from, eschew, exclude, forbid, forgo, forsake, gainsay, hold back, keep back, negate, negative, not buy, nullify, oppose, rebuff, rebut, recant, refuse, refute, reject, repudiate, restrain, revoke, sacrifice, spurn, taboo, turn down, veto...

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 02:19 PM
Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.

The issue here is what *ERROR* in Dr. Manuel's work you believe invalidates his findings. I've yet to hear that explanation. I've also pointed out the similarities between the images that Dr. Birkeland created in his lab, and how well they correlate to the images from Yohkoh. Dr. Bruce has documented a variety of solar phenomenon that support this model. That is far more than I knew when I first began these debates. I think it is important that we look at all the historical scientific data that supports the electrical discharge theory that Dr. Bruce outlined over 50 years ago. If you have some objection to any of their work, I'm all ears, but so far, I've seen little in the way of scientific refute of any of it.

Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?

For starters, do you still claim that sunspots are black?

Maksutov
2005-Sep-20, 02:56 PM
Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.

The issue here is what *ERROR* in Dr. Manuel's work you believe invalidates his findings. I've yet to hear that explanation. I've also pointed out the similarities between the images that Dr. Birkeland created in his lab, and how well they correlate to the images from Yohkoh. Dr. Bruce has documented a variety of solar phenomenon that support this model. That is far more than I knew when I first began these debates. I think it is important that we look at all the historical scientific data that supports the electrical discharge theory that Dr. Bruce outlined over 50 years ago. If you have some objection to any of their work, I'm all ears, but so far, I've seen little in the way of scientific refute of any of it.Simple. The chemical composition of the Sun through solar spectrography, orbital mechanics, nuclear physics, and other scientific disciplines, has been shown to be mostly hydrogen and helium. The other elements exist in only trace amounts. How many times do we have to repeat this?


Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?It's a variant of the past participle of the verb "disprove"

dis•prove

Pronunciation: (dis-prOOv')
—v.t., -proved, -prov•ing.
to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate: I disproved his claim.

In scientific terms, "disprove" is not often used, since the statistical studies that support such analyses allow for a certain amount of error re their conclusions. However, when the error is so small that it supports a 99/99 confidence interval/statement, then the use of the words "disproved" or "disproven" as a function of the insignificance of the error, is statistically sound.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of science, we tend not to use what might be construed as absolutist terms; thus the tendency to say "Such a hypothesis is very unlikely." followed by the math that shows just how unlikely the hypothesis is.

But within the absolutist world of fringe science, where words are tossed around without much regard as to their true meaning, "disproved" is quite effective at clearing the air.

Now, tell me what you know.


(without lapsing into the ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IS THE TRUTH syndrome, of course)

(and without saying, "Well, that's what it looks like...)

(and sine Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif


PS: great list of synonyms, N C More. Thank you1

Nereid
2005-Sep-20, 03:13 PM
Here we go again folks. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=537942&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=425135&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437891&postcount=1)

The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.The thread with the most recent posts on this topic was in UT (Mak's first link); just to refresh readers of how it ended (extracts from Michael's last posts):
There seems to be a common consensus that there is a need for a more robust mathematical presentation. I'm working on it. Be patient with me.
This mathematical presentation has become a necessary next step and I hear you [Duane and Nereid] both on this point.
[...]
I need to complete things that are crucial to moving this idea forward methodically.Nereid's last post (and end of the thread)
Thank you Michael.

When you're ready, please let me know - via PM - and I will re-open this thread.

Jerry
2005-Sep-20, 04:20 PM
There is certainly a lot of iron buried in the dust of Deep Impact, so if Deep Impact is primal, this should cause us to at least consider tweaking up the heavy element matrix in the sun. Also if Deep Impact is primal - where did the iron on/in Deep Impact come from if not a prior supernova?

I am extremely leary of the 'flipping neutrino' hypothesis for two reasons: Thirty years ago, astrophyscists expected to find higher hydrogen/helium ratios in Jupiter's atmosphere that the sun, but they turned out to be close to the same. Theorists immediately adapted the solar model, reducing the convections rates to a low enough level to explain why the solar surface helium levels have not risen since the solar system formed. There is nothing wrong with revising the theory so that it is compatible with the facts, but it would be wrong to state the ratios are 'as predicted' by prior theory: The Solar neutrino count is much lower than predicted by prior neutrino theory.

The other problem with flipping neutrinos is the solution causes a bigger problem that it solves: To flip, the neutrino must have mass, if the neutrino has mass it does not satisfy the nuclear energy budget problem the neutrino was created to solve in the first place. So the ancillary evidence that neutrinos apparently do flip does not help: There is a major puzzle piece that does not fit.

Many assumptions are made in building the current model of the sun. FWIW, I am not unhappy with it, and I don't have a better one - but no one should be complacent just because the current well-tweaked model 'almost' works. We should aways be looking for better basic models.

Nereid
2005-Sep-20, 05:07 PM
There is certainly a lot of iron buried in the dust of Deep Impact,How much?
so if Deep Impact is primal, this should cause us to at least consider tweaking up the heavy element matrix in the sun.Why? Wouldn't it partly depend on things like the amount of the comet lost to sublimation (which preferentially removed H), as the Sun doesn't have a comparable mass loss mechanism?
Also if Deep Impact is primal - where did the iron on/in Deep Impact come from if not a prior supernova?Why one? Why not a dozen prior SNe? To address this question, don't you need to know something about the mixing time of 'inputs' to the ISM (such as SNR)?
I am extremely leary of the 'flipping neutrino' hypothesis for two reasons: Thirty years ago, astrophyscists expected to find higher hydrogen/helium ratios in Jupiter's atmosphere that the sun, but they turned out to be close to the same. Theorists immediately adapted the solar model, reducing the convections rates to a low enough level to explain why the solar surface helium levels have not risen since the solar system formed.And are these (now adopted) convection rates unreasonable, under good models? Haven't you simply said that 'consistent' regions in parameter space were unreasonably set too small the initial (30 years ago) models?
The other problem with flipping neutrinos is the solution causes a bigger problem that it solves: To flip, the neutrino must have mass, if the neutrino has mass it does not satisfy the nuclear energy budget problem the neutrino was created to solve in the first place.Whoa! Where did this come from? Surely it is precisely because the nuclear energy budgets require a certain neutrino flux, and that flux was not observed, that was the heart of the solar neutrino problem??
So the ancillary evidence that neutrinos apparently do flip does not help: There is a major puzzle piece that does not fit.Perhaps you could explain what you mean in a little more detail?
Many assumptions are made in building the current model of the sun. FWIW, I am not unhappy with it, and I don't have a better one - but no one should be complacent just because the current well-tweaked model 'almost' works. We should aways be looking for better basic models.:clap: :clap: A very nice summary of what science is all 'about'!

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 05:33 PM
Nice. Did you've studied also some basic concepts as
?
(the context of this quote here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=436909&highlight=black+body#post436909))

If not any further discution will have the same faith as the other topics...


Yes. I've also failed to hear you explain how "black body radiation" explains any of these images, or how "black body radiation" explains the heat concentration in the arcs. Explain to me how black body radiation explains the concentration of x-rays in the arcs in Yohkoh images. Why do these results so closely match what Birkeland produced in his lab?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 05:49 PM
Simple. The chemical composition of the Sun through solar spectrography, orbital mechanics, nuclear physics, and other scientific disciplines, has been shown to be mostly hydrogen and helium. The other elements exist in only trace amounts. How many times do we have to repeat this?

This is a nice piece of handwaving, but you never expained a thing from a scientific perspective. WHAT (be specific now) causes those "structures" in running difference images? Why do these "structures" rotate uniformly and stay static over days?


It's a variant of the past participle of the verb "disprove"

A scientific disproof requires a bit of scientific evidence. You can't handwave a few times and expect that to take the place of a valid scientific arguement. Do you have any proof that Dr. Manuel's work is flawed in some way as it relates to solar composition? Yes or no? If yes, be specific. Do you have any "disproof" of any of Dr. Bruce's work that I cited?


In scientific terms, "disprove" is not often used, since the statistical studies that support such analyses allow for a certain amount of error re their conclusions. However, when the error is so small that it supports a 99/99 confidence interval/statement, then the use of the words "disproved" or "disproven" as a function of the insignificance of the error, is statistically sound.

Not if it's nothing but an appeal to authority. In other words, *IF* you have the scientific evidence to refute the life's work of Dr. Manuel, then put it on the table, and we'll look at it together and we'll decide if you've "disproved" his work in a scientific sense. *IF* you cannot do that, then you are essentially appealing to authority. Which is it?


Nevertheless, in the spirit of science, we tend not to use what might be construed as absolutist terms; thus the tendency to say "Such a hypothesis is very unlikely." followed by the math that shows just how unlikely the hypothesis is.

The term "unlikely" however is really inappropriate here. Either there is scientific evidence to refute Dr. Manuel's work or there is not. It's either right or it's wrong. There isn't a lot of "in between" here to choose from.

I've seen other "methods" applied to studying the solar composition that do NOT take into account the arrangement of these elements in any way, shape or form. Essentially it's a "photon count" where we really see nothing more than the flow of heat through the elements but it gives us little or no idea of the relative abundance of anything, although this *IS* the presumption of the method itself. Without knowing the heat distribution or the arrangement of elements however, this is a bit like looking that earth from a trillion miles away and trying to determine it's overall mass and composition. That's not likely to give accurate results.

Dr. Manuel's method however is quite sophisticated and is based on isotopes and things I know make sense. It may not give us the EXACT composition, but it sure tells us relative abundances in a "better" way than counting photons.

Now, if any of you actually CAN disprove what Dr. Manuel has demonstrated about the solar composition, I'm all ears. As it is, I never heard of Dr. Manual until I'd already reached the same conclusion based on an entirely different set of data. Dr. Bruce came to a similar conclusion 50 years ago, and Dr. Birkeland was already experimenting with lab model 100 years ago.

The bottom line here is NOTHING about the electrical model of the sun has been "disproven", nor has evidnence that the sun is mostly composed of iron been "disproven". It has been ALEDGED that it is inaccurate in some way, but I've yet to hear the exact form of the inaccuracy, or where you believe Dr. Manuel made his error in his calculations over the years.

There is a distinct difference here between "disproving" something scientifically and disproving something by popular vote.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 06:21 PM
The thread with the most recent posts on this topic was in UT (Mak's first link); just to refresh readers of how it ended (extracts from Michael's last posts):Nereid's last post (and end of the thread)

Well, I suppose that is up to you at this point Nereid. I respect your style and your decisions. I wasn't really trying to reopen the last thread, but I did want to learn to debate some of the elecrtrical aspects of this model now that I know there is scientific data to support that aspect of this model.

I've spent the last month or so educating myself with the work of Dr. Manuel, and I've been familiarizing myself with the work of Dr. Charles Bruce, and the work of Dr. Kristian Birkeland. I've made my own running difference images from FITS files now using photoshop, and I have a few images with graph overlays, and even some rudimentary math on separte overlays in Photosphop. I would say that I still have a lot to learn yet about IDL objects and mapping processes in general before I'll be entirely comfortable with bringing "qualitative" data to our discussion on some of these images. That being said, I do believe that some of the images from these satellites provide very useful information without a lot of "processing" on my part. I suppose it depends on your intent Nereid. I have always thought you were a fair moderator. I respect your choices and your style. My intent was only to engauge in a "friendly" debate in the electrical aspect of these ideas so I could develop a little skill at debating them from that angle. I did not come here to create any hard feelings or to cause trouble. I specifically did not ask you to reopen the last thread because I believe that I am probably still a few weeks away from having a full set of processed running difference images to work with and I don't want to jump the gun here on the running difference image sets.

I am however prepared to debate some of the work of Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Bruce as it relates to these images and my(their) model. I believe that their work gives us valueable insights into what is going on at the solar surface.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 06:27 PM
For starters, do you still claim that sunspots are black?

I did not ever claim there were NO photons of any sort coming from a sunspot. That is a strawman based on what I said. I said that I do not believe that black body radiation applies to these images, nor is it the cause of sunpots. The difference in the degree of visible light from these images is consistent with the notion of a displaced layer of neon that is not shining in these locations.

Notice the distinct difference between suggesting what I just suggested and suggesting there are no photons of any sort emitted from a sunspot?

The term "black" here is ambigious. It's RELATIVELY black. It's RELATIVELY dark in the visible spectrum.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 06:37 PM
Here is what I mean Nereid:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

The image on the left was created by Dr. Birkeland in his lab with an electromagnetic cathode sphere (terella) by cranking up the amps and intensifying the magnetic field around the sphere. The image on the right shows the concentration of x-rays is focused in the arcs themselves rather than say the core. These image require little or no processing to notice that the relative distribution of heat. I shows the energy flow of photon concentrations follow the arcs, just as in Birkeland's experiments. We don't need know a whole lot about the details of either image to know they share similar visual behaviors and have a similar heat distribution fingerprint. I would say that these images suggest that the heat concentration seen in the iron ion arcs is caused by the flow of electricity, just as in Birkeland's experiments.

Dr. Bruce also cited a number of solar phenomenon that were consistent with his electrical discharge theory over 50 years ago. It seems to me that these images speak to us about some issues, even without a lot of processing.

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 07:05 PM
I did not ever claim there were NO photons of any sort coming from a sunspot. That is a strawman based on what I said. I said that I do not believe that black body radiation applies to these images, nor is it the cause of sunpots. The difference in the degree of visible light from these images is consistent with the notion of a displaced layer of neon that is not shining in these locations.

Notice the distinct difference between suggesting what I just suggested and suggesting there are no photons of any sort emitted from a sunspot?

The term "black" here is ambigious. It's RELATIVELY black. It's RELATIVELY dark in the visible spectrum.

You said about sunspots:

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

Baloo
2005-Sep-20, 07:38 PM
Even if this is an ATM topic I dare to make a firm prediction: this thread is already doomed. Hope I'm wrong! :)


Yes. I've also failed to hear you explain how "black body radiation" explains any of these images, or how "black body radiation" explains the heat concentration in the arcs. Explain to me how black body radiation explains the concentration of x-rays in the arcs in Yohkoh images. Why do these results so closely match what Birkeland produced in his lab?

First of all I didn't say that I've explained all the images you've provided. What I've really did it was to prove why your interpretation on a specific image is wrong.
The image is on your website here (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg) and my explanation is here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437468&highlight=black+body+G-band#post437468).
So to clarify this: my blackbody demonstration didn't involve those X-ray images, ok? It was directed to a specific image. You've rejected my explanation whitout providing any reason. And for this I won't waste my time again to prove you anything since you're selectively choose what to consider only if it's fits your needs.

By the way, you've provided again an image whitout saying what it shows, how it was taken, filtered and analyzed. That's the way you're working? Putting two images aside and see if they are alike?

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-20, 08:11 PM
Even if this is an ATM topic I dare to make a firm prediction: this thread is already doomed. Hope I'm wrong! :)


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Yes. I've also failed to hear you explain how "black body radiation" explains any of these images, or how "black body radiation" explains the heat concentration in the arcs. Explain to me how black body radiation explains the concentration of x-rays in the arcs in Yohkoh images. Why do these results so closely match what Birkeland produced in his lab?

First of all I didn't say that I've explained all the images you've provided. What I've really did it was to prove why your interpretation on a specific image is wrong.
The image is on your website here (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg) and my explanation is here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437468&highlight=black+body+G-band#post437468).
So to clarify this: my blackbody demonstration didn't involve those X-ray images, ok? It was directed to a specific image. You've rejected my explanation whitout providing any reason. And for this I won't waste my time again to prove you anything since you're selectively choose what to consider only if it's fits your needs.


Heh. Looking at that thread reminded me of my post in response to yours:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=437480&postcount=302

I think we're at the point where we can provide "form letter" responses to Michael. He's asked the same questions repeatedly, and they have been answered by many different people. The "blackbody temperature" issue and what it applies to has been explained at least eight or nine times by now.

Jerry
2005-Sep-20, 08:59 PM
How much? (Fe)I don't know Olivine is about 50% iron by weight, so significant levels of Olivine mean significant levels of iron.



Why? Wouldn't it partly depend on things like the amount of the comet lost to sublimation (which preferentially removed H), as the Sun doesn't have a comparable mass loss mechanism?
Yes. But the heavy metal and Helium content of the outer solar system is clearly higher than predicted by the basic solar model - this is (I assume) one of the reasons at least one researcher has proposed that Neptune and Uranus were once closer to the solar center. As ToSeek has already noted, the proponents of this solution are using the Deep Impact result to bloister their case.


Why one? Why not a dozen prior SNe?

To address this question, don't you need to know something about the mixing time of 'inputs' to the ISM (such as SNR)?And are these (now adopted) convection rates unreasonable, under good models? Haven't you simply said that 'consistent' regions in parameter space were unreasonably set too small the initial (30 years ago) models?

'Set too small' is a nice way to say the model is wrong.
If it doesn't correctly predict the composition, the history, or orbits of the outer planets, what is left? It looks to me like you can use about as many SN as you want.




The other problem with flipping neutrinos is the solution causes a bigger problem that it solves: To flip, the neutrino must have mass, if the neutrino has mass it does not satisfy the nuclear energy budget problem the neutrino was created to solve in the first place.

...Whoa! Where did this come from? Surely it is precisely because the nuclear energy budgets require a certain neutrino flux, and that flux was not observed, that was the heart of the solar neutrino problem??Perhaps you could explain what you mean in a little more detail?

http://int.phys.washington.edu/PHYS554/winter_2004/neutrino2.pdf

The most common mechanisms for explaining neutrino mass suggest that current experiments are connected with phenomena far outside the standard model, residing near the Grand Unified energy scale of 1016 GeV.

Whether neutrino flipping is considered 'far outside' or requires only a 'minor change' to the standard model depends upon whose ox is being gored.

I think you have to go back to the standard model: there was an energy conservation problem. Fermi and others solved the problem by inventing the neutrino, and predicting its attributes. They could not observe neutrinos directly, but 25 years later, something that was thought to have the attributes ascribed to a neutrino was picked up in a secondary indicator. Now this something does not appear to have the predicted attributes after all.

Logically, is it acceptable to reconstruct the standard model about a phenomenon that doesn't behave according to the predictions of the standard model? Or was the neutrino solution wrong in the first place?

Duane
2005-Sep-20, 09:20 PM
Micheal, I am more than a little surprised you decided to jump back into this discussion without first doing the research you indicated you would be doing in responce to a series of questions posed by Nereid and myself in the old UT forum. Be that as it may...

You have changed the one of the pillars of Dr Manuel's theory by implying the core of the sun is not a neutron remnant, but may be iron filled with some form of fission going on. Ignoring for a minute the problems fission reactions would bring up in the current luminosity, mass and age of the sun, this is NOT the theory Dr Manuel is proposing.

Dr Manuel clearly states that the energy powering the sun is the direct result of the decay of neutrons escaping from the neutron core remnant. Not fission. Those are his words Micheal.

There is ample evidence to show that the pre-solar nebula from which the sun formed was enriched by the injection of material from nearby stars. This material not only arises from before the ignition of the proto-sun, but also well after the sun had gone through its T-Tauri phase.

Dr Manuel relies heavily on the odd isotopic abundances of certain heavy metals, most notably xenon. I found and posted to the link supplied by antoniseb the work of several researchers showing that the xenon abundances are clearly supernova related, however due to the differring grain sizes of the xenon found captured in meteorites, it is clear there were at least two separate events.

Numerous other isotope studies of meteorites (I link to several in the thread posted here by antoniseb) show that the material making up the presolar nebula was made up of material from not only supernovas (Dr Manuel's theory suggests a Type I SN), but also atmospheric shedding by red-giant stars, material injections from WR and other non-main sequence giant stars, and Type II supernovas.

Your argument about the make up of the inner planets versus the makeup of the sun is a logical fallacy. The fact that there are heavy metal planets near the sun can be explained in a number of ways, none of which would lead to the conclusion that the sun has "mostly" metal in its core. It has already been shown in this thread and others that the amount of metal in the sun is equal to several Earth-masses, but still makes up less than 2% of the sun's over all mass. This is not unexpected.

The formation processes of the sun would also help to remove heavy metals from the sun's core. Gravitational energy, photon pressure and radiation pressure, amoung others, would cause the higher-massed atoms of metals to be pushed away while allowing the much smaller atoms of hydrogen and helium to collect in the star's core.

The ignition of the star during or after the Hyashi phase of it's developement would also cause a significant solar wind to develope, further pushing away the heavier atoms, while also clearing the inner region of lighter gases.

Thge neutrino argument that you so readily dismiss is not a "minor" issue. The discovery that neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass revolutionized particle physics. More importantly, once the flavours were understood and tests developed to identify them, the whole issue of the neutrino problem disappeared. There is no question that the number of neutrinos detected (yes Micheal detected) coming from the sun are in excellent agreement with solar models proposed before they were detected. This is a very strong, nearly unovercomable argument in favour of the hydrogen filled sun's energy arising from fusion.

It is also the case that the T-Tauri stage of solar development would help to remove excess material, especially lighter gases, from the inner solar system, not to mention that fact the the very ignition of the proto-sun would also clear the inner region of lighter gases.

I have listened to the ideas you presented in connection with the various images you have displayed, and you have been asked some very pertinant questions about your ideas. Rather than defending Dr Manel's poorly supported contention, perhaps you should spend time in discussing the merits of your own observations.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 10:52 PM
Even if this is an ATM topic I dare to make a firm prediction: this thread is already doomed. Hope I'm wrong! :) ....First of all I didn't say that I've explained all the images you've provided. What I've really did it was to prove why your interpretation on a specific image is wrong.
The image is on your website here (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg) and my explanation is here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437468&highlight=black+body+G-band#post437468).[quote]

Which conversation are we having now, a conversation about the transition layer or the photosphere?

[quote]So to clarify this: my blackbody demonstration didn't involve those X-ray images, ok?

So now include these x-ray images in your explanation since I have included them in mine.


It was directed to a specific image. You've rejected my explanation whitout providing any reason. And for this I won't waste my time again to prove you anything since you're selectively choose what to consider only if it's fits your needs.

I rejected your answer because it did not address the DARK UMBRA regions all along the sides of that image. It didn't address the flare pattern in that image, it didn't address the cause of the heat disturbances, etc. In other words, you created an ad hoc buzzword in absense of a complete epxlanation. I liked my explanation "better" because I explained all these aspects of the image whereas you did not.


By the way, you've provided again an image whitout saying what it shows, how it was taken, filtered and analyzed. That's the way you're working? Putting two images aside and see if they are alike?

I do in fact do that, yes. Don't you? Do you have an explanation as to why Birkeland's experiments mirror the images from Yohkoh or do you intend to mudsling again? Why is the energy concentrated in the arcs?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 11:00 PM
Heh. Looking at that thread reminded me of my post in response to yours:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=437480&postcount=302

I think we're at the point where we can provide "form letter" responses to Michael. He's asked the same questions repeatedly, and they have been answered by many different people. The "blackbody temperature" issue and what it applies to has been explained at least eight or nine times by now.

Van, you have an annoying habit of slinging ad-homs instead of doing any scientific research. Let's recap how you dealt with this image:

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_000828.avi

You never once stood up to the plate to address any of the structure in this image. You never even tried to explain the shadows, or address the particles we see floating to the left. You never dealt with the 'erosion' we saw on the right of that running differnce image from Trace. Don't think that your constant slinging of ad hom attacks is very impressive to me. It is not. It shows how little science you have to offer. If I am in error, step and and you have something scientifically useful to offer, put it on the table. If you don't intend to step up the plate now Van go away and pester someone else for awhile.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-20, 11:48 PM
Micheal, I am more than a little surprised you decided to jump back into this discussion without first doing the research you indicated you would be doing in responce to a series of questions posed by Nereid and myself in the old UT forum. Be that as it may...

I'm trying to educate myself on a variety of topics in Astrophysics all at once. I may not be able to answer all your questions about the images just yet, but I can probably address a lot of the questions I could not answer the last time we discussed the images. My intent however was to focus on the electrical aspects of the surface behaviors since this arguement seems to offer the most promise of making headway IMO.


You have changed the one of the pillars of Dr Manuel's theory by implying the core of the sun is not a neutron remnant, but may be iron filled with some form of fission going on. Ignoring for a minute the problems fission reactions would bring up in the current luminosity, mass and age of the sun, this is NOT the theory Dr Manuel is proposing.

I am completely open to his model and open to ALTERNATIVE models as well. I can most easily defend a fission model so that is what I will stick with for now. I also HIGHLY respect Dr. Manuel and his work. It would not surprise me one bit to find that he is right about the compositon of the core. Since I can't "see" the core, I will simply pick the "simplest" way to explain the current flow and leave it at that. There are advantages however to his view of the core and I readily admit this.


Dr Manuel clearly states that the energy powering the sun is the direct result of the decay of neutrons escaping from the neutron core remnant. Not fission. Those are his words Micheal.

And the apparent release of hydrogen atoms near the surface might be evidence that he is right about that. Neutrons do seem to decay into hydrogen atoms, and I am more inclined to believe this happens in the arcs.


There is ample evidence to show that the pre-solar nebula from which the sun formed was enriched by the injection of material from nearby stars. This material not only arises from before the ignition of the proto-sun, but also well after the sun had gone through its T-Tauri phase.

I would expect that our sun would be quite an eclectic collection of the nearby flotsum and jetsum that was hanging around this area of space after the last supernova. I would image the sun has all sorts of elements in it, especially iron since a supernova is particularly rich in iron.


Dr Manuel relies heavily on the odd isotopic abundances of certain heavy metals, most notably xenon. I found and posted to the link supplied by antoniseb the work of several researchers showing that the xenon abundances are clearly supernova related, however due to the differring grain sizes of the xenon found captured in meteorites, it is clear there were at least two separate events.

It seems Dr. Manuel is also aware of these differences. He links strange xenon to a unique ion of helium as well.


Numerous other isotope studies of meteorites (I link to several in the thread posted here by antoniseb) show that the material making up the presolar nebula was made up of material from not only supernovas (Dr Manuel's theory suggests a Type I SN), but also atmospheric shedding by red-giant stars, material injections from WR and other non-main sequence giant stars, and Type II supernovas.

I guess I don't fully follow the significance of that distinction. Maybe I missed something. I think you are presuming that the red giants could not add iron to the mix? Aren't we right back to assuming the makeup of stars?


Your argument about the make up of the inner planets versus the makeup of the sun is a logical fallacy. The fact that there are heavy metal planets near the sun can be explained in a number of ways, none of which would lead to the conclusion that the sun has "mostly" metal in its core.

But the easy explanation would be to suggest that the inner planets are composed of the same elements as the sun itself. The inner planets have an abundant of heavy elements. What you are suggesting is that the sun has a distinctly different composition than it's inner most planets, but you have not shown how that variation is even possible. Can you demonstrate this phenomenon via Spitzer or Chanrda data of other solar systems? In short one method of determining solar composition suggests the sun is mostly hydrogen. Dr. Manuel uses another method to determine solar composition. The results are drastically different. How do we tell which method is the best method and which answer is the right answer? You tell me. Shouldn't we be looking at the observational data? What are those structures in running difference images?


It has already been shown in this thread and others that the amount of metal in the sun is equal to several Earth-masses, but still makes up less than 2% of the sun's over all mass. This is not unexpected.

But ultimately I'm questioning the method that makes you THINK the sun only is only 2% iron by composition. What METHOD are you using to determine this, and how is it scientifically "better" than Dr. Manuel's method?


The formation processes of the sun would also help to remove heavy metals from the sun's core. Gravitational energy, photon pressure and radiation pressure, amoung others, would cause the higher-massed atoms of metals to be pushed away while allowing the much smaller atoms of hydrogen and helium to collect in the star's core.

I guess I'm a bit confused. I was always taught that the heaviest elements in the sun would be found in the core, and that the sun would get progressively more dense as we descend into the atmosphere. Are you suggesting the heaviest elements are found furthest from the core?

Again, I think the key element in my arguement is the fact that these rigid surface features are visible for many days. These are the structures that release the iron ions into large arcs. Now if you have "better" and more plausible, more elegant way to explain these strutures, I'm listening. So far no one, not even Lockheed Martin has actually tried to explain these structures and why they persist so long or where they are located and how they know the location of these "strutures".


The ignition of the star during or after the Hyashi phase of it's developement would also cause a significant solar wind to develope, further pushing away the heavier atoms, while also clearing the inner region of lighter gases.

But aren't these ideas predicated on the ASSUMPTION that hydrogen is most plentiful element of a mixture of elements and yet somehow hydrogen will also seek the core? Doesn't that defy the laws of gravity somehow?

If this presumed abundance of hydrogen were true, why wouldn't we have an abundance of free hydrogen gas around our planet? Why would hydrogen sink into iron?


Thge neutrino argument that you so readily dismiss is not a "minor" issue.

I did not mean to imply that it was a minor issue at all. I simply meant that the gas model was not rejected the first time that observation did not meet with prediction. Folks spent time to think up new ways to explain the difference. All I was trying to suggest here is that sometimes the prediction will not match observation and there will still be validity to the idea.


The discovery that neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass revolutionized particle physics......This is a very strong, nearly unovercomable argument in favour of the hydrogen filled sun's energy arising from fusion.

Whether or not you feel these new techniques and new measurements support the gas model was not the point of my commment. My comment was simply intended to show that not every issue will be resolvable in every model at every moment in time. The fact one measurement disagrees with predictions does not invalidate the model. In this case however you will note that they actually changed the "predictions" to fit the observations. (i.e. different flavors if neutrinos are involved)


It is also the case that the T-Tauri stage of solar development would help to remove excess material, especially lighter gases,......

Again however, it seems to me, that all of this analysis is predicated on the idea that the sun is iron poor and hydrogen rich. If the sun was never iron poor to begin with, things may never have worked like this in the first place.


I have listened to the ideas you presented in connection with the various images you have displayed, and you have been asked some very pertinant questions about your ideas. Rather than defending Dr Manel's poorly supported contention, perhaps you should spend time in discussing the merits of your own observations.

Maybe so, but there are many theories floating around astronomy that are today considered "ATM" ideas. They all revolve around the notion of the flow of electricity through space. They all involve iron clouds that conduct Birkeland currents. My feeling is that 100 years from now, gas model theories of the sun, and purely gravitation models of the universe will seem just about as scientific as a flat earth concept seems today. There is electrical activity happening at the surface. This is perhaps the "easiest" of things I could hope to demonstrate. It also happens to be the linch pin of my model as well. It was in fact the electrical arcs I could see in the raw data that convinced me of a solid surface model to begin with. It seems to me that the flow of electricity through those arcs is pretty hard to ignore once you "see the light" so to speak.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 12:21 AM
You said about sunspots:

Do you still stand by this statement?

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

Yes, I stand by the statement. You have a lawyeresque quibble over the use of the term "black" I suppose? Did you miss that part about other kinds of photons? Did you miss the whole discussion we had relative percentages?

Nereid
2005-Sep-21, 12:58 AM
Let's recap how you dealt with this image:

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_000828.avi

You never once stood up to the plate to address any of the structure in this image. You never even tried to explain the shadows, or address the particles we see floating to the left. You never dealt with the 'erosion' we saw on the right of that running differnce image from Trace. Don't think that your constant slinging of ad hom attacks is very impressive to me. It is not. It shows how little science you have to offer. If I am in error, step and and you have something scientifically useful to offer, put it on the table. If you don't intend to step up the plate now Van go away and pester someone else for awhile.But Michael, aren't we all (still) waiting for you to supply us with such basic data about these images as:
- the scale (km or arcsec)?
- the source of the 'illumination' (height, intensity, direction; mechanism for production can come later)?
- the 'vertical' scale?
- the time period (you may have already given us this; if so, please repeat it)?
- the temperature of the 'solid' features?
- the lat/long (or other 'location') on the Sun?

I mean, this is a set of images you have presented in support of your claim, yet (unless I missed it) you haven't yet given us even this most basic of information.

Oh, and BTW, the only rule we have in BAUT at this time is 'be nice'; I would like to ask you, politely, to respect this rule.

Duane
2005-Sep-21, 02:23 AM
My intent however was to focus on the electrical aspects of the surface behaviors since this arguement seems to offer the most promise of making headway IMO.

I think the electrical nature of the cosmos is not going to bolster your arguments very much. The EU argument has been shown to be deeply flawed, and nothing in their material suggests a solid or even semi-rigid solar core.

I think you might be following a red herring.


I can most easily defend a fission model so that is what I will stick with for now.

I doubt that very much. I would be interested is seeing your view of how a star using fission reactions would work. Starting from accretion, be it on a remnant of some kind, or from scratch.


And the apparent release of hydrogen atoms near the surface might be evidence that he is right about that. Neutrons do seem to decay into hydrogen atoms, and I am more inclined to believe this happens in the arcs .

The release of hydrogen atoms near the surface of the sun has nothing to do with it. While a lone neutron will decay into H + -eV + E, this is nothing like the conditions found in a neutron star. Your allowing your desire for support of your theory to cloud your judgement.


I guess I don't fully follow the significance of that distinction. Maybe I missed something. I think you are presuming that the red giants could not add iron to the mix? Aren't we right back to assuming the makeup of stars?


Well, when looking at the material ejected from red giants all around us, no red giants would not add iron. This would also argue against Dr Manuel's theory, in that in his scenerio the iron would never escape a star like our sun.

Assuming? I suppose, although all of the evidence suggests the sun is mostly hydrogen, your pretty pictures and Dr Manuel's poorly supported theory not withstanding.

Furthermore, as I was discussing Dr Manuel's supposition that the sun in the remnant of a single supernova event, I suggest the meteorite evidence presented by a number of researchers showing multiple events from multiple different processes would pretty well kibosh that part of his theory.


But the easy explanation would be to suggest that the inner planets are composed of the same elements as the sun itself.


Au contrare moin amie! On the contrary, such an explanation would be near impossible to reconcile with the observations and measurements of several different probes and ground based observations--and the neutrino problem really gets in the way.


How do we tell which method is the best method and which answer is the right answer? You tell me. Shouldn't we be looking at the observational data? What are those structures in running difference images?


Yes, the observational data. Look at the evidence arising from just one area, the Orion nebula. These are large clouds composed of roughly 96% hydrogen in which stars a seen to be forming even as we debate. So which evidence would you prefer? For me, the evidence of literally hundreds of papers by literally hundreds of researchers showing the probable make-up of the sun, combined with observations which support that theory would seem to have the most weight.

Those structures you are so fond of Micheal? Like the one you think looks like an electrical arc, but which to me clearly shows a CME? What about the fact of the differencial rotation and the solid-like structure seen in the deep structure of the sun? What about metalisized hydrogen? You're running in circles.


I guess I'm a bit confused. I was always taught that the heaviest elements in the sun would be found in the core, and that the sun would get progressively more dense as we descend into the atmosphere. Are you suggesting the heaviest elements are found furthest from the core?

Where were you taught that Micheal? Perhaps you could point me to some collaborating text/evidence?

Of course the sun gets denser as you go deeper. The more material you have pressing down, the more dense it becomes. Kinda lost me on that one.

Read what I said again Micheal. I did not say the heaviest elements would be in the upper solar atmosphere, I said that when the sun was forming, the radiation and heat arising from gravitational energy, photon pressure and radiative pressure, among others, would preferentially push heavier elements away from the forming core. That is not to say there is none, it's just that there is very little as compared to the overall mass of the sun.

Google the idea. You'll come across lots of material.


If this presumed abundance of hydrogen were true, why wouldn't we have an abundance of free hydrogen gas around our planet? Why would hydrogen sink into iron?

Ok lad, you lost me here. As I said previously, radiation pressure pushed heavier elements away (all 1% of them!) and after ignition the inner regions of the sun were swept clean of lighter gasses.


In this case however you will note that they actually changed the "predictions" to fit the observations. (i.e. different flavors if neutrinos are involved


Well, not quite. What they changed was the idea that a neutrino has a zero rest mass. When is was proposed that it had a non-zero rest mass and the calculations were done, it was discovered that a non-rest mass neutrino could change. As I said, a revolution in particle physics.

The "predictions" were made about particle behavior, not solar evolution. When it was realized that the neutrino could change flavours, and the means to detect the different flavours were set in place, viola, there they were.

Don't you think it is interesting that the number of neutrinos they detected nearly exactly met the number expected if the sun was a fusion reactor changing hydrogen to helium? This is an observation Micheal, not a wild guess.


Again however, it seems to me, that all of this analysis is predicated on the idea that the sun is iron poor and hydrogen rich. If the sun was never iron poor to begin with, things may never have worked like this in the first place.

Indeed. How then do you explain all of the T-Tauri stars that have been catalogued? Oh, not to mention that they are all in star-forming areas?

dakini
2005-Sep-21, 04:53 AM
I have not read his paper in detail, but he makes a point of there being too few neutrinoes from the Sun. This is an old problem, and may very well be solved with neutrinoes having mass (they change flavor on thier way from there to here, so we don't detect 2/3 of the ones created int he solar core). And how does his model produce the neutrinoes we do see?
I thought that newer neutrino observatories like SNO detected all the neutrinos that should be expected though? Like there are three different kinds of neutrino interactions and previous set ups had only been measuring one type, whereas the SNO observatory (and others, I can't remember which ones) were detecting all three.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-21, 05:27 AM
I thought that newer neutrino observatories like SNO detected all the neutrinos that should be expected though? Like there are three different kinds of neutrino interactions and previous set ups had only been measuring one type, whereas the SNO observatory (and others, I can't remember which ones) were detecting all three.

Note the date of the post. I think the SNO results were coming in around that time, and there was more confirmation later.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-21, 06:01 AM
Van, you have an annoying habit of slinging ad-homs instead of doing any scientific research.


Please point out the "ad-homs." Quite a few BABB forum members spent substantial time to answer many of your questions and provide references. I think it is worth pointing out that you are again asking many of the same questions.



Let's recap how you dealt with this image:

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_000828.avi

You never once stood up to the plate to address any of the structure in this image. You never even tried to explain the shadows, or address the particles we see floating to the left. You never dealt with the 'erosion' we saw on the right of that running differnce image from Trace.


So let's see. An image provided without context, the "look at the picture" argument. Nonstandard terminology. And I am supposed to explain your interpretation? It is up to you to do that, after you have provided the image context. As for nonstandard terminology: What do you mean by "particles"? What do you mean by "shadows"? On "erosion" - I expect the photosphere to change, because it isn't solid. I have nothing to explain. As I recall, this is supposed to be your "explanation" for differential rotation and the many other effects that change the photosphere.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-21, 06:13 AM
Michael: "They are VERY dark to the naked eye. They have other types of photons flowing through them of course, but in that region, the visible light simply disapears, and we can see highly defined "sides" to this "layer" of "penumbral filaments". What the deal with the BLACK hole in just these specific locations, and along the sides of the penumbral filament layer?"

Yes, I stand by the statement. You have a lawyeresque quibble over the use of the term "black" I suppose? Did you miss that part about other kinds of photons? Did you miss the whole discussion we had relative percentages?

Oh, I have a few issues:

(1) What do you mean by "to the naked eye"?

(2) What do you mean by "other types/kinds of photons"?

(3) Do you agree that a sunspot, seen alone, without the surrounding surface of the sun would, in fact, by extremely bright in visible light?

Baloo
2005-Sep-21, 10:27 AM
So now include these x-ray images in your explanation since I have included them in mine.


Mister Mozina, let me explain you this way: I'm not trying to prove your theory wrong. There are a lot of fine refutations in this thread (and in the now closed threads) that are doing it better than I could ever do it. Unfortunately all those refutations are useless*. Why? Because IMHO the problem here is not your theory itself, but your methods of investigation. You were wrong from the very begining: your basic hypothesis are the consequence of a wrong image interpretation and that's what I'm trying to prove. There are your methods that I don't trust in first place and I don't even question your theory since the investigative means you use are far to be correct.
The quote above for instance: I've repeatedly stated that my explanation concerns the specific image you've provided. That image appears this way because the blackbody radiation. This is not the primary cause of what's happening inside the sun and is not meant to be an "all-in-one-wonder explanation". But this is representative for your way of developing a "theory": instead of defending your interpretation on a specific piece of information you claim that the explanation provided by the others is not explaining some other phenomena that wasn't even adressed. You're evading the original issue. I've never adressed X-ray images, but you claim that my explanation is wrong for them. Guess what? My explanation was directed to some other images and you've failed to explain why I'm wrong.




I rejected your answer because it did not address the DARK UMBRA regions all along the sides of that image. It didn't address the flare pattern in that image, it didn't address the cause of the heat disturbances, etc. In other words, you created an ad hoc buzzword in absense of a complete epxlanation. I liked my explanation "better" because I explained all these aspects of the image whereas you did not.


Like I've said I didn't adressed the causes of what's happening in that image. All I've said it was that the dark regions where appearing dark due to temperature differences and highly monochromatic filter used. I've provided quantitative estimations that shows that the dark region is actually at least 10 times less brighter than the surrounding area at the specific wavelength at which those images where taken.
Tell me Mister Mozina, why should I even try to disprove your theory when you fail to defend your basic premises?





By the way, you've provided again an image whitout saying what it shows, how it was taken, filtered and analyzed. That's the way you're working? Putting two images aside and see if they are alike?

I do in fact do that, yes. Don't you?


No, I don't. You didn't provided any reference on how this image has been acquired, which filters have been used, what kind of postprocessing has been done. Whitout all this the image by itself is useless.




Do you have an explanation as to why Birkeland's experiments mirror the images from Yohkoh or do you intend to mudsling again? Why is the energy concentrated in the arcs?

The things works this way: you have a theory, we're attacking it. I've questioned one point of your theory and you've failed to explained why I'm wrong. It's not my job to defend or to explain whatever you want, it is your job to answer our questions.



*Note: When I've said "useless" I meant for Michael; I've learned a lot from such refutations and in this respect this kind of topic is far to be useless. ;)

Baloo
2005-Sep-21, 11:31 AM
I think we're at the point where we can provide "form letter" responses to Michael. He's asked the same questions repeatedly, and they have been answered by many different people. The "blackbody temperature" issue and what it applies to has been explained at least eight or nine times by now.

And this could go like that endlessly; Michael talk in a different language which is far to be the scientific one. :)

N C More
2005-Sep-21, 12:10 PM
And this could go like that endlessly; Michael talk in a different language which is far to be the scientific one. :)

Yep, it's kind of like The Song That Never Ends (http://www.zutroy.com/stuff/neverend/index2.htm)

The real clincher (for me) comes from this article (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/) (from a couple years back), where Jeffrey Larsen, an astronomer at the University of Arizona in Tucson, says:



"A supernova is incredibly energetic. You don't form planets in the aftermath of one of these, since the outer layers of the star are literally blasted off into space for thousands of light years," he said.
"The space next to an exploded star is very, very, very clean. We're standing here on a planet, so we didn't have a supernova in our past."

This one is pretty hard to tap dance around.

Eta C
2005-Sep-21, 12:56 PM
I thought that newer neutrino observatories like SNO detected all the neutrinos that should be expected though? Like there are three different kinds of neutrino interactions and previous set ups had only been measuring one type, whereas the SNO observatory (and others, I can't remember which ones) were detecting all three.

Quite correct. For those interested here's the SNO website (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/). The late John Bachall of Princeton was one of the authorities in this field and had a good website on the issue (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/).

So Mike, you still deny that the solar neutrino problem is solved. Unfortunately for you and for Oliver Manuel, it has been solved. Conclusively. As Baloo and others point out this is an observation not a tweak of a theory. Before you start weaving alternatives (background passing through the sun, fusion in the corona, etc) I suggest you read up on the problem. You castigate us for dismissing your theory without reading what it's about (not true IMO, but that's another issue) yet you seem to have no trouble dismissing the work of people like Bachall and the SNO scientists without actually going through their work.

cyrek1
2005-Sep-21, 02:42 PM
To Seek

Sorry to dissagree with your professor but iron cocentrations in stars is confined to the 'blue giants'.

The Suns content is given as about 80% hydrogen, 19%(?) helium and 1% heavier elements.
So how does the 'mostly iron' fit in to this solar content?

The iron you see in the Sun comes from the impacting bodies such as comets, meteroids and possibly small asteroids.

cyrek1

Fram
2005-Sep-21, 02:51 PM
To Seek

Sorry to dissagree with your professor but iron cocentrations in stars is confined to the 'blue giants'.

The Suns content is given as about 80% hydrogen, 19%(?) helium and 1% heavier elements.
So how does the 'mostly iron' fit in to this solar content?

The iron you see in the Sun comes from the impacting bodies such as comets, meteroids and possibly small asteroids.

cyrek1

Is this the OP you're responding to? It's 3 and a half years old, and the focus of the discussion is no longer on ToSeek's original post but on Mozina's claims, so it is a bit confusing to get a reply to it suddenly (I suppose it is a reply to that post and not another one?).

cyrek1
2005-Sep-21, 03:55 PM
To Fram

Yes, my reply is to the original post. I did not want to read all the commentary which adds up to several pages.
I did not pay attention to the date of the original post.

cyrek

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 05:07 PM
But Michael, aren't we all (still) waiting for you to supply us with such basic data about these images as:
- the scale (km or arcsec)?
- the source of the 'illumination' (height, intensity, direction; mechanism for production can come later)?
- the 'vertical' scale?
- the time period (you may have already given us this; if so, please repeat it)?
- the temperature of the 'solid' features?
- the lat/long (or other 'location') on the Sun?

I mean, this is a set of images you have presented in support of your claim, yet (unless I missed it) you haven't yet given us even this most basic of information.

Oh, and BTW, the only rule we have in BAUT at this time is 'be nice'; I would like to ask you, politely, to respect this rule.

Nereid, I have a great deal of respect for you and how you've acted throughout this "process". I will certainly respect your wishes and respect your rules. All I ask is that other here keep their comments FAIR, above the belt and keep the comments focused ON THE SCIENCE. I just get tired of the cheap shots from a select few.

The one question I'm still struggling with is the ANGLE of the light source. I know the arcs cause the photon emissions, but they MOVE, and they are not fixed the way a typical light source would be fixed in such an image. That is giving me fits as it relates to vertical height as you might image. I have included the fits header header file from the first image in the set so I'm not piecemealing your answers. I cannot give you an exact duration just yet since Lockheed Martin has not answered any of my questions about this image. The best I can tell you is that the whole sequence begins at 13:00 and there are raw FITS files through 24:00. This sequence is likely only a short time frame of that sequence, but my skills at reproducing their running difference images are still rather limited and it will take me a while to figure out the exact shots used and the exact timing of the sequence.

Here is the FITS header from the first image in the set from that sequence:

Headers for HDU 1
SIMPLE = T / Written by IDL: Mon Sep 5 22:00:30 2005
BITPIX = 16 /Integer*2 (short integer)
NAXIS = 2 /
NAXIS1 = 1024 / X Size of image
NAXIS2 = 1024 / Y Size of image
DATE = '00/08/28, 13:07:57.000' / ??
MJD = 51784 / ??
DAY = 7911 / Days since 1-Jan-79
TIME = 47277000 / Milliseconds in day
IMG_TIME= '28-AUG-00 13:07:57' / Image time (start of exposure)
TIME_OBS= '13:07:57.000' / Time of image
DATE_OBS= '2000-08-28T13:07:57.000' / Date/Time of Image
ORIGIN = 'TRACE ' / Origin
TELESCOP= 'TRACE ' / Telescope
INSTRUME= 'TRACE ' / Instrument
OBJECT = '?? ' / Target Description
SCI_OBJ = '?? ' / Science objective
OBS_PROG= 'STD.dynamics' / Sequence name (observing program)
CTYPE1 = 'Solar-x ' / Type of Axis1
CTYPE2 = 'Solar-y ' / Type of Axis2
CDELT1 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel X
CDELT2 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel Y
CRPIX1 = 1381.60 / Pixel location of sun center X
CRPIX2 = 1289.05 / Pixel location of sun center Y
CRVAL1 = 0.00000 / Refernce
CRVAL2 = 0.00000 / Reference
XCEN = -434.549 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center x
YCEN = -388.274 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center y
AMP = 'A ' / Amplifier used
SUM_CCDX= 1 / On-chip summing mode x (Serial)
SUM_CCDY= 1 / On-chip summing mode y (parallel)
BIN_CCD = 1 / IP binning
TBIN_CCD= 1 / Overall binning*summing factor
SRI_LLEX= 0.00000 / Solar Rotated Image, L-L Extract X
SRI_LLEY= 0.00000 / Solar Rotated Image, L-L Extract Y
SRI_FOVX= 511.500 / Solar Rot Img, FOV X center ("SRI" pix)
SRI_FOVY= 511.500 / Solar Rot Img, FOV Y center ("SRI" pix)
T_FSTR = 16.9770425372 / Temperature of Telescope Front Struct
T_SPIDER= 21.3014446822 / Temperature of Spider Frame
T_CCD_A = -61.2500000000 / Temperature of CCD Amplifier A
MSEQID = 4951 / Main Sequence identifier
MSEQ_NAM= 'STD.dynamics' / Main Sequence name
SEQID = 4951 / Sequence identifier
SEQ_NAM = 'STD.dynamics' / Sequence name
FRMID = 756 / Frame ID
FRM_NAM = 'cjs.stdaecfull171' / Frame Name
TRGID = 139 / Target ID
TRG_NAM = 'top2.pos1' / Target Name
FN_INSEQ= 8 / Frame number in sequence
FRM_NUM = 1676788 / Frame number
SHT_NOM = 11.5840 / Expected exposure duration (sec)
SHT_MDUR= 11.5839 / Measured exposure duration (sec)
WAVE_LEN= '171 ' / Wavelength length class (descriptor)
MFILT1 = 91 / Filter wheel 1 Position
MFILT2 = 125 / Filter wheel 2 Position
APID = 2108 / Application ID
SOU_AREA= 0 / Source Area Index
PERCENTD= 100.000 / Percent of image present
IMG_MIN = 71.0000 / Image Minimum
IMG_MAX = 4037.00 / Image Maximum
IMG_AVG = 105.071 / Image Average
IMG_DEV = 17.8109 / Image Deviation
DP_HEADE= 0 /

Faultline
2005-Sep-21, 05:13 PM
Michael Mozina, conerning the similarities in the photos you keep showing us...

As far back as the thirties, movie makers could create realistic tornadoes to film for special effects. Does that mean that they accurately modeled the physics behind cyclones in the sky? If so, why don't meteorologists consult with the makers of "The Wizard of Oz" when analyzing tornadoes?

Just because you can make something appear similar to the sun doesn't make it an accurate model of the physics involved. Physics is about so much more than appearances. It's about MEASURED OBSERVATIONS and the math behind it.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 05:43 PM
Oh, I have a few issues:

(1) What do you mean by "to the naked eye"?

Yes. In other words, there is a NOTICEABLE difference betwee the visible light seen in the penumbra, vs. the lack of light NOT seen in the umbra.


(2) What do you mean by "other types/kinds of photons"?

I'm talking other SOURCES of photons and different wavelengths of photons. In other words, there may be some photon output from hydrogen that "glows" in the visible spectrum, but that layer of neon isn't there to kick out the bulk of the visible light in the sunspot itself. Other layers of plasma are still illuminated on many different freqencies and wavelengths. The neon however is not kicking out visible light in the sunspot itself. It has been pushed out of the way from the rising silicon that leaves those flare patterns you see in the penumbra layer.


(3) Do you agree that a sunspot, seen alone, without the surrounding surface of the sun would, in fact, by extremely bright in visible light?

Define "extremely bright" from a naked eye perspective.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 08:03 PM
I think the electrical nature of the cosmos is not going to bolster your arguments very much. The EU argument has been shown to be deeply flawed, and nothing in their material suggests a solid or even semi-rigid solar core.

It is my intent to focus on the electrical nature of the solar atmosphere only. I don't want to get into too many issues all at once. Suffice to say that it would be in the best interest of the Electrical Universe crowd to be interested in this discussion, and I'm hoping some will participate. Much of what I learned recently about the solar atmosphere came from reading the works of Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Kristian Birkeland. I learned of their work through the EU groups and threads. There is an electrical connection between the earth and the sun which I believe Bruce and Birkeland both understood. I think I can make the most convincing case by beginning with the electrical arcs from the surface and working toward the surface. That electrical activity is what illuminates the surface in running difference images, and it's what emits the photons we see in the satellite images.


I think you might be following a red herring.

The electric comet thing IMO is a bit of a red herring. I think they are probably right, but it's only one element of a series of observervations that support the EU model. I think there is too much focus on that one issue, and not enough focus on the big picture in general.


I doubt that very much. I would be interested is seeing your view of how a star using fission reactions would work. Starting from accretion, be it on a remnant of some kind, or from scratch.

I would begin with that Z-pinch thread and think about the idea of Birkeland currents running through predominantly iron/silicon clouds from a recently deceased supernova. The currents pinch the iron and other materials together. This creates enough mass to cause a fission reaction at the core of this mass body. It's not particularly sophisticated. I would think Dr. Manuel's model would work in much the same way.


The release of hydrogen atoms near the surface of the sun has nothing to do with it. While a lone neutron will decay into H + -eV + E, this is nothing like the conditions found in a neutron star. Your allowing your desire for support of your theory to cloud your judgement.

I humbly disagree. I think this observation very important and it is critical to understanding what's going on at the solar surface. I think Dr. Manuel feels the same way. We both believe that neutrons are decaying into hydrogen. I can see hydrogen ion photons coming from these same arcs. I think this issue is VERY important and it's one of key aspects of where we do agree.


Well, when looking at the material ejected from red giants all around us, no red giants would not add iron. This would also argue against Dr Manuel's theory, in that in his scenerio the iron would never escape a star like our sun.

We've not sat down and talked about this issue in great detail, so I am in hesitant to put any words in Dr. Manuel's mouth on this subject. I can only speak for myself here. I am of the opinion that ALL stars, regardless of what color they are contain mostly iron. The color is IMO more related to the lack of neon present in the atmosphere rather than anything related to the fuel it's burning. This idea however is so outside of the mainstream, I doubt anyone employed in astronomy is going to go that far out on a limb. Suffice to say, I'm willing at this point to entertain a host of new ideas about how our universe functions based on what I see in these satellite images.

For instance, I can find no evidence in these images that our universe was *EVER* iron poor, and I see evidence in these images that our own sun is iron rich. That is just the way I see things now.


Assuming? I suppose, although all of the evidence suggests the sun is mostly hydrogen, your pretty pictures and Dr Manuel's poorly supported theory not withstanding.

That's not really fair. Dr. Manuel's life's work is not 'poorly supported'. In fat what I've discovered over the last few months is that his work *IS RESPECTED* in his primary field, the field of nuclear chemistry. It is only when we get to the fields of astronomy that his work runs headlong into a rigid dogma that says otherwise. What remains to be seen however is whether or not anyone here from the astronomical community can really find any error in his NUCLEAR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. So far I've heard many allegations, but I've seen no significan scientific refute to his methods or his findings.

The issue here is "what is the "best" method to determine solar composition. The "method" that NASA promotes (counting photons) IMO is childish and overly simplistic. It ASSUMES too many things. For one thing, unless you know the ARRANGEMENT and HEAT DISTRIBUTION of the sun, counting photons is useless. If all the heat is concentrated in the outer layers of hydrogen and helium (which is exactly what's hapenning) then these layers emit the most photons and SEEM the most abundant. These photon counts have nothing to do with abundance however, but heat distribution only. There is no way you can use such a method to effectively measure the sun's chemical composition in a meaningful scientific way IMO. Period.

The approach that Dr. Manuel took was a better and a more standard scientific approach from a nuclear chemical standpoint. I can hardly think of a "better" way to approach the problem.

Here is the way I see things, and pardon my bluntness....

Watching astronomers ignore his measurements of isotope half lifes and his sophisticated techniques looks to me like creationists trying to ignore the half life measurements of of soil samples that show an earth that is older than 6000 years old. There is so much "tradition" and "dogma" associated with a hydrogen sun that there seems to be very little listening going on within the astronomical community. That may sound harsh, but that is how it seems from on outsiders perspective. I'm not a astronomer, nor am I paid to work within a particular system. I'm only interested in truth here. I don't have any reputation to protect, nor any "pet issues", other than trying to explain what I see in these satellite images. I determined from these images that the sun was composed of calcium ferrite materials before I ever stumbled onto the work of Dr. Manuel. Once I found it, and studied his method and compared it to the standard method used in astronomy, I find his method more scientific sound and I can explain why in great detail if you like. IMO, Birkland and Bruce had this all figured out a long time ago. This is really old news at this point. It is just that satellites and Dr. Manuels work on solar composition are filling in details that Birkeland and Bruce did not know at that time. The more we learn, the more pieces are filled in. That is how I see things.


Furthermore, as I was discussing Dr Manuel's supposition that the sun in the remnant of a single supernova event, I suggest the meteorite evidence presented by a number of researchers showing multiple events from multiple different processes would pretty well kibosh that part of his theory.

Let's be specific here, since first of all, the sun should be composed of meteorites and the elements the contain. Supernovas are predomintantly thought to be the last remnant of a star that is nothing but iron, correct? Why would it not make sense that iron would be plentiful in everthing that formed from this remnant? Why would the sun be different in composition than the first four planets?


Au contrare moin amie! On the contrary, such an explanation would be near impossible to reconcile with the observations and measurements of several different probes and ground based observations--and the neutrino problem really gets in the way.

First of all, it is NOT "impossible" to reconcile this model with observations from any instrument. I MAY not be able to do it personally, but that does not mean that it is "impossible". Since I was never all that personally interested in the neutrino issue one way or the other, it's a non issue to me personally. I don't see how it gets in the way since I have no idea how to even predict a neutrino count from this model. I would first like to see WHERE the neutrinos are coming from. That might shed light on the issue. For instance if the neutrinos emit from the arcs rather than the core, your model is in serious trouble. Since we don't yet have that kind of technology, I'll personally be happy to "wait and see", but I don't see how it's really a problem for my model.


Yes, the observational data. Look at the evidence arising from just one area, the Orion nebula. These are large clouds composed of roughly 96% hydrogen in which stars a seen to be forming even as we debate.

But again Dwane, we are basing this percentage on photon counts rather than direct knowledge of what is in these clouds. We only see the particles that emit something. That is not an accurate way to determine composition. It is a valid scientific fact that hydrogen is present. It's relative abundance is a "guess".

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 08:05 PM
So which evidence would you prefer? For me, the evidence of literally hundreds of papers by literally hundreds of researchers showing the probable make-up of the sun, combined with observations which support that theory would seem to have the most weight.

The phrase that comes to mind here, and the one that has stuck with me through life is: "One test is worth a thousand expert opinions". Birkeland was also a scientist and wrote a lot of papers. Bruce was also a scientist who wrote a lot of papers. Manuel has written many papers. All of their papers are successfully supported by direct observation. Now WHICH scientists should I believe and why? Which papers hold the most weight? Is shear volume a measurement of truth, or do observational data have to jive with model? If so, when does the gas model crowd intend to explain Lockheeds images?


Those structures you are so fond of Micheal? Like the one you think looks like an electrical arc, but which to me clearly shows a CME? What about the fact of the differencial rotation and the solid-like structure seen in the deep structure of the sun? What about metalisized hydrogen? You're running in circles.

Magnetised hydrogen does not emit iron ion photons. The arcs contain iron. The CME you see is a direct result of electrical erosion on the surface that has all those structures. There is a distinct layer here Dwayne, with distinct forms and shapes and sizes. There is a distinct pattern of heat and light oncentration to be seen in these images as well. What are they?


Where were you taught that Micheal? Perhaps you could point me to some collaborating text/evidence?

I guess I'm showing my age. I doubt today's text books would describe it that way anymore. This brings me to another issue. The PRESUMPTION is that plasmas will not separate but will act more like suspended materials. What evidence do you have that the sun works like that? I see evidence of an outer hydrogen layer and an inner helium layer, and something heavier underneath that. What makes you think that elements do not separate in electromagnetic fields?


Of course the sun gets denser as you go deeper. The more material you have pressing down, the more dense it becomes. Kinda lost me on that one.

But that brings up another problem. In this model one expects the changes in density to be at least SOMEWHAT gradual. They are not. If you look at the tsunami video on my website, you'll see a "structure" to the left side that is clearly visible and unmoved by the movement of the wave. It's density would seem to be quite different than the density of the wave passing over it, and it's at a fairly shallow depth as well. The shockwave video demonstatate a clear density deliniation between the atmosphere and the structures seen in running difference images. Again, these images also demonstrate the relatively shallow depth of that radical delination in density.


Read what I said again Micheal. I did not say the heaviest elements would be in the upper solar atmosphere, I said that when the sun was forming, the radiation and heat arising from gravitational energy, photon pressure and radiative pressure, among others, would preferentially push heavier elements away from the forming core. That is not to say there is none, it's just that there is very little as compared to the overall mass of the sun.

If that were so, why are the photons from iron concentrated in the arcs?


Ok lad, you lost me here. As I said previously, radiation pressure pushed heavier elements away (all 1% of them!) and after ignition the inner regions of the sun were swept clean of lighter gasses.

I see what you are suggesting, but again, there is a concentration issue and series of photon emission patterns to consider here.


Well, not quite. What they changed was the idea that a neutrino has a zero rest mass. When is was proposed that it had a non-zero rest mass and the calculations were done, it was discovered that a non-rest mass neutrino could change. As I said, a revolution in particle physics....
The "predictions" were made about particle behavior, not solar evolution. When it was realized that the neutrino could change flavours, and the means to detect the different flavours were set in place, viola, there they were.


But in the neurtino case the OBSERVATIONS changed the model because the observations were the key to understanding the nature of the problem with the model. Again, I'm not emotionally invested in the neurtrino issue, and I'm simply using it to illustrate a series of points. No model is "right" unless it conforms to and explains the observations. No model is false, only because initially fails to explain a single phenomenon.


Don't you think it is interesting that the number of neutrinos they detected nearly exactly met the number expected if the sun was a fusion reactor changing hydrogen to helium? This is an observation Micheal, not a wild guess.

Not really. In this case they were working backwards and I've still not "seen" an images of these emission patterns. Until I do, I will reserve judgement. Like I said, if these emissions are concentrated in the arcs, the gas model will still be in trouble, even if the numbers are in the right ballpark.


Indeed. How then do you explain all of the T-Tauri stars that have been catalogued? Oh, not to mention that they are all in star-forming areas?

It's the METHOD of suggesting that this data is useful in determining composition ratios that I dispute, not the data itself. You can catalog data all you like. When you try to use this data to suggest this data accurately represents solar compositions, THEN there is a problem. Unless these elements all emit in unison and uniformly, that can never be used to measure relative quantities of elements, though it is quite useful in seeing what elements are present.

My beef here is with the METHOD of suggesting that photon counts accurately reflect RATIOS of elements. I do not have a problem with the idea that the data speaks to the PRESENSE of various elements. What I have a tough time with however is suggesting that we can count photons to determine ratios. Unless you understand the heat distrubution and the distribution of elements, this method will not give accurate results.

IMO, Dr. Manuels METHOD for determining solar composition is MUCH better, and based on a set of more sound scientific principles. His answer also happens to correlate very well with direct observation.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 08:09 PM
Michael Mozina, conerning the similarities in the photos you keep showing us...

As far back as the thirties, movie makers could create realistic tornadoes to film for special effects. Does that mean that they accurately modeled the physics behind cyclones in the sky? If so, why don't meteorologists consult with the makers of "The Wizard of Oz" when analyzing tornadoes?

Just because you can make something appear similar to the sun doesn't make it an accurate model of the physics involved. Physics is about so much more than appearances. It's about MEASURED OBSERVATIONS and the math behind it.

Well, I'm not sure how to answer your question. It would depend on HOW the film makers created their realistic looking tornados wouldn't it? If they created them in much the same way as regular tornados are created, then perhaps they did preserve and stay true to the physics involved.

I think it is questionable debate tactic to be comparing this idea to "The Wizard Of Oz".

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 08:11 PM
To Seek

Sorry to dissagree with your professor but iron cocentrations in stars is confined to the 'blue giants'.

The Suns content is given as about 80% hydrogen, 19%(?) helium and 1% heavier elements.
So how does the 'mostly iron' fit in to this solar content?

The iron you see in the Sun comes from the impacting bodies such as comets, meteroids and possibly small asteroids.

cyrek1

It's the METHOD that is behind the term "given" in your statement that is the problem here. The word GIVEN and the percentages GIVEN are based on a METHOD that is rather dubious since it is based on the idea that all things glow in exactly the same percentages regardless of the structures involved.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 08:24 PM
Quite correct. For those interested here's the SNO website (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/). The late John Bachall of Princeton was one of the authorities in this field and had a good website on the issue (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/).

So Mike, you still deny that the solar neutrino problem is solved.

Would you quote me here, or are you just sticking words in my mouth again?

When I SEE *WHERE* these neutrinos come from THEN we'll discuss whether there ever was a problem and whether it was ever solved.

You and VAN were quite the tag team of strawman hurler and ad homeninem attack. I'd prefer we keep this discussion on the adult side of the scientific debate scale. Can we do that?


Unfortunately for you and for Oliver Manuel, it has been solved.

First of all, I never had a problem with the neutrino issue in the first place. I never hung my hat on the issue or got involved in the issue. It's a non issue from my perspective. Stop lumping me in with Dr. Manuel in that repsect. I have nothing to prove or anything to gain or lose by discussion neutrinos. PERIOD. It has nothing to do with me. Comphrehend that issue this time and stop trying to use it to make a point with me.


Conclusively.

Show me a picture of the nutrino emssions and show me where they are concentrated. THEN you can make such WILD and OUTRAGOUS statements.


As Baloo and others point out this is an observation not a tweak of a theory. Before you start weaving alternatives (background passing through the sun, fusion in the corona, etc) I suggest you read up on the problem. You castigate us for dismissing your theory without reading what it's about (not true IMO, but that's another issue) yet you seem to have no trouble dismissing the work of people like Bachall and the SNO scientists without actually going through their work.

If this is OBSERVATION, then where is the image that shows the concentration, like Yohkoh shows the concentration of x-rays? You keep ASSERTING this thing as "all wrapped up" and act as though my hypothesis is somehow affected by it. I don't see it that way at all. I am not dismissing their work, but I saw no images that showed me WHERE the neutirinos are concentrated, so I have no way to use their work to HELP my case.

You and others need to keep my ideas straight from Dr. Manuel's ideas and theories. In many ways we are in direct agreement. In other areas, we are not. I am not Dr. Manuel and he is not me. We are not alike on this neutrino issue so find some other issue to make a point with. I never mentioned a word about neutrinos. On the other hand, I did say lots of things about other subjects. How about focusing on one of the topics I *DID* make a prediction about?

Maksutov
2005-Sep-21, 09:05 PM
This is a nice piece of handwaving, but you never expained a thing from a scientific perspective.It gets kind of funny when the handwaver starts accusing those who provide objective, verified evidence, of "handwaving". The poster protests too much, methinks.


WHAT (be specific now) causes those "structures" in running difference images?Well, in normal photographs and imaging outside the visual spectrum, we already know that there are thermal currents, magnetic patterns, and so on. However in "enhanced" pictures that have no information about how they were processed, there is no way to be sure we're even seeing "structures" rather than artifacts of photographic processes.

Why do these "structures" rotate uniformly and stay static over days?See the above re the suspect nature of these "structures".


A scientific disproof requires a bit of scientific evidence. You can't handwave a few times and expect that to take the place of a valid scientific arguement. Do you have any proof that Dr. Manuel's work is flawed in some way as it relates to solar composition? Yes or no? If yes, be specific. Do you have any "disproof" of any of Dr. Bruce's work that I cited?There's that "using objective, verified evidence is handwaving" stuff again. 99.99% of all scientific studies of the Sun show it is composed of hydrogen and helium plus a few trace elements. These studies are from such fonts of ignorance as the astronomy department at Cornell (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/sun.php) (a nice basic page that almost everyone should be able to understand) and Harvard (http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0305/neon/) (the Chandra chronicles, where most of the trace elements have been found to be less abundant than initially thought). I imagine the astronomers and physicists who performed these observations and experiments were/are "handwaving" too.

It would appear that you consider anything that counters your pet speculations as "handwaving". That brings up another point. It also appears that what you've presented has very little original material in it, but instead has been cobbled together from the sources you continually cite. One wonders how ethical such a practice is.

These attempts at ignoring real, reliable data while pointing to pictures and saying "see", combined with the lifting of data from other sources and the tendency of the poster to fall into the "ALL CAPS MEANS IT'S TRUE" syndrome, are making reading this stuff a chore.

My reasons for visiting the BAUT are getting and providing good information on astronomy and space science, assisting those who have gone off on tangents, and just having some fun with science. None of those apply to this thread, where the Mozina posts consist of dodging questions, ignoring demonstrated errors, and accusing critics of the very same unscientific practices only he is employing.

About the only worthwhile thing anyone could get out of this thread is a very clear demonstration by the ATMer of how the scientific method doesn't work.

Enough already.

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-21, 09:40 PM
(1) What do you mean by "to the naked eye"?
Yes. In other words, there is a NOTICEABLE difference betwee the visible light seen in the penumbra, vs. the lack of light NOT seen in the umbra.


I was interested in your viewing conditions. The sun is not a naked eye object except under conditions where the light is filtered naturally, and even then it is extremely dangerous.





(2) What do you mean by "other types/kinds of photons"?

I'm talking other SOURCES of photons and different wavelengths of photons. In other words, there may be some photon output from hydrogen that "glows" in the visible spectrum, but that layer of neon isn't there to kick out the bulk of the visible light in the sunspot itself.
[snip]


The issue is that in normal terminology there is only one "type" of photon. And in a sunspot we see a spectrum that indicates a lower blackbody temperature than the rest of the surface, similar to that of an arc lamp, but not similar to neon emission spectra.





3) Do you agree that a sunspot, seen alone, without the surrounding surface of the sun would, in fact, by extremely bright in visible light?

Define "extremely bright" from a naked eye perspective.

An average sunspot would be brighter than the moon. If the entire visible surface of the sun was covered by a sunspot, it would be similar to a moderate partial solar eclipse: Somewhat dimmed, but still too bright to look at directly, and it would still be essentially "white."

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 09:59 PM
It gets kind of funny when the handwaver starts accusing those who provide objective, verified evidence, of "handwaving". The poster protests too much, methinks.

Evidently it works both ways.


Well, in normal photographs and imaging outside the visual spectrum, we already know that there are thermal currents, magnetic patterns, and so on. However in "enhanced" pictures that have no information about how they were processed, there is no way to be sure we're even seeing "structures" rather than artifacts of photographic processes.
See the above re the suspect nature of these "structures".

"Suspecting" that EVERY single one of these 'structures' taken over sevaral minutes is an artifact sounds pretty far fetched from where I sit. Care to demonstrate what causes that kind of "structure" artificially in exactly the same exotic patterns from one moment to the next? You suggest we should not be handwaving, but in one statement you try to dismiss an whole image worth of visible structures?


There's that "using objective, verified evidence is handwaving" stuff again. 99.99% of all scientific studies of the Sun show it is composed of hydrogen and helium plus a few trace elements.

And 99.99% of them are based on the BELIEF, the ASSUMPTION, that counting photons is an accurate way to derive solar composition. It's a circular feedback loop.


These studies are from such fonts of ignorance as

Did I say that, or are you grandstanding now?


the astronomy department at Cornell (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/sun.php) (a nice basic page that almost everyone should be able to understand) and

[Quote]"Sunspots and the Solar Cycle

Some of the most fascinating and complex features observed are sunspots. First seen by Galileo in 1613, they appear as small dark spots on the solar disk. This darkness stems from their cooler temperatures of about 3700 oC relative to the rest of the atmosphere.

You'll note that according to Cornell University, the conditions that Bruce predicted would need to exist in the suns atmosphere for it to form solids and conduct eletricity have been verified. Of course they too are going by the ASSUMPTION you can count photons to figure out relative abundances.


[/Harvard (http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0305/neon/) (the Chandra chronicles, where most of the trace elements have been found to be less abundant than initially thought).

Yes. In fact you might read this article as well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm

It seems all the satellites find that there is a lot more iron that early gas model predictions at a much earlier time in the universe's history. In fact, there is exactly NO evidence that suggests that iron did not predate this physical universe. Image that.


I imagine the astronomers and physicists who performed these observations and experiments were/are "handwaving" too.

No. I think many astronomers *BELIEVE* and ASSUME that counting photons is a scientific way to "guess" at solar composition and they've been doing it for so long that one person just builds on anothers assumptions. The thing that has been surprising since the lanch of Spitzer and Hubble and Chandra is the amount of iron that has been discovered. The dates of when iron formed have been pushed back by these results. There is no handwaving involved.


It would appear that you consider anything that counters your pet speculations as "handwaving".

Not at all. I can *EXPLAIN WHY* the *BELIEF* that photon count is a good measure of solar composition is a FALSE PREMISE. See the difference between our two statements?


That brings up another point. It also appears that what you've presented has very little original material in it, but instead has been cobbled together from the sources you continually cite. One wonders how ethical such a practice is.

Ethical? Huh? I'm debating ideas in cyberspace and citing other people's work as "evidence" to make my case. How is that unethical? How else would you suggest I build a solid scientific arguement? Would you have me duplicate the work of Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel and Dr. Birkeland?


These attempts at ignoring real, reliable data while pointing to pictures and saying "see", combined with the lifting of data from other sources and the tendency of the poster to fall into the "ALL CAPS MEANS IT'S TRUE" syndrome, are making reading this stuff a chore.

The caps are intended to emphasize words the way I would do so in a normal conversation. If it annoys you, I will try to stop. The science done Dr. Birkeland is sound. The science done by Dr. Bruce is sound. The science done by Dr. Manuel is sound. The information I have provided based on satellite imagery is sound. If you have a beef with any of it, please put your "scientific" (emphasis on that word) arguement on the table and show the error in any of the work presented. Until you do that, you cannot call your argument anything other than an appeal to authority and handwaving.


My reasons for visiting the BAUT are getting and providing good information on astronomy and space science, assisting those who have gone off on tangents, and just having some fun with science. None of those apply to this thread, where the Mozina posts consist of dodging questions, ignoring demonstrated errors, and accusing critics of the very same unscientific practices only he is employing.

Notice how you are focusing your arguement on the individual? I have not "dodged" any questions. There are some questions that have been asked that I cannot personally answer. There are far more question I have asked here that have not been answered about these images, starting with what the structures represent. Before you take the attack to the personal level, how about trying a simple tactic. Just explain the images on my website using the gas model. I will listen and we will discuss your answers.


About the only worthwhile thing anyone could get out of this thread is a very clear demonstration by the ATMer of how the scientific method doesn't work.

Hopefully not everyone percieves this discussion as useless. Hopefully we can ALL learn. The presumption you made was that I had NOTHING to offer you, but you have everything to offer me. You did not approach this issue with an open mind.


Enough already.

This is a very large board with many threads. If this one does not interest you, choose another. I won't take it personally if this topic isn't your cup of tea. I personally find it interesting.

If you really wish to "teach" me something personally, then "teach" me about what these structrures really represent and how they are created by a gas sun. If you can't do that, then maybe you should consider the life's work of Dr. Birkeland, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel, even if the messenger seems a little stubborn to you. Maybe there is a ligitimate reason I continue to promote this idea. How will you know if you never tackle those images on my website?

Nereid
2005-Sep-21, 10:00 PM
It's the METHOD that is behind the term "given" in your statement that is the problem here. The word GIVEN and the percentages GIVEN are based on a METHOD that is rather dubious since it is based on the idea that all things glow in exactly the same percentages regardless of the structures involved.This came up in one or other of the earlier theads, the topic of the blackbody spectrum, and the extent to which the (atomic, molecular) composition of a real body gives rise to deviations from that spectrum.

IIRC, Michael M was proposing that the atomic composition is the most important factor; several folk challenged him on this, saying that, generally, the dominant source of observed EM, in bands around the BB peak, from a warm/hot body is the BB radiation.

Perhaps we could clarify this?

1) For a body which is opaque ('optically thick') in the wavelength bands around the BB peak, to what extent does the body's composition modify the BB spectrum?

2) For an optically thin, highly ionised gas, in thermal equilibrium, how does the strength of a particular emission line, of a particular transition, relate to the abudance of the element in that gas?

I'm asking these as rather general questions, but let's keep in mind that we're looking for answers that pertain to conditions in the Sun, at its photosphere, and in the corona.

Monique
2005-Sep-21, 10:07 PM
hmmmm never trust "fly by night" institutions Harvard or Cornell. ;)

Friend give me term :)

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 10:13 PM
I was interested in your viewing conditions. The sun is not a naked eye object except under conditions where the light is filtered naturally, and even then it is extremely dangerous.

I use a simple monitor. I would not recommend anyone look into the sun. That method of observation didn't work out well for Galileo.


The issue is that in normal terminology there is only one "type" of photon. And in a sunspot we see a spectrum that indicates a lower blackbody temperature than the rest of the surface, similar to that of an arc lamp, but not similar to neon emission spectra.

There are many kinds of photons being emitted from the sun on many wavelengths. The hydrogen and helium plasmas release the most heat and the most photons. The neon layer however is the most visible. Because it is all mixed together, it doesn't fit a "single" profile.

The notion that the temperature drop is the cause of the sunspot is a "theory" you keep asserting as FACT. You did not demonstrate your theory to be true. You ALLEGE it to be true. I ALLEGE that the dark area is missing the neon that typically creates the light in this area. How do you intend to demonstrate that your allegation is accurate and is the only way to accurately explain this phenomenon? How do intend to prove my explanation is false?


An average sunspot would be brighter than the moon.

So what? You are focusing on legaleeze use of words. You know exactly what I'm trying to say. What you have yet to even attempt to do is explain why the sunspots have flares around the side, why the umbra under the penumbra doesn't glow too. How about why the sunspots always close for the outside inward? Do you wish to explain any of these phenomon with your black body explanation?

How about tackling the structures in that Lockheed image for us Van? What are they?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 10:29 PM
And this could go like that endlessly; Michael talk in a different language which is far to be the scientific one. :)

It's comments like this that are meaningless to a scientific discussion. As long as you keep up the personal attacks and never address the structures in these images, you will not impress me.

Faultline
2005-Sep-21, 10:32 PM
My point was, Michael, that you can't only go by appearances. We have to have observational measurements. So far, those say that the sun is hydrogen.

If we went only by appearances (and we had this similar discussion with Mosheh Thezion in the thread that bears his name), we'd still think the Earth was flat.

Also, how does an iron sun produce heat and light? It sure as heck can't be through fusion. Fusion of a stable, heavy element like Fe requires more energy to be put in than you get out of the reaction.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 10:48 PM
Mister Mozina, let me explain you this way: I'm not trying to prove your theory wrong. There are a lot of fine refutations in this thread (and in the now closed threads) that are doing it better than I could ever do it. Unfortunately all those refutations are useless*. Why?

Only because of your own attitude.


The quote above for instance: I've repeatedly stated that my explanation concerns the specific image you've provided. That image appears this way because the blackbody radiation.

You ALLEDGE it is because of "black body radiation". You did not however address any of the question I asked you about the shape and duration of the sunspot.


This is not the primary cause of what's happening inside the sun and is not meant to be an "all-in-one-wonder explanation". But this is representative for your way of developing a "theory": instead of defending your interpretation on a specific piece of information you claim that the explanation provided by the others is not explaining some other phenomena that wasn't even adressed. You're evading the original issue. I've never adressed X-ray images, but you claim that my explanation is wrong for them. Guess what? My explanation was directed to some other images and you've failed to explain why I'm wrong.

In this case, you are right, I did introduce another image into a GENERIC discussion and asked you to account for it as wel. In that sense, they are not the same issue or the same question. If you feel I was unfair in the way I responded to you in that respect, I understand and I hear you.

On the other hand, until and unless you can explain the flare pattern at the top of the penumbra and the darkness of the umbra that is underneath the penumbra, I will still consider my asnwer to be superior to yours from a scientific perspective. As long as you have not addressed those issues as it relates to that single image, I still consider my answer more "complete" than yours.


Like I've said I didn't adressed the causes of what's happening in that image. All I've said it was that the dark regions where appearing dark due to temperature differences and highly monochromatic filter used. I've provided quantitative estimations that shows that the dark region is actually at least 10 times less brighter than the surrounding area at the specific wavelength at which those images where taken.

I do not dispute that that the dark areas are not without photons. I specifically asked you to explain the flare and the dark umbra, and the depth issues related to the sides of the lit penumbra.


Tell me Mister Mozina, why should I even try to disprove your theory when you fail to defend your basic premises?

I'm afraid I don't follow you. I've spend months defending a model that took me more months to compile. I have and will continue to defend my model, and every premise it is based upon.


No, I don't. You didn't provided any reference on how this image has been acquired, which filters have been used, what kind of postprocessing has been done. Whitout all this the image by itself is useless.

No one is debating the need for accurate information. It is not necessary however to know every single detail of every single images to see how things tie together. For instance, it is not a suprise to me that x-rays seen in Yohkoh images are concentrated in the electrical arcs. This fits my model perfectly. I am not surprised to see the light from iron ions to be concentrated in the arcs. That also fits my model perfectly. I do not need to know EVERY detail about each and every shot to be able to get useful information from a variety of images.


The things works this way: you have a theory, we're attacking it. I've questioned one point of your theory and you've failed to explained why I'm wrong. It's not my job to defend or to explain whatever you want, it is your job to answer our questions.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you are attacking my theory, then you have to explain why *I* am wrong. If you wish me to accept YOUR theory, then you need to answer the other aspects of my question. I will meet you part way here and show you I can be fair. I accept that your black body explanation *IS* a "possible" way to explain the image, provided you can address the other aspects of my series of questions. In other words I accep that the CONCEPT is sound, it is just that the devil is in the details and these details have not been addressed yet.


*Note: When I've said "useless" I meant for Michael; I've learned a lot from such refutations and in this respect this kind of topic is far to be useless. ;)

I'm really hoping that this time around, we can do this by Nereid's rules rather than play "burn the heretic" again. I'm happy to have a conversation that is based on sound science and sound scientific principles. I accept the PRINCIPLE that a sunspot COULD be a black body phenomenon. I do not accept this POSSIBLE explanation as fact. I will await your explanation of the flare pattern and the umbra/penumbra deliniation before I concede that it is a "better' explanation than the one I offered. That's about as "fair" as I can be. How about meeting me half way here and acknowledging my explaination COULD work as well?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-21, 11:00 PM
My point was, Michael, that you can't only go by appearances. We have to have observational measurements. So far, those say that the sun is hydrogen.

But in essense we have two sets of measurements now, using two different methods. We have one set of measurements that the astronomical uses that is based on one set of methods. We have a second set of measurements that uses a different methodology altogether. How do we now determine which is the "better" method from a scientific perspective. I've spent months going through Dr. Manuel's methods and I find them to be sound and logical and not based on any premises that make me uncomfortable. I cannot find a way to scientifically disprove his "method" in any way, even after trying to be skeptical about the work. I just couldn't find any serious problem with that method of determining solar composition.

On the other hand the "old" method used in astronomy is pretty good at determing WHAT elements are present, but it is a dubious way to determine percentage IMO, for several reasons, the most important being heat distrubution. In other words, even a rookie like me can see some problems with the ASSUMPTIONS that are made with that method. I therefore find it to be less trustworthy than the methods (plural) Dr. Manuel is using.


If we went only by appearances (and we had this similar discussion with Mosheh Thezion in the thread that bears his name), we'd still think the Earth was flat.

I think a lot of people in the future will find it hard to believe that most astronomers today think a sun is mostly gas. The issue here is progress and science. I'm open to scieintific criticism. If you can find the flaw in Dr. Manuels methods and his work, please point it out to me. So far I have not seen it.


Also, how does an iron sun produce heat and light? It sure as heck can't be through fusion.[quote]

The source of nuetrons could be fission or fusion. I originally picked fusion and switched to fission once I realized it was easier to defend and explain. The light however IMO comes mainly from the electrical discharges at the surface and the visible light is mostly from the layer of neon plasma that covers the surface.

[quote] Fusion of a stable, heavy element like Fe requires more energy to be put in than you get out of the reaction.

I personally think the sun is just a fission reactor with heavy metals at the core. Dr. Manuel believes the core is a neutron star with an iron shell that surrounds it.

Faultline
2005-Sep-21, 11:09 PM
The source of nuetrons could be fission or fusion. I originally picked fusion and switched to fission once I realized it was easier to defend and explain. The light however IMO comes mainly from the electrical discharges at the surface and the visible light is mostly from the layer of neon plasma that covers the surface.



I personally think the sun is just a fission reactor with heavy metals at the core. Dr. Manuel believes the core is a neutron star with an iron shell that surrounds it.

How about some order of magnitude questions, then. I'll put them to you like I began (several times) with Mosheh Thezion. At least you're already a step ahead of MT because you've already chosen a core mass for your model.

How much iron mass is at the sun's core? (Take a stab at it.)
How much would have to be present to continually undergo fission for 4 billion years? (In other words, at what rate are iron molecules being broken down into lighter materials. While you're at it, what are those lighter materials and where do they go?)
How much would that make the sun's mass weigh? Since hydrogen is much lighter than iron.

Then we might move on to some more interesting questions that spring from these.

Let's do something besides, "Look at the picture!" because that's not what astrophysicists do.

Nereid
2005-Sep-21, 11:12 PM
The one question I'm still struggling with is the ANGLE of the light source. I know the arcs cause the photon emissions, but they MOVE, and they are not fixed the way a typical light source would be fixed in such an image. That is giving me fits as it relates to vertical height as you might image. I have included the fits header header file from the first image in the set so I'm not piecemealing your answers. I cannot give you an exact duration just yet since Lockheed Martin has not answered any of my questions about this image. The best I can tell you is that the whole sequence begins at 13:00 and there are raw FITS files through 24:00. This sequence is likely only a short time frame of that sequence, but my skills at reproducing their running difference images are still rather limited and it will take me a while to figure out the exact shots used and the exact timing of the sequence.

Here is the FITS header from the first image in the set from that sequence:

Headers for HDU 1
SIMPLE = T / Written by IDL: Mon Sep 5 22:00:30 2005
BITPIX = 16 /Integer*2 (short integer)
NAXIS = 2 /
NAXIS1 = 1024 / X Size of image
NAXIS2 = 1024 / Y Size of image
DATE = '00/08/28, 13:07:57.000' / ??
MJD = 51784 / ??
DAY = 7911 / Days since 1-Jan-79
TIME = 47277000 / Milliseconds in day
IMG_TIME= '28-AUG-00 13:07:57' / Image time (start of exposure)
TIME_OBS= '13:07:57.000' / Time of image
DATE_OBS= '2000-08-28T13:07:57.000' / Date/Time of Image
ORIGIN = 'TRACE ' / Origin
TELESCOP= 'TRACE ' / Telescope
INSTRUME= 'TRACE ' / Instrument
OBJECT = '?? ' / Target Description
SCI_OBJ = '?? ' / Science objective
OBS_PROG= 'STD.dynamics' / Sequence name (observing program)
CTYPE1 = 'Solar-x ' / Type of Axis1
CTYPE2 = 'Solar-y ' / Type of Axis2
CDELT1 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel X
CDELT2 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel Y
CRPIX1 = 1381.60 / Pixel location of sun center X
CRPIX2 = 1289.05 / Pixel location of sun center Y
CRVAL1 = 0.00000 / Refernce
CRVAL2 = 0.00000 / Reference
XCEN = -434.549 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center x
YCEN = -388.274 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center y
AMP = 'A ' / Amplifier used
SUM_CCDX= 1 / On-chip summing mode x (Serial)
SUM_CCDY= 1 / On-chip summing mode y (parallel)
BIN_CCD = 1 / IP binning
TBIN_CCD= 1 / Overall binning*summing factor
SRI_LLEX= 0.00000 / Solar Rotated Image, L-L Extract X
SRI_LLEY= 0.00000 / Solar Rotated Image, L-L Extract Y
SRI_FOVX= 511.500 / Solar Rot Img, FOV X center ("SRI" pix)
SRI_FOVY= 511.500 / Solar Rot Img, FOV Y center ("SRI" pix)
T_FSTR = 16.9770425372 / Temperature of Telescope Front Struct
T_SPIDER= 21.3014446822 / Temperature of Spider Frame
T_CCD_A = -61.2500000000 / Temperature of CCD Amplifier A
MSEQID = 4951 / Main Sequence identifier
MSEQ_NAM= 'STD.dynamics' / Main Sequence name
SEQID = 4951 / Sequence identifier
SEQ_NAM = 'STD.dynamics' / Sequence name
FRMID = 756 / Frame ID
FRM_NAM = 'cjs.stdaecfull171' / Frame Name
TRGID = 139 / Target ID
TRG_NAM = 'top2.pos1' / Target Name
FN_INSEQ= 8 / Frame number in sequence
FRM_NUM = 1676788 / Frame number
SHT_NOM = 11.5840 / Expected exposure duration (sec)
SHT_MDUR= 11.5839 / Measured exposure duration (sec)
WAVE_LEN= '171 ' / Wavelength length class (descriptor)
MFILT1 = 91 / Filter wheel 1 Position
MFILT2 = 125 / Filter wheel 2 Position
APID = 2108 / Application ID
SOU_AREA= 0 / Source Area Index
PERCENTD= 100.000 / Percent of image present
IMG_MIN = 71.0000 / Image Minimum
IMG_MAX = 4037.00 / Image Maximum
IMG_AVG = 105.071 / Image Average
IMG_DEV = 17.8109 / Image Deviation
DP_HEADE= 0 /Thanks Michael.

So what data do you have so far?

Here's my list:
- the scale (km or arcsec)?
- the source of the 'illumination' (height, intensity, direction; mechanism for production can come later)?
- the 'vertical' scale?
- the time period (you may have already given us this; if so, please repeat it)?
- the temperature of the 'solid' features?
- the lat/long (or other 'location') on the Sun?

Let me also ask another question: if you didn't have this set of images (a 'movie' is merely a set of images, taken at different times (usually the delta between adjacent images is equal), strung together), would you be able to discuss anything about your 'Sun has a solid surface' idea?

The reason I'm asking is that if your proposal has no observational basis other than this movie (and others like it), how about we cease all discussion until you get us the basic image data?

If there are other observations that your idea uses, then let's confine our discussion to those, until you provide us with the basic image information!

So, for avoidance of doubt, what observations does your idea build upon (other than the movie)? Can we have a sensible discussion of your idea without the movie?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 12:19 AM
Thanks Michael.

So what data do you have so far?

Here's my list:

Well, let's see:

CDELT1 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel X
CDELT2 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel Y
CRPIX1 = 1381.60 / Pixel location of sun center X
CRPIX2 = 1289.05 / Pixel location of sun center Y
XCEN = -434.549 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center x
YCEN = -388.274 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center y

It would seem that I can only effectively (scientifically) answer your first and last question and I can probably shed some light on the SCALING factor of the Z axis though I can't accurately measure heights of structures yet. I may not be able answer your question about duration of the movie without some help from Lockheed Martin or the individual that created that specific sequence of images. The shadows in most cases would allow us to determine the Z component, but without a fixed light source, that is not nearly as simple as it sounds. I'm not sure I'm prepared to answer that question. I could "guess" based on what I THOUGHT was an "average" illumination angle, but that is so open to intrepretation that it seems fruitless to persue that from these images alone.


Let me also ask another question: if you didn't have this set of images (a 'movie' is merely a set of images, taken at different times (usually the delta between adjacent images is equal), strung together), would you be able to discuss anything about your 'Sun has a solid surface' idea?

When I first began these debates I would say probably not. At this point I think I can, starting with the work of Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Manuel. Dr. Bruce suggested that the temperatures required for solids to form and electrical current to flow would require that the "surface temperature" would need to be under 4000 degees. We do have measurements now of sunspot activity that releases materials from under the visible photosphere that are within that range. There are a number of solar phenomen that Bruce documented that are attributeable to electrical activity through a plasma atmosphere. In fact the reason I wanted to post a bit while working on the images is so I can more effectively argue these ideas from a number of angles. I do believe I can make a pretty convincing case without the images which was the intent with the threads I started. From a theory standpoint I can make some serious dents in the premisis that underpin the gas model. I can make some pretty convincing arguments from the work of Birkland and Bruce and Manuel as well.


The reason I'm asking is that if your proposal has no observational basis other than this movie (and others like it), how about we cease all discussion until you get us the basic image data?

I'm sure it must seem that way to you since I've limited my arguments in the past to the images themselves. It has been my intent to get a "better" education on solid surface models of the past so I can make a stronger case based on this imagery. If you give me some time and some lattitude here Nereid, I think you'll find I'm learning and growing too.


If there are other observations that your idea uses, then let's confine our discussion to those, until you provide us with the basic image information!

I'm not certain at this point that I will be able to answer every one of your questions about this image to your satisfaction. In other words I cannot yet make a cohesive and defenceable case for the ANGLE of the light source and therefore I'm having a hard time getting Z distance measurements. I'm not even sure at this point how to deal with that issue. If you have suggestions on ways I might determine such things, I'm very open to suggestions. Honestly I am. I don't however want to have you close the discussion over things that require more heads than one to resolve. It would not help me or you ultimatle to do that IMO. I'd much rather we try to come up with a "standard" here that isn't so high we can't discuss images at all without documenting every detail. Sometimes the details are critical. If I was trying to suggest a height aspect based on one image, I would expect you to require I demonstrate it in some way. I'm not really trying to do that with this image, just show the "structure" that is found in this 'layer' of the sun. I think the images do that much without understanding the z components fully.


So, for avoidance of doubt, what observations does your idea build upon (other than the movie)? Can we have a sensible discussion of your idea without the movie?

That was really my intent on posting here the last few days. It is my hope that I can be LESS dependent on individual images and become more effective at arguing the idea from a number of directions. I will only gain such skills however if you give me some lattitude for awhile and let me learn and grow from the discussions. I do very much appreciate the way you do thing Nereid and I trust you judgement to do the right thing here. Just understand that I realize I have a lot to learn as well as some thing I think I can teach others. I'm not here on crusade, but I do feel the information is important and worth discussing. It's been important enough to me to take the time to learn about the work of others that supports the model. If I have the time to discuss these other aspects, I think you'll be pleased with the results of my learning process over the past month. I really am trying to be more than a one trick pony, but I need time to discuss these things and time to learn the most effective strategies and best methods of cummunicating these ideas. I realize I have a long way to go to convince you and others of the idea and I'm in this for the long haul. I'll continue to educate myself and I'll try to add depth to my arguements over time. Just be patient with me.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 12:28 AM
hmmmm never trust "fly by night" institutions Harvard or Cornell. ;)

Friend give me term :)

Perhaps the phrase you were looking for is best summed up in Russian:

"doveryay, no proveryay"

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 12:46 AM
How about some order of magnitude questions, then. I'll put them to you like I began (several times) with Mosheh Thezion. At least you're already a step ahead of MT because you've already chosen a core mass for your model.

How much iron mass is at the sun's core? (Take a stab at it.)

I would presume that the core is more likely to be composed of fissionable materials rather than iron. There seems to be a lot of Xenon between the core and the iron layer. I am reluctant here to make a wild guess at what is beneath the surface only because it's purely a guess on my part. I'm not sure there is anything to be gained here by simply guessing. I think a useful way of figuring out the core would be helioseismology, but I'm not prepared to guess at something like that just yet since I've only started to study that field of science.


How much would have to be present to continually undergo fission for 4 billion years? (In other words, at what rate are iron molecules being broken down into lighter materials. While you're at it, what are those lighter materials and where do they go?)

I think we need to first understand how many neurtons decay into hydrogen and how much "breeding" goes on inside the fission core. Someone sent me a paper awhile back that talked about the possibility of Jupiter having a fission based core. It dealt with some of these issues. I'll see if I can't find it for you.


How much would that make the sun's mass weigh? Since hydrogen is much lighter than iron.

Well, the implication is pretty clear at least. I am suggesting that the sun is much more DENSE than hydrogen, at least in some parts. Dr. Manuel has pointed out that heat will play a role in "density" however. Even still I think there is an issue here related to percieved density measurements of the sun that must be "explained" over time.


Then we might move on to some more interesting questions that spring from these.

Let's do something besides, "Look at the picture!" because that's not what astrophysicists do.

In this case, I think they need to do more "looking at the pictures". It is OBSERVATION that is key here, not theory. I don't care how many theories hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is the observation that matters, not the theory. The theory might be pefectly fine, but it might not apply at all to what is really happening on the sun. It is the OBSERVATIONS on my website that changed my opinions about the composition of the sun, and THEN I found the work of Dr. Manuel and Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland to help me explain what I was observing. I think sometimes that astronomers get too caught up in mathematical theories without knowing whether or not these theories actually apply in the first place.

For instance: Why are the gamma rays and x-rays concentrated on the surface and in the arcs if most of the serious energy release is happening in the core?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 07:18 AM
How much would have to be present to continually undergo fission for 4 billion years? (In other words, at what rate are iron molecules being broken down into lighter materials.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

Marvin and I talked over the phone one afternoon. His knowledge of this subject specifically impressed me a great deal. If anyone is capable of answering your question about the lifespan of fission cores, I believe it is Marvin. He's a very nice guy and quite knowledeable IMO on this specific subject. This paper is more related to the earth specifically with a mention of Jupiter, but the ideas would apply to my model as well.

Fram
2005-Sep-22, 07:42 AM
[snip]
And 99.99% of them are based on the BELIEF, the ASSUMPTION, that counting photons is an accurate way to derive solar composition. It's a circular feedback loop.

[snip]

Yes. In fact you might read this article as well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm

It seems all the satellites find that there is a lot more iron that early gas model predictions at a much earlier time in the universe's history. In fact, there is exactly NO evidence that suggests that iron did not predate this physical universe. Image that.



No. I think many astronomers *BELIEVE* and ASSUME that counting photons is a scientific way to "guess" at solar composition and they've been doing it for so long that one person just builds on anothers assumptions. The thing that has been surprising since the lanch of Spitzer and Hubble and Chandra is the amount of iron that has been discovered. The dates of when iron formed have been pushed back by these results. There is no handwaving involved.



Not at all. I can *EXPLAIN WHY* the *BELIEF* that photon count is a good measure of solar composition is a FALSE PREMISE. See the difference between our two statements?

[snip]


If you think the photon count isn't a good measure of solar composition, then why do you post the link to the BBC article about the iron found in the early universe? How do you suppose they know that there is much more iron?
If you don't belief in it when it disproves your theory, then you can't use it when it seems (at first glance only) to support your theory either. Or does it work everywhere except with our sun?

And mainstream science knows that it can't prove anything about what was or wasn't there before the physical universe. Why you bring this up as an 'imagine that' fact is beyond me.

Nereid
2005-Sep-22, 09:36 AM
Well, let's see:

CDELT1 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel X
CDELT2 = 0.500000 / arcseconds of output pixel Y
CRPIX1 = 1381.60 / Pixel location of sun center X
CRPIX2 = 1289.05 / Pixel location of sun center Y
XCEN = -434.549 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center x
YCEN = -388.274 / Solar coord, arc sec for FOV center y

It would seem that I can only effectively (scientifically) answer your first and last question and I can probably shed some light on the SCALING factor of the Z axis though I can't accurately measure heights of structures yet. I may not be able answer your question about duration of the movie without some help from Lockheed Martin or the individual that created that specific sequence of images. The shadows in most cases would allow us to determine the Z component, but without a fixed light source, that is not nearly as simple as it sounds. I'm not sure I'm prepared to answer that question. I could "guess" based on what I THOUGHT was an "average" illumination angle, but that is so open to intrepretation that it seems fruitless to persue that from these images alone.So we have at least the date and time and duration of the first image in the sequence, yes?

And what you posted, what's the size (in pixels)? I want to be sure that there's been no image compression, going from FITS to .gif.

Nereid
2005-Sep-22, 09:41 AM
Let me also ask another question: if you didn't have this set of images (a 'movie' is merely a set of images, taken at different times (usually the delta between adjacent images is equal), strung together), would you be able to discuss anything about your 'Sun has a solid surface' idea? When I first began these debates I would say probably not. At this point I think I can, starting with the work of Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Manuel. Dr. Bruce suggested that the temperatures required for solids to form and electrical current to flow would require that the "surface temperature" would need to be under 4000 degees. We do have measurements now of sunspot activity that releases materials from under the visible photosphere that are within that range.OK, let's see your data.

Baloo
2005-Sep-22, 11:25 AM
It's comments like this that are meaningless to a scientific discussion. As long as you keep up the personal attacks and never address the structures in these images, you will not impress me.
...
You ALLEDGE it is because of "black body radiation". You did not however address any of the question I asked you about the shape and duration of the sunspot.
...
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you are attacking my theory, then you have to explain why *I* am wrong. If you wish me to accept YOUR theory, then you need to answer the other aspects of my question. I will meet you part way here and show you I can be fair. I accept that your black body explanation *IS* a "possible" way to explain the image, provided you can address the other aspects of my series of questions. In other words I accep that the CONCEPT is sound, it is just that the devil is in the details and these details have not been addressed yet.


Mister Mozina, if you want a real debate then we should play on same rules, agreed?
In this respect I agree with you when you're saying " If you are attacking my theory, then you have to explain why *I* am wrong."
But the following statement is a false suposition "If you wish me to accept YOUR theory, then you need to answer the other aspects of my question."
I don't want you to accept any theory; I don't have the knowledge to defend such a complex one as sun's formation and evolution that involves a lots of scientific fields.
But I don't need to prove other theory right to show that your theory is wrong; even if all the mainstream theory are wrong that doesn't make the ATM theories more correct! Are we agreeing with that?

So, as I've stated in a previous post It's not my job to defend or to explain whatever you want, it is your job to answer our questions.

The main discution here is not if mainstream theories are right, but if yours is, and in this respect I don't need to provide alternative explanations for all your affirmations in order to prove that some of them are wrong.




In this case, you are right, I did introduce another image into a GENERIC discussion and asked you to account for it as wel. In that sense, they are not the same issue or the same question. If you feel I was unfair in the way I responded to you in that respect, I understand and I hear you.


Sometimes (quite often actually) the issues raised are adressing a very specific problem; so when you give a generic answer to a specific question you're actually evading the issue and not responding to the question. Please avoid to do that.




On the other hand, until and unless you can explain the flare pattern at the top of the penumbra and the darkness of the umbra that is underneath the penumbra, I will still consider my asnwer to be superior to yours from a scientific perspective. As long as you have not addressed those issues as it relates to that single image, I still consider my answer more "complete" than yours.
...
I do not dispute that that the dark areas are not without photons. I specifically asked you to explain the flare and the dark umbra, and the depth issues related to the sides of the lit penumbra.


What I'm saying is that the 'flare pattern' is not actually a flare. There is only a difference in temperature between the black and bright area; by changing it's temperature the material becomes simply invisible in the very narrow band in which the images are taken.
The funny thing is that, even if I'm right, this is not proving your theory wrong. If you have studied a little bit all this


relatively "mystical" terms like "black body radiation"

you had seen that is a valid explanation even if the material involved is the neon layer that you're claiming to be there that is somehow cooling. ;)




I do not dispute that that the dark areas are not without photons. I specifically asked you to explain the flare and the dark umbra, and the depth issues related to the sides of the lit penumbra.


Care to explain how it is possible to have umbra and penumbra on the sun as long as the sun itself is the only light source available?





No one is debating the need for accurate information. It is not necessary however to know every single detail of every single images to see how things tie together. For instance, it is not a suprise to me that x-rays seen in Yohkoh images are concentrated in the electrical arcs. This fits my model perfectly. I am not surprised to see the light from iron ions to be concentrated in the arcs. That also fits my model perfectly. I do not need to know EVERY detail about each and every shot to be able to get useful information from a variety of images.

(my bold)

This is plain wrong; whitout those detail a image by itself could be very misleading. Look at this photo of the Atlantic ocean: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/215/gulf_stream_modis.gif
So, looking just at this picture, I'd say that the Atlantic ocean is composed from more kinds of materials and it has a very big crack on the midlle. Tell me please in which way is different your interpretation of the solar images from my intepretation about this picture? I can't see none, and I hope that I don't have to prove that actually the Atlantic is full of water. :)
Also I'd point out that is your model who should fit the facts, not other way around. ;)




I accept the PRINCIPLE that a sunspot COULD be a black body phenomenon. I do not accept this POSSIBLE explanation as fact. That's about as "fair" as I can be. How about meeting me half way here and acknowledging my explaination COULD work as well?

Like I've already said, your explanation is based on a certain way to interpret available data and is this interpretation that I consider to be flawed. Since I don't agree with your basic hypothesis I could not agree with the conclusions based upon those hypothesis.

captain swoop
2005-Sep-22, 02:08 PM
SInce when has 'Black Body Radiation' been a 'Mystical Term'>

Kristophe
2005-Sep-22, 02:50 PM
SInce when has 'Black Body Radiation' been a 'Mystical Term'>

Since Michael decided that anything he doesn't care to understand is somehow dogmatic and wrong. I wish I could pretend things I didn't care to understand were non-existant. I'd have a number of ex-roommates that just magically poofed out of existance.

(Edited to rephrase)

Andreas
2005-Sep-22, 03:13 PM
It is OBSERVATION that is key here, not theory. I don't care how many theories hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is the observation that matters, not the theory.
What do you think scientific scrutiny is if not verifying a theory through observations?


For instance: Why are the gamma rays and x-rays concentrated on the surface and in the arcs if most of the serious energy release is happening in the core?
What would you expect to see if most of the serious energy release is, in fact, happening in the core?

Faultline
2005-Sep-22, 04:25 PM
I would presume that the core is more likely to be composed of fissionable materials rather than iron. [snip]
I'm not sure there is anything to be gained here by simply guessing. [snip]



Well, the implication is pretty clear at least. I am suggesting that the sun is much more DENSE than hydrogen, at least in some parts.

[snip]

I don't care how many theories hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is the observation that matters, not the theory. The theory might be pefectly fine, but it might not apply at all to what is really happening on the sun. It is the OBSERVATIONS on my website that changed my opinions about the composition of the sun, and THEN I found the work of Dr. Manuel and Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland to help me explain what I was observing. I think sometimes that astronomers get too caught up in mathematical theories without knowing whether or not these theories actually apply in the first place.



Did any of the opponents that post here gather anything from this? Michael Mozina doesn't seem to care that the current hydrogen sun theory matches observations of the sun.

I can't look at PDF files at this time (PC problems). What I'd like you to see is that this quote from you:

"I would presume that the core is more likely to be composed of fissionable materials rather than iron."

Is a major key to your hypothesis. It is also a presumption that current theory has hefty evidence against.

If the sun were made of mostly heavier elements, it would change a lot of the easily observed measurements that we know are accurate. Namely, the sun's density and mass are well known because we can measure the sun's size and its gravitational effects on the planets. For the sun to be made of heavier elements and still have the same size, it would have to be more massive and the gravity would not be the same.

I have more. Chew on this for a while.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 05:31 PM
If you think the photon count isn't a good measure of solar composition, then why do you post the link to the BBC article about the iron found in the early universe? How do you suppose they know that there is much more iron?

I posted the article because it points out the fact that relative iron abundances have not changed very much since the dawn of time until now according to this "method". Whether or not the "method" is useful in determining relative abundances of elements depends on it's ability to descern changes over time, and accurately determine ratios that are corroborated in other ways as well. Without some sort of "calibration" of the method by some other means, prefably with out own sun, how could we ever know if it was a useful tool to begin with? That calibration process however has never been done.

This particular way of looking at the universe sees very little change in the iron concentrations of early solar systems and our present solar system. Where does this leave us? This phenomenon of having similar amounts of iron at the beginning of the expansion process defies early gas model predictions. The gas model has been bent now like a pretzel to make it fit around two basic ideas. The first assumption is that photon count = atoms present. No calibration has been done yet on our own sun however, so we have no way to know if it works.

The gas model also assumes that all energy was once subatomic in form, but this premises has not been established as fact either. The "method" that is being counted on to show relative abundances shows little if any change in iron content in nearly 13 billion years. Something doesn't add up. Either A) the method doesn't work as advertized, or B) iron has always been present in roughly the same percentages, or C) BOTH A and B. I think the correct answer is C).


If you don't belief in it when it disproves your theory, then you can't use it when it seems (at first glance only) to support your theory either. Or does it work everywhere except with our sun?

We can certainly use the method to determine what elements are present. I have been clear about that distinction all along. We can also compare the ratios between elements that are seen both then and now, to get some idea of the 'evolution' processes of the universe assuming that the method works at all. So far I see little if any evidence that this method reveals any significant difference between iron content then and the iron content now. This suggests to me that there has been little change in overall iron content since the start, and it calls into question whether the method is useful for making a direct connection between photon output and atom counts.

Again, it's the ASSUMPTION you can count photons and mathematically equate that ratios of photon output to the actual number of atoms of each element present that I question. I do not question the photons or the ratio of the photons that are seen. I agree the data is there. I agree these photons exist in the ratios measured. What I disagree with is the notion we can use this ratio to accurately predict the number of atoms of each element present from this limited data. Without understand the heat distribution and the thermodynamic equilibrium processes of the various plasma layers and iron surface, there is no way to accurately determine atoms present. Furthermore, this 'method' has never been established as credible or accurate given completely unknown conditions of the arrangement of elements.


And mainstream science knows that it can't prove anything about what was or wasn't there before the physical universe. Why you bring this up as an 'imagine that' fact is beyond me.

But gas model theories do PRESUME a BANG and suggest that no atoms existed for the first 300 thousand years. How do we know that was ever the case? How do we know that iron did not predate the event by hundreds of trillions of years? How do we intend to calibrate the tools we are trying to use?

Here's the deal as I see it. Dr. Manuel's 'method' should have corroborated the photon count method if the photon count method was reliable and his method was reliable. Since these methods come up with vastly different numbers, we now must establish which method (if any) is scientifically accurate. I can't assume either method is accurate at the start. I can't assume that photon counts are more reliable that isotope analysis.

I can easily think of many reasons why photon counts will not necessarily correlate well with actual atomic composition. I can think of any logical reason to assume that isotopes are going to change their spots and give inaccurate measurements unless I can explain the descrepency in some scientifically meaningful way. I cannot find any such flaw in his work. So far no one else has either. Now given these two options, I'm going to have to trust the work of Dr. Manuel, expecially given the fact that Yohkoh shows x-ray discharges that are concentrated in large electrical arcs, and these arcs orignate from a surface that has many "structures" in it.

Again, this is about two issues. The first is the fact we do not know that all energy was once only subatomic in compostion. The second issue is that the tool by which we determine solar compositions has NEVER been calibrated using a different kind of technology, and has never been calibrated against our own star. The images from our own star suggest to me that Birkeland and Bruce and Manuel got it right all along. Now I'll wait and see how other conversations progress, but so far I've seen little reason to doubt their research, particularly as I compare their research to satellite observations.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 05:38 PM
Since Michael decided that anything he doesn't care to understand is somehow dogmatic and wrong. I wish I could pretend things I didn't care to understand were non-existant. I'd have a number of ex-roommates that just magically poofed out of existance.

(Edited to rephrase)

The "mystical" aspect is how it's used as a generic term to describe everything that happens on the sun, irregardless of whether or not it actually applies in the first place. On the one hand it DOES apply to the Lockheed Running difference image where you can see 'structures' that are "hot" from the electrical flow.

On the other hand it does NOT apply to sunspots, but that "word" is used to explain sunspots anyway. Of course no one quite deals with any of the details of the images like the flare or the lighting issues along the sides of penumbral filaments or anything of the sort. They just toss out a "word" and claim it applies. That's why I call it "mystical". It's the way it's used around here that is down right mystical.

What exactly causes the x-rays to be concentrated in the arcs in Yohkoh images?

Nereid
2005-Sep-22, 06:20 PM
If you think the photon count isn't a good measure of solar composition, then why do you post the link to the BBC article about the iron found in the early universe? How do you suppose they know that there is much more iron? I posted the article because it points out the fact that relative iron abundances have not changed very much since the dawn of time until now according to this "method".I think I missed it Michael; the BBC article didn't mention anything about 'relative iron abundances [not changing] very much since the dawn of time until now'; it talked about the HST observations showing 'massive amounts of iron in very distant and ancient quasars'.

How did you conclude that this means 'since the dawn of time' and 'relative iron abundances have not changed very much'?

And if you have concerns about the method, why did you use the word 'fact'?

Nereid
2005-Sep-22, 06:24 PM
What exactly causes the x-rays to be concentrated in the arcs in Yohkoh images? This is a strange way of wording it; do you mean "why does there appear to be stronger emission of the X-ray lines from the arcs, than from other parts of the corona (in the Yohkoh image)?"?

If so, then the answer is "because the arcs have densities and temperatures different from the rest of the corona"

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-22, 07:21 PM
If the sun were made of mostly heavier elements, it would change a lot of the easily observed measurements that we know are accurate. Namely, the sun's density and mass are well known because we can measure the sun's size and its gravitational effects on the planets. For the sun to be made of heavier elements and still have the same size, it would have to be more massive and the gravity would not be the same.

I have more. Chew on this for a while.

On the old BABB thread, the density issue was discussed in some detail along with Newtonian and relativity based methods for determining mass. This is one in a long list of issues Michael didn't resolve.

Gillianren
2005-Sep-22, 07:34 PM
another thing discussed, though not as much, was that the method used to determine the sun's content cannot be summed up as "counting photons"! this is really starting to irritate me, as it's one of the few things I really understand about this discussion. "counting photons" seems to be to be a summary of spectroscopy by someone who doesn't know what it really is. "counting photons" also seems like it's a term intentionally designed to belittle the work.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 07:51 PM
Mister Mozina, if you want a real debate then we should play on same rules, agreed?

Absolutely Baloo. It seems like a "bear necessity". :)


In this respect I agree with you when you're saying " If you are attacking my theory, then you have to explain why *I* am wrong."
But the following statement is a false suposition "If you wish me to accept YOUR theory, then you need to answer the other aspects of my question."
I don't want you to accept any theory; I don't have the knowledge to defend such a complex one as sun's formation and evolution that involves a lots of scientific fields.
But I don't need to prove other theory right to show that your theory is wrong; even if all the mainstream theory are wrong that doesn't make the ATM theories more correct! Are we agreeing with that?

Well, sort of. I certainly agree with you that you could prove my theory wrong without proving your own theory right. That much is logically correct. I am not obligated however to accept that your explanation of a specific phenomenon is accurate only because it is commonly accepted. As long as we are both clear on both these points, I think we are both on the same page here.


So, as I've stated in a previous post It's not my job to defend or to explain whatever you want, it is your job to answer our questions.

But that is not really a "full" investigation of the evidence. In other words, you are not considering the implications of these images on gas model theories that you currently put your faith in. Without comparing and contrasting here, we cannot see the weaknesses in the gas model or make direct comparisons between the models. That is only half of a serious scientific investigation IMO. It should not be up to a single individual or a few individual to defend every possible question that can be asked BEFORE the idea has as much merit as the gas model. It seems from my perspective that you wish to sweep the inconsistencies of the gas model under the carpet by not considering the implication on ALL models rather than just one.


The main discution here is not if mainstream theories are right, but if yours is, and in this respect I don't need to provide alternative explanations for all your affirmations in order to prove that some of them are wrong.

But you are not allowing me the same courtesy I afford you. I am willing to allow you to show where my theory is inconsistent from observation, but you are not open to me showing you where I believe your theory is inconsistent with observation. That is not a fair debate IMO. You have an expectation that I will be able to scientifically address each and every question put to me, yet you have placed no scientific knowledge expectations upon yourself whatsoever. You obligate me to answer every possible technical question put to me before even considering the model seriously regardless of whether you could answer these same questions yourself using the currently accepted model. You have an expectation that I will "change my mind" if you can convince me of some point you feel is crucial, but you afford me no such luxury as it relates to your beliefs.


Sometimes (quite often actually) the issues raised are adressing a very specific problem; so when you give a generic answer to a specific question you're actually evading the issue and not responding to the question. Please avoid to do that.

I hear you, but we also need to be realistic in our expectations of one another. If you accept that there are things you cannot effectly communicate about the gas model and yet you accept it as a viable theory, then you must accept that there will be elements in my model that I may not be able to explain to your satisfaction, but that does not invalidate my model. Can we agree on that point?


What I'm saying is that the 'flare pattern' is not actually a flare. There is only a difference in temperature between the black and bright area; by changing it's temperature the material becomes simply invisible in the very narrow band in which the images are taken.

I'll have to check after work, but I believe there is a large body of evidence demonstrating an actual "flare" indentation on the surface of the photosphere and on the surface of the chromosphere. I've seen four color images on Lockheed's website demonstrating this effect in both layers. Dr. Bruce's work even addressed these shapes with the use of electromagnetic flow fields.


The funny thing is that, even if I'm right, this is not proving your theory wrong. If you have studied a little bit all this

In some cases there may be areas where we could even agree on some aspects of solar activity. For instance we both believe that the surface of photosphere is 6K degrees Kelvin. I happen to believe the atmosphere under the photosphere is cooler than the photosphere based on the same principles that keep the photosphere cooler than the chromosphere. Lower temperatures have been observed in sunspot activity. It could be that even in my model that black body radiation could play a role. I can't even technically rule it out. The thing here that convinced me it wasn't the right answer however was the direct observation of the penumbral filament patterns at the surface. That flare is there for a reason. IMO it is cause by the upwelling of silicon plasma from below that hits the lighter chromosphere and is pulled back down by gravity. That pattern therefore was crucial in choosing one option over another. I therefore feel it is a very important issue that cannot be dismissed lightly. Somehow I have to be able to convey the specific details that led to one choice over another and I'm hoping you'll hear these arguements and consider them carefully.


you had seen that is a valid explanation even if the material involved is the neon layer that you're claiming to be there that is somehow cooling. ;)

Kind of ironic, isn't it? :)

The heat dissipation aspects are areas we will both agree on. I have no problem with the concept of "black body radiation" or heat transfer as a theory. I am simply questioning whether or not black body radiation can explain all the details of this image. I could not see a way to do that. I'm asking you if you can think of a way to do that. In fairness, you have answered that question, but I'm not sure at this moment that your answer is correct. I believe there is plenty of evidence to show the pattern is physically there, but I'm busy at work right now. I'll look for papers after work.


Care to explain how it is possible to have umbra and penumbra on the sun as long as the sun itself is the only light source available?

Sure. The simple answer is you have two types of plasmas, one on top of the other. The top layer is relatively thin and emits visible light. The layer underneath tranfers it's heat to the light emitting layer, but it does not emit photons in the visible spectrum.


(my bold)

This is plain wrong; whitout those detail a image by itself could be very misleading. Look at this photo of the Atlantic ocean: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/215/gulf_stream_modis.gif
So, looking just at this picture, I'd say that the Atlantic ocean is composed from more kinds of materials and it has a very big crack on the midlle. Tell me please in which way is different your interpretation of the solar images from my intepretation about this picture? I can't see none, and I hope that I don't have to prove that actually the Atlantic is full of water. :)
Also I'd point out that is your model who should fit the facts, not other way around. ;)

Oddly enough I find myself agreeing with you. The facts are that the layer in these running difference images has structure that is retained for days. The facts are the that x-rays from the sun are concentrated in the electrical arcs that come from the surface. The facts are that Yohkoh and Trace have been used to show heat flow from a cold surface into a hot corona. These are observational fact. I can't go with a theory that doesn't address these facts.

Can you explain the structure of the Lockheed video, or can you explain why the x-rays that Yohkoh observers are concentrated in the arcs?


Like I've already said, your explanation is based on a certain way to interpret available data and is this interpretation that I consider to be flawed. Since I don't agree with your basic hypothesis I could not agree with the conclusions based upon those hypothesis.

I respect your right to disagree. I would be suprised if you instantly agreed with me. What I would hope you would do is consider the information I present and consider the questions I raise. If you cannot address them, and others here cannot address these issues and Lockheed Martin won't even answer these questions, what does that tell you?

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-22, 07:58 PM
The "mystical" aspect is how it's used as a generic term to describe everything that happens on the sun, irregardless of whether or not it actually applies in the first place. On the one hand it DOES apply to the Lockheed Running difference image where you can see 'structures' that are "hot" from the electrical flow.

On the other hand it does NOT apply to sunspots, but that "word" is used to explain sunspots anyway.
[snip]


Michael, why do you keep saying this? We covered this one too many times. It is one thing to reject explanations; it is another thing to distort those explanations.

A sunspot is caused when the local magnetic field reduces convection to the surface. This slows energy transfer and the surface cools somewhat. A lower temperature shifts the blackbody spectrum.

If you have any questions, look up the sunspot references that I and others provided in the BABB thread.

While I'm sure you won't agree with this explanation, I hope this will be the last time you will allege that blackbody radiation is "used as a generic term to describe everything that happens on the sun." But don't worry, when you forget these details, we're here to remind you.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 08:04 PM
another thing discussed, though not as much, was that the method used to determine the sun's content cannot be summed up as "counting photons"! this is really starting to irritate me, as it's one of the few things I really understand about this discussion. "counting photons" seems to be to be a summary of spectroscopy by someone who doesn't know what it really is. "counting photons" also seems like it's a term intentionally designed to belittle the work.

It is an overly simplistic "catch all" for any (not just one) method of determining solar composition by looking at photon counts or light intensity alone. I am not trying to belittle the work, but I do wish to point out the way the method works in a very clear way. In essense this "method" uses light output to attempt to determine atomic composition. I think that would work fine if we understood all the the arrangements and thermal states of plasma layers, but without this kind of knowledge, I question it's usefulness in actually determining atomic composition. I put much more faith in the method that Dr. Manuel used.

In some way shape or form, the method of trying to tie photon output to atomic composition must be cross checked in some way. The first meaningful way I've seen to test this method in a different way, it failed miserably. We have two different methods returning two different results. One or more of these methods must be unreliable to get vastly different answers. I can find no flaw in the methods Dr. Manuel used in his analysis and I trust that the field of nuclear chemistry will yeild accurate answers. I see evidence that Dr. Manuel's claim that the sun was formed from supernova remnants has already been confirmed. I see every reason to think the sun will be composed of the same materials found in meteorites and the inner planets. Now when I add the observational images from these satellites, I see no logical reason to dispute Dr. Manuel's findings and I see every reason to dispute the photon count method based on these images.

That is the way I see things anyway. Like I said, if any of you can point out he scientific error in Dr. Manuel's work I will consider it. If you cannot find the error in his method then you should consider his method as well. Again, I see this as a debate about the assumptions we start with, and the results we end up with, and the only viable means of settling the debate is through direct observation of what's actually going on. I see lots of evidence to suggest an abundance of iron based on these images and I see no evidence to suggest it is in short supply on the sun other than this one questionable method of looking only at photons emitted when trying to determine atomic composition.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 08:07 PM
Michael, why do you keep saying this? We covered this one too many times. It is one thing to reject explanations; it is another thing to distort those explanations.

A sunspot is caused when the local magnetic field reduces convection to the surface. This slows energy transfer and the surface cools somewhat. A lower temperature shifts the blackbody spectrum.

If you have any questions, look up the sunspot references that I and others provided in the BABB thread.

While I'm sure you won't agree with this explanation, I hope this will be the last time you will allege that blackbody radiation is "used as a generic term to describe everything that happens on the sun." But don't worry, when you forget these details, we're here to remind you.

Van, if you had even touched the flare pattern on the surface or the distance of the sides of the penumbral filaments or the convection processes seen in the penumbra and not in the umbra then maybe you would have the right to suggest your answer is superior to mine. As it is, you've skipped the hard stuff altogether.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 08:12 PM
This is a strange way of wording it; do you mean "why does there appear to be stronger emission of the X-ray lines from the arcs, than from other parts of the corona (in the Yohkoh image)?"?

If so, then the answer is "because the arcs have densities and temperatures different from the rest of the corona"

I agree with your statement, but then we have to know why it has a different density, what it is made of, where it comes from and why it has a different temperature range than anything else, and why xrays emit from these arcs and nowhere else on the surface.

My answer of course involves that travel of iron ions through an electrical arc. The electricty heats the iron ions in the arcs and eventually they emit soft and hard xrays.

All of these heat signatures are consistent with the flow of electricity through iron. That description fits your answer "because the arcs have densities and temperatures that are different from the rest of the corona" to a tee. In other words I completely agree with you, and I offer you a scientific way to explain it, specifically as an electric discharge. Can you offer a "better" explanation that fits your own answer a well as the one I just offered you?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-22, 09:14 PM
I'll keep looking for other kinds of papers for you Baloo about the flare pattern we see at the top of the surface of the photosphere and chromosphere. This is one explanation of this phenomeon that Dr. Bruce offered to explain that flare pattern within the plasma layers.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm


(2.4) Sunspots:

(2.4.1) Explanation and Structure

Whereas most astrophysical theories were and probably still are embarrassed by the observation of the low temperatures of sunspot's in which we are able to see further down into the sun's atmosphere, this relatively low gas temperature naturally confirmed one of the discharge theories earliest tacit predictions, that, the temperature of the atmosphere surrounding the photospheric arcs must, be much lower than that of the discharges themselves.

It was suggested in the original summary of these ideas(2.7) that the cause of the extinction of the photospheric arcs is the occurrence of a much larger discharge or facula which neutralized the electric field in their immediate neighbourhood. It was then emphasized in support of this view that, "sunspots are always accompanied by faculae, and are in fact preceded by them", as had been then determined at Greenwich and as is generally agreed(19.1).

The existence of the penumbra too was readily accounted for and followed from the attraction on one another of parallel currents. The current decreases outwards in these atmospheric discharges since the current passing any point has to maintain the lateral corona currents beyond that point. It follows that the the discharges near the "surface" of the photosphrere will be pulled outwards from the centre of the spot and downwards so that a vertical section through a spot will have the form shown in Fig.1, in which the width of the individual arc channels represents diagrammatically the magnitude of the current.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era-f01.gif

Faultline
2005-Sep-22, 10:27 PM
Alright, the short-short version of my question!

How much iron has to be there for this model and does that reflect the volume and mass that we know (through measurements of size and gravitational effects) exists there?

Nereid
2005-Sep-22, 10:43 PM
It is an overly simplistic "catch all" for any (not just one) method of determining solar composition by looking at photon counts or light intensity alone. I am not trying to belittle the work, but I do wish to point out the way the method works in a very clear way. In essense this "method" uses light output to attempt to determine atomic composition. I think that would work fine if we understood all the the arrangements and thermal states of plasma layers, but without this kind of knowledge, I question it's usefulness in actually determining atomic composition.Er, I think you've missed quite a number of very important aspects, which introduce a range of consistency checks (based on independent physics). For example:
* mass and (calculated) average density of the Sun
* hydrostatic equilibrium
* mass conservation
* energy transport
* neutrino emission
* fusion reactions
* helioseismology
I put much more faith in the method that Dr. Manuel used. And no one is questioning your faith.

However, if you wish to include his methods in the construction of your alternative ideas, then you must be willing to take on the challenges that have been mounted against his idea. For example, the observed average density of the Sun.
In some way shape or form, the method of trying to tie photon output to atomic composition must be cross checked in some way. On this, we are in full agreement (see above).
The first meaningful way I've seen to test this method in a different way, it failed miserably. We have two different methods returning two different results. One or more of these methods must be unreliable to get vastly different answers. I can find no flaw in the methods Dr. Manuel used in his analysis and I trust that the field of nuclear chemistry will yeild accurate answers.Oh? And how do you account for the observed average density of the Sun then?
I see evidence that Dr. Manuel's claim that the sun was formed from supernova remnants has already been confirmed.And I see a wide range of exceedingly good observational results, from many different, independent perspectives, that his claim is strongly inconsistent with those results.

How would you propose that your 'seeing' and my 'seeing' be reconciled?
I see every reason to think the sun will be composed of the same materials found in meteorites and the inner planets. And I see every reason to think the Sun is composed of the same material found throughout the ISM.

What can we do to reconcile the different 'seeings'?
Now when I add the observational images from these satellites, I see no logical reason to dispute Dr. Manuel's findings and I see every reason to dispute the photon count method based on these images. And I see a months'-long lack of answers to even the most basic questions about those images; I see an apparent desire to make extremely broad, handwaving statements, but an apparent reluctance to address even the most obvious quantitative aspects of the claims; I see a self-professed ignorance of the physics underlying spectroscopy (as applied to astrophysics); I see sweeping, dismissive, number-free generalisations about the solid observational work of hundreds of astronomers; I see an apparent reluctance to consider the full range of physics (extensively tested in laboratories) brought to bear on analysing digital (aka quantitative) observations.

How can we reconcile these different 'seeings'?
That is the way I see things anyway. Like I said, if any of you can point out he scientific error in Dr. Manuel's work I will consider it. If you cannot find the error in his method then you should consider his method as well. Again, I see this as a debate about the assumptions we start with, and the results we end up with, and the only viable means of settling the debate is through direct observation of what's actually going on. In light of what I just wrote, we seem to be on the same page.

Let's start with something really basic, simple, and robust, shall we?

What is the observed density of the Sun?

What is the expected density of the Sun, according to Dr. M's idea?
I see lots of evidence to suggest an abundance of iron based on these imagesUnfortunately, since you have (so far) been unable to provide us with even the most basic data concerning the images, I claim that no one has even the foundation to begin to test your claim.
and I see no evidence to suggest it is in short supply on the sun other than this one questionable method of looking only at photons emitted when trying to determine atomic composition.Well, unless and until you can quantify 'in short supply', what basis can there possibly be for us to even have a discussion, let alone be in disagreement?

Faultline
2005-Sep-22, 11:03 PM
Here is an interesting article about the work of Dr. Manuel and how (without details I'm afraid) he has been debunked.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/ironsun.htm

In fact, toward the end of the article, it is mentioned that Dr. Manuel's own work served as a basis for the debunking of his idea that a supernova explosion forged our sun and solar system.

He analyzed the isotopes found in many meteorites and decided that the sun was similar in composition. He also decided that the meteorites were formed from the outer shell of a single supernova whose neutron star remnant forms our star's core.

Other scientists took his research data in a more reasonable direction and found that the composition of meteorites varied so greatly that they couldn't have come from one single supernova. Our sun is formed from material from the interstellar medium.

And that means a WHOLE FREAKING LOT OF HYDROGEN!!!

Unless you can show that there is more iron and neon in the ISM, I think Manuel is debunked along with Mr. Mozina.

And he still has no data on the density of our sun and how it being "mostly iron" with the same volume still allows it to have the gravitational field we observe!

Kristophe
2005-Sep-23, 02:49 AM
Ermm..

You know, this should have occured to me sooner (though, I haven't been actively involved in this thread)... But a neutron star is degenerative. It won't support a shell of non-degenerative matter hundreds of thousands of kilometres thick. Normal matter, when exposed to the extreme gravitational field on the surface of a neutron star, would become degenerative itself. The whole thing would go nova a thousand times over before settling down into a slightly smaller, significantly more dense... neutron star.

Or are we pretending that quantum mechanics doesn't work now, too?

Baloo
2005-Sep-23, 09:05 AM
But that is not really a "full" investigation of the evidence. In other words, you are not considering the implications of these images on gas model theories that you currently put your faith in. Without comparing and contrasting here, we cannot see the weaknesses in the gas model or make direct comparisons between the models.


I don't do a full investigation of the evidence; supposedly you did that and consequently you've come with a theory. All I do is to investigate some of your evidence; if I prove you wrong on specific points means that your theory has at least holes in it. If those specific points are the very premises upon which you've build your theory (like "visual inspection" used as "prove") then I have all the reason to believe that the entire theory is flawed.

And I must say that I don't put my faith in no scientific theory; religion is about faith, not science. I have no faith in the gas model, simply I think that this is a model built on our actual knowledge on the subject, far to be perfect but perfectible. Instead of "faith" (which in my opinion is more a kind of blind acceptation of an authority, ideea or concept) I choose to trust the way in which the scientific community is able to emerge viable results and to correct itself.





That is only half of a serious scientific investigation IMO. It should not be up to a single individual or a few individual to defend every possible question that can be asked BEFORE the idea has as much merit as the gas model. It seems from my perspective that you wish to sweep the inconsistencies of the gas model under the carpet by not considering the implication on ALL models rather than just one.


Mister Mozina, how could I express myself clearer than this: I don't defend any model here, I'm attacking one!
If you are unable to answer a question then say so. But you're wrong if you think that your "generic" responses to a specific question is an answer.





But you are not allowing me the same courtesy I afford you. I am willing to allow you to show where my theory is inconsistent from observation, but you are not open to me showing you where I believe your theory is inconsistent with observation.


Again, you're the one trying to prove something here, not me! I didn't presented any theory here, so why you insist to prove me that I'm wrong? But you've presented one, and instead defending it in the first place you're asking us to prove other theories right.




That is not a fair debate IMO. You have an expectation that I will be able to scientifically address each and every question put to me, yet you have placed no scientific knowledge expectations upon yourself whatsoever.


That's not true; I've adressed you a specific issue using qualitative and quantitative references. I'll defend the arguments I've used, but those arguments are not linked to the 'gas theory'. This "blackbody vodoo" is the one that makes your lightbulb shine, has nothing to do with the gas theory!




You obligate me to answer every possible technical question put to me before even considering the model seriously regardless of whether you could answer these same questions yourself using the currently accepted model. You have an expectation that I will "change my mind" if you can convince me of some point you feel is crucial, but you afford me no such luxury as it relates to your beliefs.


To change my mind about what? About your theory? Sure I can do that, but in order to convince me that your theory is right you should convince me that the methods you're using are right. And you've failed from the first step when you've said that your analysis is based on "purely visual inspection" and one don't need to know all the details about a picture in order to interpret it.





I hear you, but we also need to be realistic in our expectations of one another. If you accept that there are things you cannot effectly communicate about the gas model and yet you accept it as a viable theory, then you must accept that there will be elements in my model that I may not be able to explain to your satisfaction, but that does not invalidate my model. Can we agree on that point?


I agree, but you're missing a huge point here: I didn't questioned your model's predictions, but your premises! It's ok for a model if it fail to predict some observed facts, but is not ok if the model is based on misinterpreted facts.







you had seen that is a valid explanation even if the material involved is the neon layer that you're claiming to be there that is somehow cooling.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? :)


No, it is not ironic. Instead is selfexplanatory for the way you do "science": you've dissmised an argument whitout any attempt to understand the argument itself and its implications to your theory.





Sure. The simple answer is you have two types of plasmas, one on top of the other. The top layer is relatively thin and emits visible light. The layer underneath tranfers it's heat to the light emitting layer, but it does not emit photons in the visible spectrum.


Please clarify this point: when you're talking about umbra and penumbra you mean shadow produced by a source of light and an opaque body or you mean just "umbra-like patterns"?





This is plain wrong; whitout those detail a image by itself could be very misleading. Look at this photo of the Atlantic ocean: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images...tream_modis.gif
So, looking just at this picture, I'd say that the Atlantic ocean is composed from more kinds of materials and it has a very big crack on the midlle. Tell me please in which way is different your interpretation of the solar images from my intepretation about this picture? I can't see none, and I hope that I don't have to prove that actually the Atlantic is full of water.
Also I'd point out that is your model who should fit the facts, not other way around.

Oddly enough I find myself agreeing with you.


You're agreeing whit what? That my interpretation of this Atlantic picture is flawed? Then please explain why your interpration of the sun pictures is right.




Can you explain the structure of the Lockheed video, or can you explain why the x-rays that Yohkoh observers are concentrated in the arcs?


I don't need to explain them in order to prove that you've misinterpreted a image.





...low temperatures of sunspot's in which we are able to see further down into the sun's atmosphere, this relatively low gas temperature...



I am simply questioning whether or not black body radiation can explain all the details of this image. I could not see a way to do that.


So let see: Dr. Bruce says that the sunspots are cooler than the surrounding regions. You have faith in what he says, right? Why don't you take his temperature estimations, plug the numbers in the equations and compute how a cooler sunspot will appear on a hot background as seen with a 430 nm filter having a 10 Angstrom bandwith? Then compare your results with the photos taken. Would you do that? Or this is also unscientific?


Now, since we're here, I have one more questions:
1. Dr Bruce says that sunspots are cooler regions. You say that sunspots are simply holes in the neon layer.
2. Dr. Manuel says that the sun is powered by a neutron star. You say that is powered by fission.
Do you think that these two differences are minor issues?

Andreas
2005-Sep-24, 07:56 PM
I was just wondering if you would consider answering these questions so I'm reposting them:


It is OBSERVATION that is key here, not theory. I don't care how many theories hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is the observation that matters, not the theory.
What do you think scientific scrutiny is if not verifying a theory through observations?


For instance: Why are the gamma rays and x-rays concentrated on the surface and in the arcs if most of the serious energy release is happening in the core?
What would you expect to see if most of the serious energy release is, in fact, happening in the core?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 12:37 AM
I was just wondering if you would consider answering these questions so I'm reposting them:


What do you think scientific scrutiny is if not verifying a theory through observations?

That is a good question. I don't see a lot of folks jumping up and down offering suggestions from the observations on my website however. I did not personally create any of the images and you are welcome to interpret them differently and show me where I am in error.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com


What would you expect to see if most of the serious energy release is, in fact, happening in the core?

That would depend on what surrounded it. If the sun was really only a tiny, tiny bit heavy material then I'd expect to see a more uniform distribution of energy that was concentrated near the core, or along the surface, but not in the arcs. Why is the heat in the arcs?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 01:01 AM
Here is an interesting article about the work of Dr. Manuel and how (without details I'm afraid) he has been debunked.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/ironsun.htm


The surface of the Sun has been proven to be mostly hydrogen, and many subsequent studies have led to extremely detailed models of the hydrogen fusion reactions that power our star.

"We can make an explicit model of the Sun, putting its mass and brightness into the computer, along with the laws of physics and that then produces right amount of Sunshine and brightness," says Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. These models also explain the various stages of stellar evolution that astronomers can observe.

The problem with short little pieces like this is that it is easy to overlook a few facts.

The fact is that the METHOD used to "prove" (I hate the use of that term as this person tried to apply it) is itself open to scrutiny. Their is PROOF in Dr. Manuels work that the sun is mostly made of iron. Now it is nuclear chemistry and difficult reading. I find I have to read his material a number of times before it starts to make sense to me. I took a few semesters of chemistry but I'm not in his league when it comes to isotope analysis.

When I hear someone like this talk about proof and "models" that predict accurately, I think back on all those early gas model predictions that went out the window over the last few years and I wonder where this person has been. I wonder about statements of "proof" when no cross check has been offered, and no flaw in Dr. Manuel's method was mentioned that had anything to do with chemistry. I'm afraid that didnt' debunk anything. It was just bunk, particularly these kind of below the belt comments:


Still, some scientists see fringe theorists like Manuel as an asset, as they make people reassess long-held theories. "Manuel is a little off the wall," Lewis says.

Unless Lewis can show the problem with the nuclear chemistry, I'm going to trust him about as much as I trust a creationist trying to deny the findings of nuclear chemisty as it relates to the age of the earth. I guess if you can't do the math you trash talk a lot and hope nobody notices. I really hate that kind of debate tactic. It is underhanded and unscientific.


In fact, toward the end of the article, it is mentioned that Dr. Manuel's own work served as a basis for the debunking of his idea that a supernova explosion forged our sun and solar system.

If this is his idea of "debunking", I see the problem already.


He analyzed the isotopes found in many meteorites and decided that the sun was similar in composition. He also decided that the meteorites were formed from the outer shell of a single supernova whose neutron star remnant forms our star's core.

When you've read a least a half dozen or so of his papers as I have, then you talk to me about this simplistic ideas. I assure you that he put a LOT more effort into the process than this paragraph suggests. People have a tendency to oversimplify arguements. This is a good example.


Other scientists took his research data in a more reasonable direction and found that the composition of meteorites varied so greatly that they couldn't have come from one single supernova. Our sun is formed from material from the interstellar medium.

By "reasonable" I assume you mean "they made the evidence fit preconcieved Astronomical ideas better than Dr. Manuel"? Even if they vary greatly, they aren't typically 90+ percent hydrogen and helium. What's up with that? If the flotsum and jetsum that make up our solar system are mostly heavy elements, how is the sun so heavy element poor?


And that means a WHOLE FREAKING LOT OF HYDROGEN!!!

Hydrogen as far as I can tell is nothing more than a byproduct of the electrical activity along the surface of mostly iron sun. It is abundant, but it doesn't stick to things well as a simple gas. There are some examples of different types of meteors on my website. They may not have come from the same supernova, but they may have come from two different areas of the supernova. I notice a great deal of variation between the two. Both however are abundant in iron. I might try to average the two in some way, but I would not try to suggest we can't tell ANYTHING from studying meteors as you are ultimately suggesting. There may be a lot of hydrogen in the universe. That does not mean that stars of mostly hydrogen.


Unless you can show that there is more iron and neon in the ISM, I think Manuel is debunked along with Mr. Mozina.

If that is your notion of a "dubunk", I can see why astronomy today is in the shape it is in. I've heard better "debunks" of isotope analysis from creationists. :) You have to see the humor in that from my persepective.


And he still has no data on the density of our sun and how it being "mostly iron" with the same volume still allows it to have the gravitational field we observe!

So what? One observation that SEEMS to not fit the evidence is not reason to dismiss the model entirely. If that were true, the gas model would be dead and buried. Instead what happens is further research and ideas get kicked around and "changes" or "additions" are made to the model. While the density issue remains "in dispute" there are also many aspects of the gas model that remains "in dispute as well" starting with the cause of magnetic flux tubes.

Tim Thompson
2005-Sep-27, 01:16 AM
Their is PROOF in Dr. Manuels work that the sun is mostly made of iron.
This is a dubious assertion. Dr. Manuel presents an argument that he asserts to be a "proof", in some empirical sense of the word. But he is virtually alone in his assertion. I, personally, see no proof. In fact, I think the whole discussion of an "iron sun" is pretty silly, speaking only for myself of course. It should be a matter of interest that, except perhaps for a few friends or associates, every living scientist who has bothered to study the sun (and a lot of now dead scientists who have done likewise), reject his arguments, claims & etc. While that does not constitute a "proof" of anything, it is an observation that has some compelling implications. When an entire community of discipline scientists rejects an idea, one should at least consider that the idea may really be as bad as they say it is. From where I sit, it is that bad.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 01:39 AM
I don't do a full investigation of the evidence; supposedly you did that and consequently you've come with a theory. All I do is to investigate some of your evidence; if I prove you wrong on specific points means that your theory has at least holes in it. If those specific points are the very premises upon which you've build your theory (like "visual inspection" used as "prove") then I have all the reason to believe that the entire theory is flawed.

Not necessarily. The very "premises" that the gas model are predicated on, big bang, low iron suns are also on very shakey ground. If you intend to find specific holes in my visual observations, I have a whole website devoted to them. Pick one and point out the flaw. I'll listen even if I disagree.


And I must say that I don't put my faith in no scientific theory; religion is about faith, not science. I have no faith in the gas model, simply I think that this is a model built on our actual knowledge on the subject, far to be perfect but perfectible. Instead of "faith" (which in my opinion is more a kind of blind acceptation of an authority, ideea or concept) I choose to trust the way in which the scientific community is able to emerge viable results and to correct itself.

It is my hope that I can be a part of that correction process. ;)

Ultimately you do have faith in a model that lacks explanations for many actual observations. I cite a website full of such observations as evidence that the gas model is far from being proven true. You do in fact put 'faith' in that concept without being able to personally explain these images. I have no such faith. I can explain each and every image on my website and how it ties back to the model.


Mister Mozina, how could I express myself clearer than this: [B]I don't defend any model here, I'm attacking one!

There is a basic problem with this attitude in a general sense. You seem to think that if you find ANY flaw in my model, then you have a right to dismiss the whole thing. This is much like a religious attitude, where one side presents evidence, and another side does all the "debunking" of said scientific evidence, but offers none of their own to support their view. That is unacceptable. This is science not religion. If you can look for problems in my model, then I can look for problems in yours as well. If I can defend my model and your model offers no explanation for these images, then my model is better in the fact it offers answers, and better in the sense that it jives with observation, not just theory.


Again, you're the one trying to prove something here, not me! I didn't presented any theory here, so why you insist to prove me that I'm wrong?

Because both will be necessary for you to believe me. You will have to become educated about the shortcommings in the gas model to reject it, and you will have to become convinced of the validity of a solid surface model to adopt it. It takes quite a bit of evidence to get people to change their minds and even with good evidence there is no guarantee people will change their minds. My hope is by attacking the problem from both directions, I can make headway a bit faster. Now that I have a model I can explain, I can more easily see the shortcommings of the gas model. If you cannot answer these objections and others here cannot as well, then perhaps the issue has nothing to do with me, but with the model. I'm just a messenger with images and some explanations to offer.


But you've presented one, and instead defending it in the first place you're asking us to prove other theories right.

Of course. Did the gas model theory get promoted to a law recently? I have provided another "theory". Your job to convince me that your theory is scientifically superior to mine. No theory is "sacred". Science doesn't work like that, at least not when it works correctly.


That's not true; I've adressed you a specific issue using qualitative and quantitative references. I'll defend the arguments I've used, but those arguments are not linked to the 'gas theory'. This "blackbody vodoo" is the one that makes your lightbulb shine, has nothing to do with the gas theory!

Maybe my terminology was a hindrance. I seriously considered black body radiation myself until I paid closer attention to detail. While it 'could' be a viable option, you cannot ASSUME that it NECESSARILY applies in this particular case. It may apply to a million and one other cases, but unless you can prove that it applies here, you can't just assume it does.


To change my mind about what? About your theory? Sure I can do that, but in order to convince me that your theory is right you should convince me that the methods you're using are right. And you've failed from the first step when you've said that your analysis is based on "purely visual inspection" and one don't need to know all the details about a picture in order to interpret it.

I think you're taking a sentence out of context perhaps. The model is based on pure observation. The knowledge I have however is based on several lifetimes of research. I am not limited to my own observations, I simply relied upon them initially. Do you see that distinction?


I agree, but you're missing a huge point here: I didn't questioned your model's predictions, but your premises! It's ok for a model if it fail to predict some observed facts, but is not ok if the model is based on misinterpreted facts.

Now put yourself in my shoes here for a moment. You don't KNOW that a BB even took place, but that is the central theme of the gas model and the central ASSUMPTION made in the gas model. It assumes there was a time right after the BB where the universe was iron poor. Again, that has already been blown out of the water by Hubble and Chandra and Spitzer. There is exactly no evidence that our universe was ever iron poor. Now talk about shakey ground.

The only "measurements" that "confirm" these ratios of iron to hydrogen are based on the idea that everything that exists emits pretty evenly. Again, that is another assumption that has never been domonstrated. More importantly when Dr. Manuel went to cross check such an assumption, nuclear chemical analsys gave him completely different results. Now I've seen religious types ignore all the nuclear chemical analysis in the world. What makes astronomers better? I've seen a lot of handwave dismissals of his work, but no one has gotten dirty, gotten into his analysis and pointed out the error. I tried. I didn't see a problem. In fact I saw a logical flow of information over a 40 year timeframe that was hard to ignore. I've never seen a creationist actually "debunk" isotope measurements. I doubt I'll ever see an astronomer do it either.


No, it is not ironic. Instead is selfexplanatory for the way you do "science": you've dissmised an argument whitout any attempt to understand the argument itself and its implications to your theory.

I have not dimissed anything. I'm simply asking you to do the same thing you expect of me, namely explain my model and how it jives with observational data.


Please clarify this point: when you're talking about umbra and penumbra you mean shadow produced by a source of light and an opaque body or you mean just "umbra-like patterns"?

At about 700km, the glowing gives way to a layer that does not glow. The patterns I'm talking about are primarily seen in the umbra/penumbra layer, where dark gives way to light. You'll have to interpret these "layers" your own way of course, but there is a distinct depth at which the penumbral filements stop, all along each side, and all the way presumably to the core we see "little" visible light in these areas. That sure acts like a unique "layer".


You're agreeing whit what? That my interpretation of this Atlantic picture is flawed? Then please explain why your interpration of the sun pictures is right.

My structures deflect shock waves. :)


So let see: Dr. Bruce says that the sunspots are cooler than the surrounding regions.

Well, if I said it like that it was sloppy verbage. What Dr. Bruce said was that for solids to form we would need to see temperatures that were under 4000K. He found evidence of this in sunspots. In some ways this is misleading however since even though some silicon, particularly that middle zones tend to be cooler, but the sides tend to be quite hot. The silicon plasma is upwelling in these areas because it has been heated by the arcs. The column of silion rises, but then tornado like structures also form in the photosphere and chromosphere for that matter. The heat in these areas in other words is not uniform. What it does show however is that lower temperatures can be found UNDER the photosphere than on top of it.


Now, since we're here, I have one more questions:
1. Dr Bruce says that sunspots are cooler regions. You say that sunspots are simply holes in the neon layer.

The sunspots contain cool areas of silicon plasma as well as warmer areas. The sunspot activity simply allows cooler silicon from below to be "observed".


2. Dr. Manuel says that the sun is powered by a neutron star. You say that is powered by fission.
Do you think that these two differences are minor issues?

Dr. Bruce and I are not in disagreement as far as I know. I never got to meet him while alive. Dr. Manuel and I have discussed our differences and both options are viable IMO. We consider these difference among friends. I think we are much closer together than you and Dr. Manuel or you and me.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 01:45 AM
This is a dubious assertion. Dr. Manuel presents an argument that he asserts to be a "proof", in some empirical sense of the word. But he is virtually alone in his assertion.

There is at least as much "proof" that his method works correctly and the current method. I used that term to illustrate a point. The concept of "dunking" someone's work from a scientific perspective means you get your hand dirty, look at the data and methods and reveal the flaw. So far I hear a lot of dismissal of his evidence, but not chemical analysis critique that would reveal the flaw in the analysis in any meaningful scientific way. When a creationist attempts to dismiss isotope analysis, I want to know why. When an astronomer does the same thing, I also want to know why. So far I've never heard either of them actually "debunk" anything.


I, personally, see no proof. In fact, I think the whole discussion of an "iron sun" is pretty silly, speaking only for myself of course. It should be a matter of interest that, except perhaps for a few friends or associates, every living scientist who has bothered to study the sun (and a lot of now dead scientists who have done likewise), reject his arguments, claims & etc. While that does not constitute a "proof" of anything, it is an observation that has some compelling implications. When an entire community of discipline scientists rejects an idea, one should at least consider that the idea may really be as bad as they say it is. From where I sit, it is that bad.

It's "that bad", but of course you offered no nuclear chemical analysis of your own. I have this same experience with creationists that don't like the results of chemical isotope analysis. So far I've yet to hear anyone give me a viable reason to reject his work, and counting photons to guess at atoms seems very silly to me as well. It is "that bad" from my perspective too. It fails to take into account any arrangement of elements. It is 'that bad'. It is essentially a "faith" in an early misconception about what useful information we can hope to gain from spectral analysis alone.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 02:01 AM
Here is an interesting article about the work of Dr. Manuel and how (without details I'm afraid) he has been debunked.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/ironsun.htm

In fact, toward the end of the article, it is mentioned that Dr. Manuel's own work served as a basis for the debunking of his idea that a supernova explosion forged our sun and solar system.

You know I misread this the first time through. His idea that a supernova forged our sun was not debunked, in fact it was recently supported by additional evidence. Furthermore this article is posted on Dr. Manuel's website. Evidently he doesn't think of it as a "debunk" at all. ;)

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

Evidently it was his ideas that proved true, they were not 'debunked' in any way.

Duane
2005-Sep-27, 02:38 AM
Michael, I suggest you read this thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=26881

and:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=23048

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 02:53 AM
Michael, I suggest you read this thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=26881

and:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=23048

I've sort of read through the last thread in the past and I briefly read through the first paper on the first link.

Some of the arguements centered on neutrinos and that isn't really an issue IMO. Now if can prove the neutrinos are concentrated in the arcs.... :)

Was there a specific objection to his work you wish me to consider? I've read enough of Dr. Manuel's papers to know that this is not light reading. If you could at least point me in the direction you feel is most relevant, that would be very helpful and most appreciated.

Duane
2005-Sep-27, 03:11 AM
Its hard to point to one area, but for now the work being done with meteorite studies is a good start. Remember that Dr Manuel proposes that there was only one supernova, and that the debris from which the sun formed was entirely made up of the material from that supernova. The findings of multiple events from multiple processes is a fatal flaw to his theory.

The neutrino problem is a very very hard one to get around as well. This is another fatal flaw in Dr Manuel's theory. He is the one who proposed that his model would account for 1/3 of the neutrinos coming from the sun, not understanding that the standard model of particle physics was about to be overthrown by the discovery that neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass.

Duane
2005-Sep-27, 03:12 AM
PS--I have read every single one of Dr Manuel's papers--or at least those that are available to me.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 03:41 AM
Er, I think you've missed quite a number of very important aspects, which introduce a range of consistency checks (based on independent physics). For example:
* mass and (calculated) average density of the Sun

I'm working that aspect in the other thread, so I'll leave that for another discussion. Suffice to say, there are things to consider before we abandon any model over a single objection without careful consideration.


* hydrostatic equilibrium

I don't really see a problem with my model as it relates to this, but if you elobarate a bit I'll take a stab at it.


* mass conservation

There is no such thing as mass conservation in my model. The sun is in a state of constant neutron decay into hydrogen. Sooner or later that will be a problem. For now I think it's ok to assume the sun will rise tomorrow. :)


* energy transport

Primarily the energy transportation system is electrical and thermal in nature.


* neutrino emission

I don't know yet. That image you presented earlier was fascinating to me since I'm a visual kinda guy. Unfortunately it's a bit "low rez" for me to make any sense of it just yet. One thing that did catch my eye was the way the yellow part went "outside the lines". IMO that "may" be evidence that arcs are the release mechanism rather than the core, but again, it may be a combo deal, or just too early to tell based on limited data. I was intriged with the image however. If you find a better resolution verision, by all means let me know.


* fusion reactions

I'm not sure there are any, or if so, I suspect they are also electrically driven.


* helioseismology

Helioseismology suggests that at a depth of about 4800km, the sound waves change their speed and hit something far more dense and/or much warmer at that depth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stm

Dr. Alexander Kosovichev was kind enough to explain what software he is using, but I have a ways to go before I figure out how to use it properly and find the right data sets. I do however think this field of study is important. Alas, I'm a long way from mastering it.


And no one is questioning your faith.

Ok, that works for me. ;)


How would you propose that your 'seeing' and my 'seeing' be reconciled?And I see every reason to think the Sun is composed of the same material found throughout the ISM.

But of course we we believe is in the ISM is based on a premise that has yet to be established, specifically that spectroscopy alone can accureately measure relative abundunces. Spitzer sure is opening our eyes to observations in the infra red spectrum we are only now starting to see with this kind of fidelity. Give Spitzer a few years and I think it will amaze us both. I think you will "see" the iron is central to the development of every galaxy.


What can we do to reconcile the different 'seeings'?And I see a months'-long lack of answers to even the most basic questions about those images; I see an apparent desire to make extremely broad, handwaving statements, but an apparent reluctance to address even the most obvious quantitative aspects of the claims; I see a self-professed ignorance of the physics underlying spectroscopy (as applied to astrophysics);

I respectfully beg to differ Nereid. I think it is because I *DO* fully understand the implication of trying to link photon output with atomic abundance that I find this assumption questionable. I go back to that question about my silicon layer in my model and whether it would be over or under represented in the photon count relative to helium. I don't recall your answer to that question, but I may have missed it. I'm having trouble keeping up with three different threads. I'll never do that again! :) Since they are on somewhat different topics, all of which I think are important, I will attempt to keep up in each of them, but bear with me a bit. I do have day job. :)


I see sweeping, dismissive, number-free generalisations about the solid observational work of hundreds of astronomers;

I could say the same thing about the way I see some astronomers dismiss the likes of Dr. Birkeland, Dr. Bruce and Dr. Manuel. Science is not homogeneous and their work is valid and important IMO. I'm just the amature astromoner with too much curiousity and too much free time on my hands and a love of technology and satellite imagery. :)


I see an apparent reluctance to consider the full range of physics (extensively tested in laboratories) brought to bear on analysing digital (aka quantitative) observations.

I have seen all sorts of various ways of analysing these images. I've seen math formulas that were simply beautiful without regard to whether or not the even apply. It is only by analysing these images that we can see if it applies IMO. If I had better resolution to work with, I might find some useful information in those neutrino images too. The thing we must not do however is assume that every image requires some sort of "expert" to interpret. In the end I am here to debate the ideas and I'm happy to let the public decide. I know they can see with their eyes too and they can see if these ideas make sense or they do not. If you can show me where I've made any mistakes in the analysis, or you can get an answer from Lockheed you believe is better, I'm very interested in hearing it. As it is, I cannot simply assume I'm wrong because you have "doubts" about me as an individual. The best I can do is keep working at it and take it one step at a time, one image at a time.


How can we reconcile these different 'seeings'?In light of what I just wrote, we seem to be on the same page.

To be honest with you Nereid, you remind me of some of my favorite teachers in College, the kind that busted my chops for a good reason. I appreciate what you are trying to do, honestly I do. We aren't however writing a thesis in college, we are simply discussing images in a free exchange of ideas. I believe from everything you've said over the past few months that you and I are not far apart really. There are just a couple of key differences between us here (like the flow of electricity is the heat source) that separate our beliefs. If you'll consider the fact I'm not hiding out in boonies of cyberspace peddling this idea for money. I'm actually spending money to put the idea out there, and I'm here letting you gentlemen (and ladies) bust my chops and pick my ideas apart, piece by piece, so that in the end, you will know that A) I'm sincere, and B) I can explain my model and show how it relates to observation. I cannot of course make you believe a word I've said, but as you know trust takes time, and I'm willing to work at it, and willing to look at all the issues. Rome however was not built in a day, and IMO Birkeland was 100 years ahead of both of us. This isn't about me, it's about knowledge and science and satellite images and pure observation.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 03:48 AM
Its hard to point to one area, but for now the work being done with meteorite studies is a good start. Remember that Dr Manuel proposes that there was only one supernova, and that the debris from which the sun formed was entirely made up of the material from that supernova. The findings of multiple events from multiple processes is a fatal flaw to his theory.

Well, please remember that I am also an individual. I personally think it would be hard to figure out how many supernova might be involved and I would not necessarily say it was one, but one would do, and Occum's razor and all, I can understand his position. I can also defend it a bit by suggesting that I don't believe the surface is homogeneous and any explosion of such a surface would produce quite a range of different meterite compositions IMO.


The neutrino problem is a very very hard one to get around as well. This is another fatal flaw in Dr Manuel's theory.

I'm not sure I quite understand, but I suspect you are refering to his core. Since my model is different in that respect and I have not even tried to calculate a neutrino count in this model, I'm not sure it applies to me or my model. If you make a strong enough case, and it helps my case in the process, I needle him about it the next time we talk. How is that? :)


He is the one who proposed that his model would account for 1/3 of the neutrinos coming from the sun, not understanding that the standard model of particle physics was about to be overthrown by the discovery that neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass.

Again, that whole scenario was a bit before "my time" so to speak. I am not comfortable trying to gleen much information from Nereid's neutrino image, but I would say with such poor resolution, it is premature to call the issue "resolved" either way. It may turn out those neutrinos come from the arcs, and then where will your neutrino arguement be? Since I was not involved in that "disagreement", it only fuels my curiosity. I'd really like a better resolution image of the emission patterns. I am hoping such an image might even make my case a slam dunk. :)

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 03:53 AM
One question.....

Even if there were more than one supernova involved, what difference would it make? Wouldn't they both or three or X of them all be predominantly iron anyway? I'm not sure I understand how discovering that there were more than one supernova involved would significantly alter the results of his findings. Unless they were radically different kinds of supernova, and devoid of iron, I don't see how that really makes much difference to his case, either way.

Duane
2005-Sep-27, 03:56 AM
It may turn out those neutrinos come from the arcs, and then where will your neutrino arguement be? Since I was not involved in that "disagreement", it only fuels my curiosity. I'd really like a better resolution image of the emission patterns. I am hoping such an image might even make my case a slam dunk. :)

There is no process I am aware of that would give rise to neutrinos in the arcs.

The number and direction of the neutrinoes that are measured almost exactly matches the number that is expected as a result of proton-proton fusion in the core of the sun. Seems like a pretty well resolved issue to me.

You are not going to get a better image Michael.

crosscountry
2005-Sep-27, 04:17 AM
No, he thinks the Sun is mostly iron.



can't we just measure the density of the sun? that would set this guy straight :doh:

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 04:21 AM
There is no process I am aware of that would give rise to neutrinos in the arcs.

I tend to agree in that I can't think of why it would, but then again that is where all the energy seems to be the most "concentrated", at least in satellite imagery. I cannot of course tell what is going on in the core, and we would need to see several times better resolution in real time to "observe" something like that. I would have to say that I would expect the core to be the primary source, but I wouldn't be a bit surpised to see it in the arcs as well, especially in the areas that emit in the hard x-ray spectrum that Yohkoh observes.


The number and direction of the neutrinoes that are measured almost exactly matches the number that is expected as a result of proton-proton fusion in the core of the sun. Seems like a pretty well resolved issue to me.

You are not going to get a better image Michael.

My suspicious is that both of these statements are eventually going to come back to haunt you. :) The last prediction is expecially unlikely since our technology keeps improving in leaps and bounds. I'll certainly live long enough to rib you about that prediction at least. :)

You do of course realize that *IF*, and I'll concede it's a longshot, but if the discharges of neutrinos can be linked to the arcs, then your "resolved issue" will be the thing that makes my case a slam dunk. Consider that before you get too carried about about images with that kind of resolution. I am betting you will be proven wrong on both counts within my lifetime.

Duane
2005-Sep-27, 04:56 AM
My suspicious is that both of these statements are eventually going to come back to haunt you. The last prediction is expecially unlikely since our technology keeps improving in leaps and bounds. I'll certainly live long enough to rib you about that prediction at least.

Well, ok perhaps the last one. The thing is, this is an image from a ground-based observatory specifically put in place to detect neutrinoes, then left to gather hits for some 2 years. There is no spacecraft that can detect neutrinoes, and, AFAIK there is no plan to make a better detector.

As for the first--well Michael I suppose we just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that you understand the processes of fusion or fission well enough to grasp the fundamental understanding that comes from the detection of oscillating neutrinos, in the amount expected from proton-proton reactions in the core of the sun. It really does put serious constraints on a number of theories (Dr Manuel's for sure, but EU and a couple of others as well) because neutrinoes can only arise in very certain, well understood ways.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 06:13 AM
Well, ok perhaps the last one. The thing is, this is an image from a ground-based observatory specifically put in place to detect neutrinoes, then left to gather hits for some 2 years. There is no spacecraft that can detect neutrinoes, and, AFAIK there is no plan to make a better detector.

No detector "yet". I think the "yet" part is the thing that will catch up to you here. Our current detectors are indeed quite primitive, in fact more primitive than I'm betting you even realize. While we can only see a "dot" today, we will eventually see these emission patterns with better fidelity than we see iron ion emission today. In fact the better cameras of today are 8 megapixels in full color. Even the next generation of satellites with newer cameras and new frequencies will blow any doubt away that there is a solid surface IMO.


As for the first--well Michael I suppose we just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that you understand the processes of fusion or fission well enough to grasp the fundamental understanding that comes from the detection of oscillating neutrinos, in the amount expected from proton-proton reactions in the core of the sun.

You may be right that my understanding of these things could use improvement, but I suspect your understanding of the "receiver" in this case leaves a lot to be desired as well. No one is perfect. I don't expect it even of myself. I'm willing to live and learn as I go. Even still, I have no doubt that the resolution and the technology will continue to evolve over time.


It really does put serious constraints on a number of theories (Dr Manuel's for sure, but EU and a couple of others as well) because neutrinoes can only arise in very certain, well understood ways.

I think you should have said that we have "some" well understood ways we believe they can be created. I doubt even you would say right now that the flow of electricity could not play a part. Ultimately it is the flow of electricity here that is the linchpin in the whole arguement. If however it is the arcs that emit these, and the cascading effect of the reciever simply blurs the reception, but does pick up the hit, then these images really do not resolve the issue. They simply demonstrate their presense, but not how they are emitted in the first place. We will have to wait and see.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 06:16 AM
can't we just measure the density of the sun? that would set this guy straight :doh:

Well, there is another thread going on this subject. To participate you'll need a rock, a string, and a helmet. :)

Fram
2005-Sep-27, 10:00 AM
Concerning spectroscopy, Micheal wrote

On the other hand the "old" method used in astronomy is pretty good at determing WHAT elements are present, but it is a dubious way to determine percentage IMO, for several reasons, the most important being heat distrubution. In other words, even a rookie like me can see some problems with the ASSUMPTIONS that are made with that method. I therefore find it to be less trustworthy than the methods (plural) Dr. Manuel is using.


If you find it a dubious way and an assumption, then why do you use it on your website as part of the 'evidence (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/evidence.htm?)'?

NASA's Chandra found vast quantities of iron and silicon in the supernova remnants of DEM L71. It reveals a hot inner cloud of glowing iron and silicon surrounded by an outer blast wave. Again, this is entirely consistent with a solid surface model that is rich in silicon and iron.

Scientists have recently been surprised to find an abundance of neon in stars and an abundance of neon in our our sun.
You can't use 'vast quantities' and 'abundance' if you dispute the method by which they are measured.

Faultline
2005-Sep-27, 02:54 PM
You know I misread this the first time through. His idea that a supernova forged our sun was not debunked, in fact it was recently supported by additional evidence. Furthermore this article is posted on Dr. Manuel's website. Evidently he doesn't think of it as a "debunk" at all. ;)

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

Evidently it was his ideas that proved true, they were not 'debunked' in any way.

No, this finding doesn't support anything about our sun holding the dead neutron core of a supernova. It found olivine from a foreign star system, not here. It goes on to say that the olivine found in the dust particles isn't found in any native asteroids or meteorites. This is inconsistant with Manuel's theory.

Here is an excerpt that I'd like to point out from your own link.

[snip]
"Results showed that the olivine doesn't come from anywhere in our solar system, plentiful as olivine is in our solar system. "Olivine, which includes gem-quality peridot, is a very common mineral in meteorites and makes up the bulk of the mantle of the Earth," Lauretta said. "That's why it's been so hard to identify olivine that came in from another star system."

The supernova grains have oxygen isotopic ratios that have never been seen before in meteorites or comet dust, but are predicted in astrophysical models of supernova explosions," Messenger said.
[snip]



A very shaky hypothesis indeed.

Andreas
2005-Sep-27, 03:51 PM
What do you think scientific scrutiny is if not verifying a theory through observations?
That is a good question. I don't see a lot of folks jumping up and down offering suggestions from the observations on my website however.
It is a good question, so why don't you answer it? This is not about your website, so leave that out of it.

You claimed that the theories applying to solar physics have passed scientific scrutiny and that they are in disagreement with observations. These are contradictory statements. If you don't agree, define what you understand as scientific scrutiny so we can see where the misunderstanding is.

"That is a good question" is not an answer. I'm asking what you are thinking writing this and you are the only one who could know and answer that question. "I have no idea what I was thinking and retract that statement" is also a satisfactory answer, for your information.



What would you expect to see if most of the serious energy release is, in fact, happening in the core?
That would depend on what surrounded it. If the sun was really only a tiny, tiny bit heavy material then I'd expect to see a more uniform distribution of energy that was concentrated near the core, or along the surface, but not in the arcs. Why is the heat in the arcs?
Just to be clear, I'm asking what you would expect to see in the mainstream hydrogen gas model of the sun. I suspect that's what you mean by only tiny bit of heavy material, so that's okay.

How would we be seeing near the core? The core is hidden under 100,000s of kilometers of gas. As for the rest, we are seeing that most of the energy is released relatively uniform over the surface in the form of blackbody radiation, with the odd sunspots here and there where the surface is cooler. The arcs are hot, but release comparatively little energy. Which is a good thing, otherwise we'd get fried everytime one of them shows up.

Vermonter
2005-Sep-27, 04:34 PM
I agree with Faultline. All the SpaceRef article shows is that we have debris from another star system floating around in ours, not that the sun created those in a supernova.

Also, a supernova would have obliterated most of the system...I know the inner planets would have been engulfed, and the gaseous giants would be severely damaged.

Faultline
2005-Sep-27, 05:10 PM
I agree with Faultline. All the SpaceRef article shows is that we have debris from another star system floating around in ours, not that the sun created those in a supernova.

Also, a supernova would have obliterated most of the system...I know the inner planets would have been engulfed, and the gaseous giants would be severely damaged.

Thanks for the support!

I'll go a step further and provide a scenario.

Our star is already forming, hydrogen clouds condensing, rotation begins.

Millions of years before that, a supernova explodes, casting its heavy elements into the ISM.

Some of that matter makes its way to where our sun is about to begin hydrogen fusion. It begins to rotate with the rest of the matter swirling about the proto-sun and begins to accrete in small amounts.

The SNR bits are joined by other bits from older supernovas, getting a wide variety of fused, heavy elements that get trapped by the rotation of the forming planets and do not fall into the sun.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 05:27 PM
Concerning spectroscopy, Micheal wrote


If you find it a dubious way and an assumption, then why do you use it on your website as part of the 'evidence (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/evidence.htm?)'?

The method is a highly useful tool in determining what elements are present. I have always been clear about the the fact that the technology is reliable in that respect. What the method is less good at is determining the "abundance" of elements as opposed to presense. In all these billions of years, Hubble sees very little distinction between the amount of iron present in the early universe and the amount of iron in our own solar system, some 12 billion years later. That doesn't ring any alarm bells at your end? Since I am using the same method to compare both numbers, the point is valid. Hubble sees little change in these numbers over time.


You can't use 'vast quantities' and 'abundance' if you dispute the method by which they are measured.

I can point out however that the method shows little or no change in 12+ billion years. That calls both the method and the percentages into question. It is still a valid criticism of the method and the gas model assumption that it began as a "bang".

Vermonter
2005-Sep-27, 05:29 PM
Faultline, that looks like a good model for explaining the abundance of heavy elements in our system. Good job. :) The model varies, but I think that's the jist of the current explanations.

Tim Thompson
2005-Sep-27, 05:37 PM
It's "that bad", but of course you offered no nuclear chemical analysis of your own.
Indeed I don't. But since it is evident that you have never studied any kind of physics, and probably have never studied any kind of science at all, would you have a hope of understanding it if I did?

The reason I don't offer my own nuclear chemical analysis is that it is all quite irrelevant, including everything Dr. Manuel has to say on the subject. His analysis is not the target of criticism, at least not by me. My reason for calling his entire idea silly, is that his conclusion does not follow from his evidence. In fact, his evidence does not even have a logical link to his conclusion. It might as well be a science fiction story, it has no more intrinsic sense to it than that.

I have a better idea. The sun is not that far away, and it's easy to see. Why not look directly at the sun (through a properly filtered telescope, of course), and see what it is made of? Why bother with all of this indirect meteor stuff, when we can go straight to the source? Why is it that all of the scientists who actually study the sun itself, instead of rocks flinging around the solar system, reject the idea of an "iron sun"? Wouldn't you like to undertstand what they think? Or have you already decided they are all wrong? Indeed, why do you ASSUME that the sun is made of iron, even though we can look at it and see that it is not? If you are going to criticize those of the mainstream who make "assumptions", then you own "assumptions" should be equally open to criticism.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 05:41 PM
No, this finding doesn't support anything about our sun holding the dead neutron core of a supernova. It found olivine from a foreign star system, not here. It goes on to say that the olivine found in the dust particles isn't found in any native asteroids or meteorites. This is inconsistant with Manuel's theory.

I'm afraid your objection seems illogical from my perspective. Since the olivine came from a supernova, and by definition, supernovas are not a part of this solar system, it cannot be surprising that the olivine is external to our solar system. It may simply be dust in the wind from a thousand different supernovas for all we know, but the material came from a supernova that by definition is mostly iron. The point is that the crust of earth has a lot of olivine, so the sun should also have a lot of olivine as well. The primary components of olivine are iron and silicon. That should be no surprise since iron and silicon are the two primary ingredients in our own sun according to these satellite images.

I fail to see why you think the finding of olivine from a supernova remnant does not HELP Dr. Manuel's case. From where I sit, that is external corroboration of his original findings. Whether or not the sun has a neutron star core or not, the presense of iron comes from a supernova, just as his work suggested. What you seem to think is "shakey work" now has corrobation and support from a completely different technology. The presense and abundance of iron is the issue here and whether it came from one or a thousand of them, they would all be predominantly made of iron before they blew up. The large concentration of olivine in the inner planets makes it highly unlikely that olivine is not present in abundance on the sun. I see lots of iron and silicon in these images.

Vermonter
2005-Sep-27, 05:48 PM
Michael, the sun may have some such olivine. Remember though that any amount found on Earth would be insignificant on the Sun. The olivine is said to have come externally from the solar system, not native to it. And while supernova remnants have iron in them, that does not support the idea that our own sun is a supernova remnant, just that we have materials from remnants. Also, what do you consider "large amounts"? What % by Earth mass is olivine? I could say I have a "large amount" of iron in my body, but when compared to an iron girder, I have jack squat.

Faultline
2005-Sep-27, 05:56 PM
I'm afraid your objection seems illogical from my perspective. Since the olivine came from a supernova, and by definition, supernovas are not a part of this solar system, it cannot be surprising that the olivine is external to our solar system. It may simply be dust in the wind from a thousand different supernovas for all we know, but the material came from a supernova that by definition is mostly iron. The point is that the crust of earth has a lot of olivine, so the sun should also have a lot of olivine as well. The primary components of olivine are iron and silicon. That should be no surprise since iron and silicon are the two primary ingredients in our own sun according to these satellite images.

I fail to see why you think the finding of olivine from a supernova remnant does not HELP Dr. Manuel's case. From where I sit, that is external corroboration of his original findings. Whether or not the sun has a neutron star core or not, the presense of iron comes from a supernova, just as his work suggested. What you seem to think is "shakey work" now has corrobation and support from a completely different technology. The presense and abundance of iron is the issue here and whether it came from one or a thousand of them, they would all be predominantly made of iron before they blew up. The large concentration of olivine in the inner planets makes it highly unlikely that olivine is not present in abundance on the sun. I see lots of iron and silicon in these images.

It is entirely possible that the sun formed from condensing clouds of hydrogen and not from supernova debris. My point was that the sun could have been already forming when a nearby supernova flooded this region of the galaxy with planet-producing heavy elements.

You missed that point entirely. Dr. Manuel thinks the sun formed from the CORE of a supernova and the planets formed from its shell.

Wrong again. You have some flaky interpretations of evidence.

And you don't say how you "see" iron in the images of the sun! Do you have super electron-microscope eyes? Even if you did, all you would see is pixels because the resolution would depend on the original equipment that captured the image.

You make wild claims from images when you don't understand the tools used to capture them! They may reveal something totally different than what you think you see!

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 06:19 PM
Indeed I don't. But since it is evident that you have never studied any kind of physics,

Excuse me, but that is simply not true.


and probably have never studied any kind of science at all,

I resent these kind of debate tactics that focus on attacking the individual. If that were true, I would not be here discussing these issues openly and honestly with the scientific community. Since you don't know anything about me personally, what gives you the right to make these kind of statements even if you disagree with my assessments?


would you have a hope of understanding it if I did?

I understand perfectly that it takes EFFORT and scientific knowledge to sit down and explain these images. What I don't see you doing is explaining these images. What should that tell me? I have 46 years of scientific curiousity and study under my belt, and I've been forthcomming about my explanations of these images. Where is your explantion of these images?


The reason I don't offer my own nuclear chemical analysis is that it is all quite irrelevant, including everything Dr. Manuel has to say on the subject.

Argument by decree and argument by ridicule. I'm afraid I've seen better attempts at discrediting isotope analysis by creationists. That seems to be a common theme among creationist and gas model enthusiasts. None of you can tackle the nuclear chemistry, but you're sure it's unreliable in some vague way because it disputes the pillars of your faith. The ideas are different but the concept is the same.


His analysis is not the target of criticism, at least not by me. My reason for calling his entire idea silly, is that his conclusion does not follow from his evidence. In fact, his evidence does not even have a logical link to his conclusion. It might as well be a science fiction story, it has no more intrinsic sense to it than that.

Just out of curiousity, how many papers of his have you actually read?


I have a better idea. The sun is not that far away, and it's easy to see. Why not look directly at the sun (through a properly filtered telescope, of course), and see what it is made of? Why bother with all of this indirect meteor stuff, when we can go straight to the source?

That is exactly the proceedure I used when coming to the same conclusion as Dr. Manuel. In fact I did not hear of Dr. Manuel or his work until putting together the model you see on my website. Is it purely a coincidence in your opinion that we both came to the same conclusions two entirely different ways? Is all of Dr. Bruce's work meaningless to you as well?


Why is it that all of the scientists who actually study the sun itself, instead of rocks flinging around the solar system, reject the idea of an "iron sun"?

Not "every" scientists does reject the idea of an iron sun. Birkeland didn't reject the idea. Which scientists do you mean? Gas model theorists in particular? What makes "your" scientists better than mine again?


Wouldn't you like to undertstand what they think? Or have you already decided they are all wrong?

Actually I am curious what other think and have always been curious. That is why I sent emails to NASA and Lockheed and people at Stanford. I also sent emails to Harvard and Cambridge and every group I could think of who was associated with interpreting these images. I recieved very few replies, and no relevant explanation whatsoever. That is also why I am here as well, but few folks seem interested in providing any alternatives to the options I have suggested. I'll let you know how my conversation with Van goes since he's one of the few that has stepped forth and put up an idea that I must now consider. I'll wait to see him explain his methods for determining position and temperatures, but we both seem to think it's a "surface".


Indeed, why do you ASSUME that the sun is made of iron, even though we can look at it and see that it is not? If you are going to criticize those of the mainstream who make "assumptions", then you own "assumptions" should be equally open to criticism.

But we can see that the sun is made of iron. That is why I am here. I came to that conclusions based on satellite imagery. I later found the work of other scientists that support these observations, but I would not be here at all if I believed what you said was true. I think we can and do see iron on surface of the sun. If you disagree, then what are these photons that are mirror iron ion photons in your opinion, and what makes your answer superior than the one I offered you?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 06:30 PM
It is entirely possible that the sun formed from condensing clouds of hydrogen and not from supernova debris.

Anything is possible, but considering it had already been some 7+ billion years into the event, the odds there wasn't an abundant amount of iron in those "clouds" you describe are quite low. In fact Spitzer and Chandra are discovering a wealth of iron in their images of galaxy colisions and supernova remnants.


My point was that the sun could have been already forming when a nearby supernova flooded this region of the galaxy with planet-producing heavy elements.

But you assuming that these "clouds" were iron poor. What evidence of this can you provide? Supernova's tend to be pretty messy. How did all the hydrogen get separated out from all the rest of the heavier elements in those clouds?

You might checkout the evidence page of my website or Harvard's Chandra site and see what happens when galaxies collide. They release lots of iron in the collision. Why so much iron?


You missed that point entirely. Dr. Manuel thinks the sun formed from the CORE of a supernova and the planets formed from its shell.

I see no problem with that theory. How do you know he is wrong?


Wrong again. You have some flaky interpretations of evidence.

When we've heard all the ideas about the light source and have discussed them all, then talk to me about 'flaky interpretions". So far, that has not been demonstrated, only alledged.


And you don't say how you "see" iron in the images of the sun! Do you have super electron-microscope eyes? Even if you did, all you would see is pixels because the resolution would depend on the original equipment that captured the image.

Well, I do sort of have 3 sets of superman eyes as it relates to solar images. Soho and Trace are specifically "tuned" to iron ions. Everything they see is iron, or heated by iron. Yohkoh gives me hard and soft x-ray vision as well. Superman had nothing on me as it relates to images of the sun. I've got very cool technology to work with.

I certainly agree with you that I'm looking at pixels, but these pixels show the abundance of iron on the sun.


You make wild claims from images

It isn't that "wild" actually. Birkeland was talking about it 100 years ago. Bruce was talking it 50 years ago. Dr. Manuel has bell talking about it for the last four decades. The only reason you "think" it's wild is because it does not conform to your personal view of how things work.


when you don't understand the tools used to capture them!

It is because I do understand the tools that are used to capture them, and how they relate to these images that makes me confident enough to come here and debate these issues openly.


They may reveal something totally different than what you think you see!

That remains a possiblity. I am open to listening to other options. Van put up a short explaination but we have things to discuss about his explanation. IF you have some things to add to his explanation, or would like to offer one of your own explantions for any of the images on my website, I'll certainly consider your explanation.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 06:43 PM
Michael, the sun may have some such olivine. Remember though that any amount found on Earth would be insignificant on the Sun.

That is an allegation that has yet to be substanciated via nuclear chemical analysis or any other method for that matter other than the linking of photon output to percieved abundance of hydrogen. Since the "method" you are relying upon has not been calibrated by any external mechnism, it is premature to say you know that olivine is an "insignificant" component of the sun's composition.


The olivine is said to have come externally from the solar system, not native to it.

I'm confused by why that seems important to this crowd. Of course it had to come from outside this solar system. So what? What difference does it make if these olivine particles come from thousands of different, mostly iron supernova remnants? The fact these olivine particles are prevelant in all the crusts of the inner planets makes it's presumed absense on the sun sound mighty suspiscious.


And while supernova remnants have iron in them, that does not support the idea that our own sun is a supernova remnant, just that we have materials from remnants. Also, what do you consider "large amounts"? What % by Earth mass is olivine?

It is considered to be a lot higher than what the sun is presumably made of. Why and how would the inner planets be so radically different than the sun's composition?


I could say I have a "large amount" of iron in my body, but when compared to an iron girder, I have jack squat.

I hear what you are saying, and it's a relevant concern. I can see plenty of evidence in these satellite images of the presense of iron on the sun. I see no evidence that iron is not the single most abundant elements on the sun from these images. I see nothing in the work of Dr. Birkeland, Bruce or Manuel that would lead me to believe the sun is anything but iron. Other than a method that attempts to link photon presense with element abundance, what other evidence do you have that the sun is not mostly made of iron? It seems to me that I am relying here upon my own ability to explain the images as well as relying on the field of nuclear chemistry to explain what I see. Unless you can also explain these images, I see no evidence to suggest your method is accurate.

skepticfrog
2005-Sep-27, 06:50 PM
Anything is possible, but considering it had already been some 7+ billion years into the event, the odds there wasn't an abundant amount of iron in those "clouds" you describe are quite low. In fact Spitzer and Chandra are discovering a wealth of iron in their images of galaxy colisions and supernova remnants.

But you assuming that these "clouds" were iron poor. What evidence of this can you provide? Supernova's tend to be pretty messy. How did all the hydrogen get separated out from all the rest of the heavier elements in those clouds?

I may be mistaken, but I believe the argument was not that supernova's do not emit large amounts of heavy metals, but rather that supernova remnants probably have little to do with the formation of the sun. That does not mean that supernova remnants did not contribute material to planetary formation.



Well, I do sort of have 3 sets of superman eyes as it relates to solar images. Soho and Trace are specifically "tuned" to iron ions. Everything they see is iron, or heated by iron. Yohkoh gives me hard and soft x-ray vision as well. Superman had nothing on me as it relates to images of the sun. I've got very cool technology to work with.


As I recall, this very point was one of the criticisms leveled back on the BABB -- you are relying on images derived from instruments that were looking at iron. They don't show an abundance of iron related to other materials, they show iron isolated from other materials. Nereid, et al, if I am mistaken please correct me.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-27, 06:54 PM
That is an allegation that has yet to be substanciated via nuclear chemical analysis or any other method for that matter other than the linking of photon output to percieved abundance of hydrogen.

Michael, he was saying that the amount of Olivine in the Earth would not be a large freaction of the Sun, not that the proportion of olivine wouldn't be significant.


I see nothing in the work of Dr. Birkeland, Bruce or Manuel that would lead me to believe the sun is anything but iron.
Dr. Manuel has been pretty clear that the outer third of the Solar body is pretty much as we observe, and is made almost exclusively of Hydrogen and Helium with less than one percent combined being heavier elements such as Carbon, Oxygen Neon, Calcium, and Iron. Your idea (from the xray images you cite) seems to be that the Iron layer of the Sun begins pretty much at the photosphere.

Kristian Birkeland died in 1917. His work is interesting, but really can't be taken as up to date. Many observations have been made since his time. Much science has been updated since then because of these observations.

Which Dr. Bruce are you thinking of?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 07:54 PM
I may be mistaken, but I believe the argument was not that supernova's do not emit large amounts of heavy metals, but rather that supernova remnants probably have little to do with the formation of the sun. That does not mean that supernova remnants did not contribute material to planetary formation.

I hear the distinction you are trying to make. Since I see evidence of olivine on earth, and on mars and the inner planets are also iron rich, what evidence do you have that our whole solar system was not iron rich when it formed?

Why would the sun be so vastly different in composition than the first four planets in the solar system? How should Occum's razor apply to this argument in your opinion? It doesn't take a Dr. of nuclear chemistry to tell me there is something very suspicious about this suggesting the sun is radically different than all it's closest neighbors. Now when you add in a life's work of nuclear chemistry, specifically devoted to solar composition that also jives with observational data, you throw in two more lives work in Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Bruce as well, then I can't help but take the idea seriously.

Now I can see why you might "assume" that photons can be directly linked to atoms based on a "primative" form of "psuedo-chemistry". On the other hand the analysis that Dr. Manuel performed was substancial and inclusive of both lunar soil samples and comet debris. I've come to depend on nuclear chemical analysis in many debates, both spiritual and scientific. What evidence do you have that suggests the sun is a "magic body" that is mysteriously somehow different in composition than it's closest neighbors?


As I recall, this very point was one of the criticisms leveled back on the BABB -- you are relying on images derived from instruments that were looking at iron. They don't show an abundance of iron related to other materials, they show iron isolated from other materials. Nereid, et al, if I am mistaken please correct me.

I fully realize that three of the four filters that SOHO and Trace carry are sensitive to iron ion photons. I fail to see how that is a criticism however. Pretty much everything I see that "lights up" is mostly likely to be composed of ion. Things that don't light up may not be made of iron or may be made of iron at a vastly cooler temperature. I can't know without further chemical analysis. I also see the presense of calcium, neon, silicon and a variety of metals in spectral data. I'm sure these materials are also present based on their presense in the SERTS spectral data.

I've seen these running difference "structures" deflect shock waves. I've seen them crack. I've seen them rotate uniformly day after day. I've seen these structures erupt. I've seen them effect of these activities on the atmospheres of the sun as well. I put a whole website together so you can see these things for yourself without having to do years of satellite image research and months of specific research to put together a model based on real images. You really should check it out for yourself.

Keep in mind that none of the images on my website were created by me personally. I did string together NASA's running difference images into a movie form so you could see the uniform rotation of this layer for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. It's visual, observational data and it comes from Lockheed images and NASA images and Yohkoh imagery as well. I've even added data from Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer. All of these images suggest that Dr. Manuel's method of determing solar composition by detailed analsis of isotope abundances in lunar soils, comets, ect, is a far more accure, more reliable method of determing solar composition than just a simply counting photons without regard to "structure".

Faultline
2005-Sep-27, 07:59 PM
I hear the distinction you are trying to make. Since I see evidence of olivine on earth, and on mars and the inner planets are also iron rich, what evidence do you have that our whole solar system was not iron rich when it formed?

Why would the sun be so vastly different in composition than the first four planets in the solar system? How should Occum's razor apply to this argument in your opinion? It doesn't take a Dr. of nuclear chemistry to tell me there is something very suspicious about this suggesting the sun is radically different than all it's closest neighbors. Now when you add in a life's work of nuclear chemistry, specifically devoted to solar composition that also jives with observational data, you throw in two more lives work in Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Bruce as well, then I can't help but take the idea seriously.

Now I can see why you might "assume" that photons can be directly linked to atoms based on a "primative" form of "psuedo-chemistry". On the other hand the analysis that Dr. Manuel performed was substancial and inclusive of both lunar soil samples and comet debris. I've come to depend on nuclear chemical analysis in many debates, both spiritual and scientific. What evidence do you have that suggests the sun is a "magic body" that is mysteriously somehow different in composition than it's closest neighbors?



I fully realize that three of the four filters that SOHO and Trace carry are sensitive to iron ion photons. I fail to see how that is a criticism however. Pretty much everything I see that "lights up" is mostly likely to be composed of ion. Things that don't light up may not be made of iron or may be made of iron at a vastly cooler temperature. I can't know without further chemical analysis. I also see the presense of calcium, neon, silicon and a variety of metals in spectral data. I'm sure these materials are also present based on their presense in the SERTS spectral data.

I've seen these running difference "structures" deflect shock waves. I've seen them crack. I've seen them rotate uniformly day after day. I've seen these structures erupt. I've seen them effect of these activities on the atmospheres of the sun as well. I put a whole website together so you can see these things for yourself without having to do years of satellite image research and months of specific research to put together a model based on real images. You really should check it out for yourself.

Keep in mind that none of the images on my website were created by me personally. I did string together NASA's running difference images into a movie form so you could see the uniform rotation of this layer for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. It's visual, observational data and it comes from Lockheed images and NASA images and Yohkoh imagery as well. I've even added data from Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer. All of these images suggest that Dr. Manuel's method of determing solar composition by detailed analsis of isotope abundances in lunar soils, comets, ect, is a far more accure, more reliable method of determing solar composition than just a simply counting photons without regard to "structure".


Is all spectral analysis flawed? Can we not trust it on any light source?

Faultline
2005-Sep-27, 08:01 PM
You still don't explain how the sun has its perceived mass if it is mostly iron.

Do you follow Dr. Manuel's suggestion that the core of our sun is a neutron star? If not, what is at the core that produces power and has the sun's known mass?

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-27, 08:10 PM
That seems to be a common theme among creationist and gas model enthusiasts. None of you can tackle the nuclear chemistry, but you're sure it's unreliable in some vague way because it disputes the pillars of your faith.

Gas model scientists base their professional opinions on observations. Creationists base their opinions on blind faith. To compare gas model scientists with creationists is insulting.

Perhaps you'd like to try a different "analogy"?...

Fram
2005-Sep-27, 08:11 PM
The method is a highly useful tool in determining what elements are present. I have always been clear about the the fact that the technology is reliable in that respect. What the method is less good at is determining the "abundance" of elements as opposed to presense. In all these billions of years, Hubble sees very little distinction between the amount of iron present in the early universe and the amount of iron in our own solar system, some 12 billion years later. That doesn't ring any alarm bells at your end? Since I am using the same method to compare both numbers, the point is valid. Hubble sees little change in these numbers over time.



I can point out however that the method shows little or no change in 12+ billion years. That calls both the method and the percentages into question. It is still a valid criticism of the method and the gas model assumption that it began as a "bang".

No, you cannot call both the method and the percentages into question. If the method is wrong, it tells us nothing about the percentages. If the method is right, it does tell us something about the percentages. But you cannot use a wrong method to detect right or wrong numbers with. That is very, very bad science.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 08:28 PM
Michael, he was saying that the amount of Olivine in the Earth would not be a large freaction of the Sun, not that the proportion of olivine wouldn't be significant.

But why is he saying this? What other evidence besides photon/abundance assumptions are you basing this statement on? I have both visual evidence and chemical analysis to support my position. I also have logic and common sense on my side. It is logical to assume that if Mars is iron rich, and earth is iron rich, and Venus is iron rich and Mercury is iron rich, the then sun is "likely" to be iron rich as well. You are the one making the "extra-ordinary" claim here, not me. I've provided at least some evidence to support my position too. If you are going to support this extraordinary claim, you will need to give me a better reason than your trust in a method that has yet to be calibrated in any real world scenario.


Dr. Manuel has been pretty clear that the outer third of the Solar body is pretty much as we observe, and is made almost exclusively of Hydrogen and Helium with less than one percent combined being heavier elements such as Carbon, Oxygen Neon, Calcium, and Iron. Your idea (from the xray images you cite) seems to be that the Iron layer of the Sun begins pretty much at the photosphere.

I think we are both suprised to find that the iron surface layer is covered by such relatively thin atmosophere. Based on Heliosciesmology, I would say the depth of the photosphere to be about 4800km.


Kristian Birkeland died in 1917. His work is interesting, but really can't be taken as up to date. Many observations have been made since his time.

I'd say the satellite observations show he was 100 years ahead of his time. I see no observation that directly conflicts with his lab work in any way.


Much science has been updated since then because of these observations.

Which Dr. Bruce are you thinking of?[/QUOTE]

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Dr. Bruce demonstrated a whole host of solar phenomenon that are directly attributable to electrical discarges in the solar astmosphere. The gas model does not even recognize the existence of the flow of electricity that is the light source seen in all the SOHO and TRACE images. It's a little hard to image how then the gas model could possible explain such images of the sun.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 08:38 PM
No, you cannot call both the method and the percentages into question. If the method is wrong, it tells us nothing about the percentages. If the method is right, it does tell us something about the percentages. But you cannot use a wrong method to detect right or wrong numbers with. That is very, very bad science.

Even if the method is not 100% accurate at determining actual abundance of elements, it should still show SOME signs of change in all that time. I see little if any changes of percentages, even relative percentages.

One thing is very clear based on these observations. If the big bang/gas model concept was accurate and the universe got progressively more plentiful in iron, we should see evidence of this process in these images. We do not. There is a problem. What is the nature of the problem in your opinion?

skepticfrog
2005-Sep-27, 08:38 PM
Why would the sun be so vastly different in composition than the first four planets in the solar system? How should Occum's razor apply to this argument in your opinion?

Maybe a better question is why you would assume the sun is so similar in composition to the inner planets? From a purely lay standpoint, the sun appears to be so different in every easily observable dimension to make me think it is probably not composed of the same stuff as the earth.

Now I realize that you really like the work of Dr. Manuel, but the quick rejoinders I have read ring true. Among them are the differing amounts of material in recovered objects, the above discussion of olivine that, observationally, appears to be from outside our system, and the simple fact that one of the major observational problems he wanted to explain (missing neutrinos) was later found to have been an observational problem.

I have actually been through your website and looked at all of your images. What I thought was that the images looked like captures of the sun that told me little. The moving difference images of surface features did not contain sufficient information on scale, measurements, are actual coordinates to really tell me much.

Now I have to go back grading papers about the UN.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 08:44 PM
Gas model scientists base their professional opinions on observations. Creationists base their opinions on blind faith. To compare gas model scientists with creationists is insulting.

Perhaps you'd like to try a different "analogy"?...

Perhaps you could explain the functional difference between a gas model enthusiast denying the validity of Dr. Manuel's isotope measurements with a handwave vs. the same arguement from a creationist, because I honestly am having trouble seeing the distinction. It would be one thing if you demonstrated the flaw in his method, or put other chemical analysis on the table that directly refuted some part of his work, but I have yet to see it.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 09:03 PM
Maybe a better question is why you would assume the sun is so similar in composition to the inner planets? From a purely lay standpoint, the sun appears to be so different in every easily observable dimension to make me think it is probably not composed of the same stuff as the earth.

Both question seem equally valid, but gravity and any sense of uniformity would suggest the sun should be similar in elemental composition to it closest neighbors, even if it has a different kind of atmopshere and looks different.


Now I realize that you really like the work of Dr. Manuel,

I tend to trust the findings of nuclear chemical analysis, yes. I tend to do that before dismissing it. Before I dismiss something I need to understand why I should do so. I've been through his work. It looks first rate to me. If you disagree, then you should be able to demonstrate the error that gives him false results. If you can't do that, I can't simply ignore his work.


but the quick rejoinders I have read ring true.

No "quick rejoiners" are going to cut it here. I need to see the science that invalidates his work. I tried to find such a flaw and could not find one. That does not mean no error exists, but if it exists, you should be able to point out the specific issue involved.


Among them are the differing amounts of material in recovered objects, the above discussion of olivine that, observationally, appears to be from outside our system, and the simple fact that one of the major observational problems he wanted to explain (missing neutrinos) was later found to have been an observational problem.

I still fail to see what difference it makes where the olivine comes from as it relates to his or my argument. It's there, in abundance, it's heavy and would be affected by gravitation wells in space. Now for some reason you think it totally a different composition than all it's closest neighbors, but you've offered no significant evidence to support it. I'll need more than spectral readout of the solar atmosphere to believe what you are suggesting. There is really no logical reason to believe they would be different and many reasons (the first being gravity) to assume they would be of similar composition. You are the one claiming the sun is radically different than it's neighbors. Why?


I have actually been through your website and looked at all of your images. What I thought was that the images looked like captures of the sun that told me little. The moving difference images of surface features did not contain sufficient information on scale, measurements, are actual coordinates to really tell me much.

I don't believe we really need to know the exact scaling of these images to see a rigid surface that rotates uniformly. You don't need to know all the scaling aspacts to appreciate the shockwaves getting deflected by these rigid surface features. You don't need to know all the scaling issues to see that crack form in this layer on Jan 5th and 15th of this year. It helps to know these things of course, but there is useful information in these images even with no scaling information whatsoever.

Within the gas model enthusiasts, there appears to be a very strong resistence to explaining these images using gas model theories. Assuming there is an explanation for these images using gas model explainations, where are they? They should be coming out of the woodwork by now, especially on a forum this size.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 09:18 PM
Is all spectral analysis flawed?

No, of course not. If we know all the variable and local conditions, I'll be we can even establish the relationship between the elements and the various readouts. I do not question the validity of spectral analysis to determine the presense of atoms, only the abundance of adams. I personally relied on spectral analysis when I was building my model, but I did not try to rely on it to tell me relative abundances of elements.


Can we not trust it on any light source?

We can trust all light sources. The problem isn't the light source. The problem is in determining the "complete" makeup and relative abundances of elements from this data alone. We need some sort of "cross check" to see if this method is even reliable at determining the full spectrum of atoms in a solar body from a distance. We are more likely to see elements in the outer atmosphere like nitrogen, than to see something like olivine that is buried deep in the crust.

Vermonter
2005-Sep-27, 09:26 PM
That is an allegation that has yet to be substanciated via nuclear chemical analysis or any other method for that matter other than the linking of photon output to percieved abundance of hydrogen. Since the "method" you are relying upon has not been calibrated by any external mechnism, it is premature to say you know that olivine is an "insignificant" component of the sun's composition.

Out of curiosity, have you ever looked at and studied the spectral line that we get from the light of the Sun? They are quite remarkable, and show different absorption lines, depending on elements. Hydrogen, for example, has a unique pattern. Iron does to. Do the spectral lines support your theory? And while you say my method has not been calibrated, how is yours any different?


I'm confused by why that seems important to this crowd. Of course it had to come from outside this solar system. So what? What difference does it make if these olivine particles come from thousands of different, mostly iron supernova remnants? The fact these olivine particles are prevelant in all the crusts of the inner planets makes it's presumed absense on the sun sound mighty suspiscious.

That's what current models are showing, and so far, that's what observation tells us. It doesn't "have to" be from our system originally, in fact, having it be from our system raises a lot of complicated questions. Any supernova that occured in the solar system ~5 Bya would have sent matter everywhere, and prevented it from coalescing in this system again. Think about it. The matter coming from a supernova is an appreciable fraction of c. Even if it didn't blast all matter out into the nether, there wouldn't be anything left of the Sun except for a neutron star, which is degenerate anyway.

That, and the Sun isn't massive enough to experience a supernova. I just can't see any feasible way for the Sun to have gone supernova and still reform into what it is today, with an active solar system.

If there are olivine particles in the Sun, you wouldn't find an appreciable amount of them anyway. What % by mass of the Earth is olivine? Remember, the Sun is much, much larger than the Earth. Any % found in the Earth would be almost undetectable in the Sun.


It is considered to be a lot higher than what the sun is presumably made of. Why and how would the inner planets be so radically different than the sun's composition?

Look at the composition of the Sun, and the composition of the inner planets. The Sun is over 99% hydrogen. Earth is hydrogen depleted. The gas giants are the only planets that resemble the sun in terms of composition, because they are far enough out to be able to gather hydrogen in any appreciable amount. Since they've been stable for a long time, they remain massive, and mostly hydrogen and helium. The inner planets are mostly sillicates and rock, because that was the only material availible once the Sun had finished forming. They inner planets are too close to the Sun to keep hydrogen, it's too hot! The hydrogen just zips away.




I hear what you are saying, and it's a relevant concern. I can see plenty of evidence in these satellite images of the presense of iron on the sun. I see no evidence that iron is not the single most abundant elements on the sun from these images. I see nothing in the work of Dr. Birkeland, Bruce or Manuel that would lead me to believe the sun is anything but iron. Other than a method that attempts to link photon presense with element abundance, what other evidence do you have that the sun is not mostly made of iron? It seems to me that I am relying here upon my own ability to explain the images as well as relying on the field of nuclear chemistry to explain what I see. Unless you can also explain these images, I see no evidence to suggest your method is accurate.

Where in the satellite images do you see an appreciable abundance of iron? Without a doubt, there may be a very very small % (several decimal places back) of iron in the Sun. What evidence do I have that the Sun is not mostly iron? Temperature, mass, and luminosity of the Sun (also blackbody curve) would be much different is the Sun was mosty iron. Observations of stars give evidence to what goes on in them. An older (massive) star of mostly iron would be vastly different in these fields than one that was young. A star that is actively fusing iron is a dying star. If it's actually massive enough to fuse iron, it's almost done with its lifecycle anyway, since fusing iron doesn't yeild any energy.

Vermonter
2005-Sep-27, 09:34 PM
I think we are both suprised to find that the iron surface layer is covered by such relatively thin atmosophere. Based on Heliosciesmology, I would say the depth of the photosphere to be about 4800km.

What? So are you saying that from the photosphere down, the Sun is iron? Or are you saying there is an iron layer between the photosphere and some other layer? How does that work?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 11:12 PM
Out of curiosity, have you ever looked at and studied the spectral line that we get from the light of the Sun? They are quite remarkable, and show different absorption lines, depending on elements. Hydrogen, for example, has a unique pattern. Iron does to. Do the spectral lines support your theory? And while you say my method has not been calibrated, how is yours any different?

I began my search for elements in the SERTS data actually. That body of data details the solar spectrum down to the kind of ion that is present. That allowed me to establish which elements were present. I did not try to determine abundance from these numbers however, I was simply trying to understand which elements were involved. In most cases it was quite easy to see what elements were involved. For instance, there are many different kinds of iron ions represented in the SERTS data as well as many kinds of silicon ions. It therefore seemed quite logical to assume the presense of silicon and iron. Calibration however is a completely different issue. I did not attempt to make any assumptions about the layout of the sun from this data alone so I did not try to determine abundances from the numbers.


That's what current models are showing, and so far, that's what observation tells us. It doesn't "have to" be from our system originally, in fact, having it be from our system raises a lot of complicated questions. Any supernova that occured in the solar system ~5 Bya would have sent matter everywhere, and prevented it from coalescing in this system again. Think about it. The matter coming from a supernova is an appreciable fraction of c. Even if it didn't blast all matter out into the nether, there wouldn't be anything left of the Sun except for a neutron star, which is degenerate anyway.

"How fast" does it degenerate? Keep in mind that Dr. Manuel and I have some disagreements about what is under the shell. I am not suggesting a neutron star at the core, but instead a fission core. I respect his option however and I can probably defend that model pretty well if you would like.


That, and the Sun isn't massive enough to experience a supernova. I just can't see any feasible way for the Sun to have gone supernova and still reform into what it is today, with an active solar system.

Stars do reform from remnants and clouds. As I recall the supernova that presumably spawned this solar system was something like 15 times the size of our own sun. It seems to me with enough mass to work with, a new and smaller sun could for relatively quickly from only a small fraction of the mass of the old star.


If there are olivine particles in the Sun, you wouldn't find an appreciable amount of them anyway. What % by mass of the Earth is olivine? Remember, the Sun is much, much larger than the Earth. Any % found in the Earth would be almost undetectable in the Sun.

The primary ingredients of olivine are silicon and iron. Iron exist in much higher percentages on all the four inner planets than what we claim the sun has. Why would it be so different in iron content from a percentage standpoint?


Look at the composition of the Sun, and the composition of the inner planets. The Sun is over 99% hydrogen. Earth is hydrogen depleted.

Actually, I disagree with both statements. I will grant you that the sun releases more hydrogen photons than iron photons, but there is more iron than hydrogen on the sun according to nuclear chemical analysis of lunar soil samples and comet debris. Earth's hydrogen exists in many forms.


The gas giants are the only planets that resemble the sun in terms of composition, because they are far enough out to be able to gather hydrogen in any appreciable amount. Since they've been stable for a long time, they remain massive, and mostly hydrogen and helium.

Let's establish the composition of the sun, and then we can tackle such an issue. Most of these measurements are "presumed" using the gas model theory, not direct observation.


The inner planets are mostly sillicates and rock, because that was the only material availible once the Sun had finished forming. They inner planets are too close to the Sun to keep hydrogen, it's too hot! The hydrogen just zips away.

But wouldn't it stand to reason that the composition of all the inner bodies would be relatively homogenous to the "left over" materials from the sun? I see little evidence the sun hangs onto its hydrogen for any length of time. It constantly flows off into space.


Where in the satellite images do you see an appreciable abundance of iron?

In the arc for one place. The base of the arc for another. I see no evidence to suggest the whole surface isn't predominantly iron in fact.


Without a doubt, there may be a very very small % (several decimal places back) of iron in the Sun. What evidence do I have that the Sun is not mostly iron? Temperature,

Let's take this one step at a time. What does temperature have to do with this? What is superior about the gas model from a temperature perspective.


mass,

This issue is being addressed in another thread.



and luminosity of the Sun (also blackbody curve) would be much different is the Sun was mosty iron.

Start with the Yohkoh images. How would they be much different from a black body perspective if the sun was mostly iron?


Observations of stars give evidence to what goes on in them.

Well, I'm using observations of the closest star I can find. What observation is my model in disagreement with?


An older (massive) star of mostly iron would be vastly different in these fields than one that was young. A star that is actively fusing iron is a dying star. If it's actually massive enough to fuse iron, it's almost done with its lifecycle anyway, since fusing iron doesn't yeild any energy.

Again however, these are all concepts that are predicated on gas model THEORY. It is not established fact that the gas model ever actually applied to any of these images of stars. We must first establish that these ideas apply to our own star before we go looking at things from a distance and trying to figure out their composition.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-27, 11:21 PM
What? So are you saying that from the photosphere down, the Sun is iron? Or are you saying there is an iron layer between the photosphere and some other layer? How does that work?

The photosphere is a layer of plasma that covers the surface of the sun like the earths oceans cover most of the earth. At a depth of appoximately 4800Km from the top of the photosophere, the density/and or pressure of the sun changes dramatically. That is the "Transitional region" that Trace images. That is the surface of the sun, the crust layer of the sun.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

Tim Thompson
2005-Sep-28, 02:11 AM
I resent these kind of debate tactics that focus on attacking the individual. If that were true, I would not be here discussing these issues openly and honestly with the scientific community. Since you don't know anything about me personally, what gives you the right to make these kind of statements even if you disagree with my assessments?

My apologies for the ruffled feathers, but I do not see my comments as being so personal. I have simply concluded, by virtue of reading your posted messages, your webpage, and the PDF paper linked from your webpage, that you have never studied physics, astronomy, science or the sun. I believe that to be true, and I do not believe your assertions to the contrary, until you provide appropriate evidence. Your own words are your own worst enemy.

I have read all of Dr. Manuel's papers; they are buried now, somewhere in the pile of papers that threatens to crush me if there is a real earthquake. I don't believe any of them, for good scientific reasons. But Manuel is not the issue, your theory is. So let's talk about that.

In all of your writings you continually refer to the "gas model" with reference to Galileo, and call it a 16th century model. This is a factually incorrect assertion. I do not know what Galileo thought the sun was made of, and you never cite anything Galileo said about the constitution of the sun. But the current model surely dates from the publication of the book Internal Constitution of the Stars, by Sir Arthur Eddington, in 1926. The first model for the internal temperature of the sun was published by the American scientist Jonathan Homer Lane in 1870 (American Journal of Science and Art, series 2, no. 4, p. 57). But most people don't remember Lane's paper, and Eddington was the first to make a quantitative science out of the internal structure of the sun & stars. The constant reference to Galileo is both inappropriate & incorrect, so far as any sense of the modern models is concerned.

As a general comment, you assert that the sun has a solid iron surface below the photoshpere. We know the temperature of the photosphere, it is about 5777 Kelvins (i.e., Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, 4th ed., 2000). Iron melts, from solid to liquid, at 1811 Kelvins, and it vaporizes, from liquid to solid at 3134 Kelvins (webelements.com (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/key.html)). Since the solid surface you speak of is awash in a plasma with a temperature about 180% of the vaporization temperature, I should be interested in your scientific analysis of how it manages to exist at all. I see no mention of this in your writings. Perhaps I missed it.

In your paper you assert that "To this day, the gas model concept has not explained the cause of moving sunspots, nor the cause of solar flares, nor the cause of solar moss activity, nor the sun's 11 year cycle, etc." But nowhere do you defend these assertions by actually demonstrating why the "gas model" fails. In fact, your assertions are, once again, either factually incorrect, or at best misleading. The idea that standard theory fails if it does not immediately provide a conclusive answer to all questions is absurd.

Moving sunspots move, because the sun is a differential rotator (see, i.e., The Internal Rotation of the Sun, Michael J. Thompson, et al., Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41: 599-643, 2003). The sunspots themselves are a result of the twisting of magentic fields in & below the photosphere (mostly below; i.e., Sunspots: An overview, Sami K. Solanki, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 11(2-3): 153-286, 2003).

Solar flares are clearly the result of MHD effects in the solar magnetic field. While the final answer may not be in hand, the idea that the "gas model" is unable to answer is unacceptable (i.e., The magnetic nature of solar flares, Priest & Forbes, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 10(4): 313-377 (2002); Coronal Mass Ejections as Loss of Confinement of Kinked Magnetic Flux Ropes, Y. Fan, Astrophysical Journal 630(1): 543-551, September, 2005)

Solar dynamo models reproduce the 11 year solar cycle, which is in fact a 22 year polarity cycle (i.e., A Flux Tube Solar Dynamo Model Based on the Competing Role of Buoyancy and Downflows, Li, Sofia & Belvedere; Astrophysical Journal 629(2): 1164-1174, August 2005).

I don't know offhand what "solar moss" is, but that's all I have time for at the moment. What I have done here is to demonstrate to my satisfaction, of to noone else's, that you have in fact never studied the sun in any scientific sense. In all of your writings you never even once mention a book, a paper, or article that you have read on the sun. You never present any data of any kind. What You do is reference webpages, and present images which you "interpret", without ever providing a foundation for the interepretation. Your gaff with the solar neutrino image is just one example of your careless approach, which is repeated on your webpage & in your writings.

I will, later when I have more time, demonstrate why your assertions in favor of your own theory are inadequate. However, in the meantime, as far as I am concerned, your failure to address any of the arguments presented by standard theory, clearly labels your work as unscientific.

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-28, 02:38 PM
Perhaps you could explain the functional difference between a gas model enthusiast...

Why do you keep using the wood "enthusiast"? We are talking about scientists who have determined that the "gas model" works...not some arm-chair theorists.


...denying the validity of Dr. Manuel's isotope measurements with a handwave...

Gas model scientists are handwaving?? I'm not trying to "put words" into your mouth, but that does seem to be what you are saying.


...vs. the same arguement from a creationist...

Why would a creationist have the same argument as a gas model scientist???


...because I honestly am having trouble seeing the distinction.

If you don't see it, I don't know how to help you see it...


It would be one thing if you demonstrated the flaw in his method...

...it sure would be nice if an ATM proponent could demonstrate that their "idea" described reality better than accepted theories...instead of the "same old" prove me wrong argument..

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 03:01 PM
My apologies for the ruffled feathers, but I do not see my comments as being so personal. I have simply concluded, by virtue of reading your posted messages, your webpage, and the PDF paper linked from your webpage, that you have never studied physics, astronomy, science or the sun. I believe that to be true, and I do not believe your assertions to the contrary, until you provide appropriate evidence. Your own words are your own worst enemy.

That just shows me how arragorant and ignorant folks can be. As I said Tim, you know absolutely nothing about me as a person. You are right to point out the errors you might find, but you are not right to attack the individual. I have studied the sun and astronomy and science in general my entire life. I write software for a living, but astronomy has been my hobby since I was 17. That was nearly 30 years ago. If I did not have a background in science and and could not defend these ideas scientifically, I would not be here.

If and when you actually find an errors in my observatioins of the sun and point out such an error, then I'll take you seriously. As it is, I'm utterly unipressed with arguement by ridicule and personal attack. Show this superior knowlege of yours by taking just one page of my website and explaining these images using a gas model. Then I'll believe you actually have a "better education" in life. As it is, I don't think you know what you are talking about.


I have read all of Dr. Manuel's papers; they are buried now, somewhere in the pile of papers that threatens to crush me if there is a real earthquake. I don't believe any of them, for good scientific reasons. But Manuel is not the issue, your theory is. So let's talk about that.

Meaning you can't find the error in the nuclear chemistry so you'll just handwave it away?


In all of your writings you continually refer to the "gas model" with reference to Galileo, and call it a 16th century model. This is a factually incorrect assertion.

It's a short form presentation. I took a little poetic license since I wasn't really trying to lend any credence to the gas model. I had no intention of giving folks the full history of the gas model on my website. If that had been my intent, I'd understand your criticism. As it is, I freely admit I took a few liberties and shortcuts on the gas model presentation.

Now how about dealing with anything related to the sun itself.


As a general comment, you assert that the sun has a solid iron surface below the photoshpere. We know the temperature of the photosphere, it is about 5777 Kelvins (i.e., Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, 4th ed., 2000). Iron melts, from solid to liquid, at 1811 Kelvins, and it vaporizes, from liquid to solid at 3134 Kelvins (webelements.com (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/key.html)). Since the solid surface you speak of is awash in a plasma with a temperature about 180% of the vaporization temperature, I should be interested in your scientific analysis of how it manages to exist at all. I see no mention of this in your writings. Perhaps I missed it.

I guess you didn't read much of my website since I did address the issue. The neon transfers the heat out of the silicon and into the helium. The outer layers of the sun get progressively hotter as you move outwards. The silicon is much cooler. According to Dr. Bruce temps less then 4000K are requried for electrical current to flow properly, and there is evidence of temperatures less than 4000K in sunspot activity, meaning the silicon beneath the neon is cooler than the neon surface at 6000K. Neon has two unique properties: I lights up quite nicely, and it transfers heat so efficiently it is used in cryogenic refrigeration. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time attacking individuals, you'd pick up the details better?


In your paper you assert that "To this day, the gas model concept has not explained the cause of moving sunspots, nor the cause of solar flares, nor the cause of solar moss activity, nor the sun's 11 year cycle, etc." But nowhere do you defend these assertions by actually demonstrating why the "gas model" fails. In fact, your assertions are, once again, either factually incorrect, or at best misleading. The idea that standard theory fails if it does not immediately provide a conclusive answer to all questions is absurd.

That seems to be your attitude towards my model isn't it? If I can't answer one or two things you come up with, you're willing to write it all off aren't you? Why should I treat the gas model any better than you treat my model?


Moving sunspots move, because the sun is a differential rotator (see, i.e., The Internal Rotation of the Sun, Michael J. Thompson, et al., Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41: 599-643, 2003).

That works just fine to a depth of about 4800km and then your differential rotation runs headlong into a solid surface. I freely admit the plasma moves in the wind and flows around the surface just like air circulates around the earth. The surface however is a totally different subject. If you watch that running difference movie I put together, it rotates uniformly and doesn't look anything like the photosophere.


The sunspots themselves are a result of the twisting of magentic fields in & below the photosphere (mostly below; i.e., Sunspots: An overview, Sami K. Solanki, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 11(2-3): 153-286, 2003).

What holds the magnetic field together in the first place? How do you know it isn't electricity?


Solar flares are clearly the result of MHD effects in the solar magnetic field.

Clearly? Could you show me one satellite observation that demonstrates this? How do you get a magnetic field without iron and electricity again?


While the final answer may not be in hand, the idea that the "gas model" is unable to answer is unacceptable (i.e., The magnetic nature of solar flares, Priest & Forbes, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 10(4): 313-377 (2002); Coronal Mass Ejections as Loss of Confinement of Kinked Magnetic Flux Ropes, Y. Fan, Astrophysical Journal 630(1): 543-551, September, 2005)

Magnetic flux ropes? What are those? What lab experiment demonstrates such a thing can form in plasma at THESE SIZES without the flow of electricity through iron?


Solar dynamo models reproduce the 11 year solar cycle, which is in fact a 22 year polarity cycle (i.e., A Flux Tube Solar Dynamo Model Based on the Competing Role of Buoyancy and Downflows, Li, Sofia & Belvedere; Astrophysical Journal 629(2): 1164-1174, August 2005).

Of course "downflows" don't flow real well through solid iron layers. How do you propose anything "downflows" through that surface we see in SOHO and TRACE images?


I don't know offhand what "solar moss" is, but that's all I have time for at the moment.

That's ok, because Lockheed Martin doesn't know what it is either. I do. It's electrical errosion of the surface.


What I have done here is to demonstrate to my satisfaction, of to noone else's, that you have in fact never studied the sun in any scientific sense.

What you demonstrated to me is that you parrot ideas really well. I'll bet however you don't have the scientific background to answer any of the direct questions I put to you about magnetic flux ropes, etc. If you don't answer them, we'll know who really lacks the scientific background around here.


In all of your writings you never even once mention a book, a paper, or article that you have read on the sun. You never present any data of any kind.

That is utterly false. I even spent time collecting and putting at ton of links to articles and to Dr. Manuels work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Birkelands work. What are you reading on my website? The first paragraph only?


What You do is reference webpages, and present images which you "interpret", without ever providing a foundation for the interepretation. Your gaff with the solar neutrino image is just one example of your careless approach, which is repeated on your webpage & in your writings.

First of all, it remains to be seen whether it was MY gaff at all. I'm man enough to admit my mistakes. If and when I get an answer to my email, I will post the answer and pay up or collect. Your "assertion" I have made a gaff remains another of those things you can't demonstrate.


I will, later when I have more time, demonstrate why your assertions in favor of your own theory are inadequate. However, in the meantime, as far as I am concerned, your failure to address any of the arguments presented by standard theory, clearly labels your work as unscientific.

Why not start with the very first image on my website and help Van explain that "surface" we see in these images. Better yet, why don't you start by explaining a magnetic flux rope, and what holds it together, and how you kow that it isn't electricity flowing through iron that holds it together?

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-28, 03:11 PM
If I did not have a background in science and and could not defend these ideas scientifically, I would not be here.

Well, since you brought it up, what is your "background in science"??

Please be specific...

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 03:31 PM
Why do you keep using the wood "enthusiast"? We are talking about scientists who have determined that the "gas model" works...not some arm-chair theorists.

And Dr. Manuel and Dr. Bruce and Dr. Birkeland aren't "scientists" I suppose?


Gas model scientists are handwaving?? I'm not trying to "put words" into your mouth, but that does seem to be what you are saying.

If you can demonstrate the error in Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemical analysis, I will consider it. If you intend to do what a creationist does and handwave and say "isotope analysis is untrustworthy because it conflicts with my faith", then yes, I'm going to call it "handwaving". I'm looking for a serious scientific objection to the chemistry. I haven't seen it.


Why would a creationist have the same argument as a gas model scientist???

Both of them seem to have a problem with isotope analysis and nuclear chemistry. Why is that?


If you don't see it, I don't know how to help you see it...

You could "help" by pointing out the exact nature of Dr. Manuel's error. Can you do that, yes or no? If not, how is that functionally different than a creationist who ignores isotope analysis because it conflicts with their faith?


...it sure would be nice if an ATM proponent could demonstrate that their "idea" described reality better than accepted theories...instead of the "same old" prove me wrong argument..

I have done that RAF. I put together a whole website full of direct observation and showed how it supported my model. I cited very specific events, times, places and images that support my model by direct observation. If you would like to take a single page for me and explain it using a gas model, I will surely consider your explanation and we can discuss it. What instead seems to happen more frequently is that people attack me as individual rather that putting their science on the table. That is but another form of handwaving from where I sit. I'm here to discuss this scientifically and I'll be happy to present all sorts of observation images here on this website as soon as we come up with a system that is fair and works for everyone. I'm trying to work within the rules or I'd post a half dozen links right now to show you a half dozen different ways my model conforms to direct observation.

Here's the deal. Take a page of my website and blow me out of the water if you think it's that easy to explain these observation with a gas model. So far I hear lots of people suggesting that "someone else" can do it, but so far no one has. To their credit, Baloo and Van have offered 'some' answers to direct questions, but few other have. What can I say if no one offers valid alternatives RAF?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 03:36 PM
Well, since you brought it up, what is your "background in science"??

Please be specific...

No, *I* did not bring it up. YOU folks keep bringing it back up! Things tend to go personal around here at the drop of a hat in fact. :( I thought science boards would be more focused on observation and science. What about that part of the debate RAF?

I'll tell you what: I'll give you a complete rundown of my educational experience BY EMAIL the moment you publically step forward and take one page of my website and offer a gas model explanation for the phenomen in question.

Metricyard
2005-Sep-28, 04:17 PM
I guess you didn't read much of my website since I did address the issue. The neon transfers the heat out of the silicon and into the helium. The outer layers of the sun get progressively hotter as you move outwards. The silicon is much cooler. According to Dr. Bruce temps less then 4000K are requried for electrical current to flow properly, and there is evidence of temperatures less than 4000K in sunspot activity, meaning the silicon beneath the neon is cooler than the neon surface at 6000K. Neon has two unique properties: I lights up quite nicely, and it transfers heat so efficiently it is used in cryogenic refrigeration. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time attacking individuals, you'd pick up the details better?


I'm curious to know how neon surrounded by very high tempuratures acts as a refrigerant? Neon has a boiling point of 47K. At the temperatures you've listed that are above and below the neon layer, (4000k,6000K respectively) it's hard to imagine that the neon could cool anything down, much less exist.

skepticfrog
2005-Sep-28, 04:22 PM
No, *I* did not bring it up. YOU folks keep bringing it back up! Things tend to go personal around here at the drop of a hat in fact. :( I thought science boards would be more focused on observation and science. What about that part of the debate RAF?



Asking about education is not personal. It is extremely relevant in pretty much every field. There is a reason we want to know that our Doctors actually went to med school. Even better that they are certified in their area of specialty. Same with lawyers -- I much prefer a member of the bar for legal advice than someone with a strong interest in the law, but no formal training or experience. And in cases of astronomy, I defer to people who have dedicated their lives to studying it.

Most practitioners in the sciences -- and social sciences in my case -- have spent many years learning the methods of inquiry into their field as well as the history of inquiry. Part of this training is also in how to critique ideas from the past. I'm not going to sugar coat it -- indoctrination does happen in a Ph.D. program (pun intended). But so does learning the ability to critically evaluate evidence and arguments.

I don't think anyone doubts that you are intelligent; the criticism that you appear not to have formal training is based on critical evaluation of your work. I would not be offended in the least if someone with a back ground in astronomy, physics, or other hard sciences criticized any semi-scientific post I make. If that same person were to criticize my research in international relations with an apparent lack of understanding of the concepts, evidence, or methods, I would probably not give it as much stock.

edited to fix quote tag

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-28, 04:37 PM
Michael, why would you think that the burden of proof is on us to prove your ideas wrong??

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 04:53 PM
Why would you think the burden of proof is on me to prove you wrong? This is about science and the debate between competing models. I would expect us both to explain the observations in our own ways and then to compare ideas openly and freely. I've put my ideas on the table here, but the gas model explanations for these images are few and far between, particularly compared to the attention to detail in each image that I offered in my website explanation. If you'll be so kind as to explain these series of images using gas model expanations, I'll be happy to discuss the merits of each model with you. As it is, I have no place to start.

To his credit, Van is working on answering the surface issue. I think you should give him a hand and make sure his answers are to your liking. Then we can move on to other images. One step at time is always the best approach when things are this far appart. I need some competing models to compare my model to as it relates to these specific images. I'm trying to start with just the first image from my website because I believe it's the most important observation that the TRACE program has ever made. When I ask Lockheed questions about this image, they tell me things like "I have no idea who made that movie or who posted it to the website. Sorry." I'm afraid answer like that make me wonder who is in charge of running Lockheed Martin and they are not helpful in any way.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 05:12 PM
Asking about education is not personal. It is extremely relevant in pretty much every field. There is a reason we want to know that our Doctors actually went to med school. Even better that they are certified in their area of specialty. Same with lawyers -- I much prefer a member of the bar for legal advice than someone with a strong interest in the law, but no formal training or experience. And in cases of astronomy, I defer to people who have dedicated their lives to studying it.

I already explained to you that I have studied Astronomy for nearly 30 years as an adult. I have layed out detailed explantions of my model from top to bottom. If there are scientific errors, they should be easy to spot, and my backrgound is not even important. If you cannot spot the error, then I distrust the motive in questioning my level of education, since a piece of paper on a wall never defined a man.


Most practitioners in the sciences -- and social sciences in my case -- have spent many years learning the methods of inquiry into their field as well as the history of inquiry. Part of this training is also in how to critique ideas from the past. I'm not going to sugar coat it -- indoctrination does happen in a Ph.D. program (pun intended). But so does learning the ability to critically evaluate evidence and arguments.

Yes, so you should have all have the necessary skill as a collective to pick my science apart, piece by piece, analyse it fully and pick out any mistakes. Where are the mistakes?


I don't think anyone doubts that you are intelligent; the criticism that you appear not to have formal training is based on critical evaluation of your work. I would not be offended in the least if someone with a back ground in astronomy, physics, or other hard sciences criticized any semi-scientific post I make. If that same person were to criticize my research in international relations with an apparent lack of understanding of the concepts, evidence, or methods, I would probably not give it as much stock.

The key word here is "apparent". Which of us lacks understanding depends on whether you can A) explain these images using the gas model, and B) pick out the scientific misakes you think I made. So far, neither of these things have occurred. If and when they do occur and I still have not "understood the scientifically superior concept you offer, then you can question my education. If you bad mouth me and question my education without offering valid scientific alternatives to consider, it makes it look as though you have no alternatives to offer and are grasping at straws and resorting to underhanded debate tactics.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 05:31 PM
I'm curious to know how neon surrounded by very high tempuratures acts as a refrigerant? Neon has a boiling point of 47K. At the temperatures you've listed that are above and below the neon layer, (4000k,6000K respectively) it's hard to imagine that the neon could cool anything down, much less exist.

I assume it passes heat electrically as well as chemically. The fact of the matter is that inner plasma layers are in fact cooler than outer plasma layers. As odd as it might seem at first glance, the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere. How is that possible? I can explain that phenomenon as long as whatever is under the photosphere is cooler than the photosphere, and whatever the mechanism that allows for the photosphere layer to exist at a lower temperatures from the chromosphere would apply to any layers below the photosphere as well.

R.A.F.
2005-Sep-28, 05:33 PM
Why would you think the burden of proof is on me to prove you wrong?

The burden of proof is on those who(whom?) propose an ATM idea to demonstrate that the idea has merit...that the idea better explains observations than do accepted theories. You keep saying that you have done so, but you have not.

...and since I find that I must explain that to you, I will leave this thread as I see no common ground for continued discussion.

skepticfrog
2005-Sep-28, 05:35 PM
Yes, so you should have all have the necessary skill as a collective to pick my science apart, piece by piece, analyse it fully and pick out any mistakes. Where are the mistakes?



Actually, I am readily admitting that I lack the knowledge to offer a full critique of any astronomical work. I have read enough of the old BABB message boards and of the BAUT forum to see that many people have pointed out many of your mistakes; that you do not acknowledge them as mistakes does not mean that people have not pointed them out.

As for me, with what methodological training I have, I have pointed out relatively straightforward flaws in your work that leaves me unconvinced. The first is reliance on photographs with little useful information on what is in them. Despite protestations to the contrary, you need the inclusion of image size, scale, etc. to demonstrate the things you claim on your website. You additionally need to better explain why filters designed to pick up iron ions to the exclusion of others show an abundance of iron. Other common criticisms I have seen are the expected neutrino count, the reliance on fission as the power source with no explanation of the fuel source, how it has lasted so long, or how long it will last, the observed mass / volume and resultant density, etc. You have tried to answer some of these, but have not done so in a satisfactory manner. I will not repeat all of the answers to your answers here.

Finally, in what capacity have you studied astronomy for over 30 years? What kind of study has that involved? I only ask because you have been surprised (or at least seemed to express surprise) at some concepts I learned in high school physics that are well established theoretically and empirically -- for example the bending of light due to the curvature of space. I keep up with basic research in medicine as well, but I would never attempt to correct my sister (a physician) on the more nuanced meaning of what I am reading. I may ask for clarification (or a second opinion), but would not question her based on my knowledge and level of education.

Mosheh Thezion
2005-Sep-28, 05:47 PM
I have changed my view... I AGREE WITH AN IRON SUN.. GENERALLY.

as is decribed by Dr. Manuel....

a long time ago.. a star or what may of looked like one, exploded into a gas cloud.

and then the cloud recollected ontop of the original nuetron star type mass that exploded in the first place..

forming a star of a range of elements, which due to gravity bear down on the left over core...

and decay processes at the core... yields energy.
and fission and transmutation also yileds energy and a constant output of hydrogen which always floats to the top.. forming only what we can see...

it pure genius, and ive have been saying the same thing, but for different reasons.

but im a top down kinda guy.... and for somereason i don't think Dr. manuel is.

-MT

Faultline
2005-Sep-28, 06:20 PM
I have changed my view... I AGREE WITH AN IRON SUN.. GENERALLY.

as is decribed by Dr. Manuel....

a long time ago.. a star or what may of looked like one, exploded into a gas cloud.

and then the cloud recollected ontop of the original nuetron star type mass that exploded in the first place..

forming a star of a range of elements, which due to gravity bear down on the left over core...

and decay processes at the core... yields energy.
and fission and transmutation also yileds energy and a constant output of hydrogen which always floats to the top.. forming only what we can see...

it pure genius, and ive have been saying the same thing, but for different reasons.

but im a top down kinda guy.... and for somereason i don't think Dr. manuel is.

-MT

The calculations for the sun's energy output match the model used to describe hydrogen fusion.

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH MASS IN THE SUN TO MAINTAIN THE GRAVITATIONAL COMPRESSION OF A NEUTRON STAR!!!

If there were, we'd observe a stronger gravitational force on the planets.

A sun cannot fuse hydrogen and stay alive, it would require more energy than it puts out. This is mathematically demonstrated by well-founded principles.

That leaves you relying on fission to produce power. But fission of what element? Iron is stable. You need something both heavier and less stable, and you need enough of it to produce power for billions of years.

You don't have that, either. If the sun were made mostly of heavier elements, it would have more mass and therefore, stronger gravity.

NO MODEL MATCHES THE SUN'S OBSERVED ACTIVITY BETTER THAN THE HYDROGEN GAS MODEL!!!

And finally, the Earth could have turned out to have more hydrogen, but the sun fired up its engine first and blew it all away, leaving a rocky iron body.

Same is true of the rest of the inner planets. The same idea explains why the outer planets are so rich. They are much further away and can maintain their hydrogen.

You're blocked on all these ideas and you haven't demonstrated anything that overcomes them.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 06:24 PM
Actually, I am readily admitting that I lack the knowledge to offer a full critique of any astronomical work. I have read enough of the old BABB message boards and of the BAUT forum to see that many people have pointed out many of your mistakes; that you do not acknowledge them as mistakes does not mean that people have not pointed them out.

What errors exactly? Be scientifically precise here. I am not obligated to agree with anothers answer of a phenomenon only because it's "tossed into the ring". The details of images are highly important.


As for me, with what methodological training I have, I have pointed out relatively straightforward flaws in your work that leaves me unconvinced. The first is reliance on photographs with little useful information on what is in them.

What do you mean by that statement? This is direct observation and I can tell you a LOT about these images. I am not able to answer every detail of every image, but that is never necessarily the case in photo recognition processes, nor is that a requirement for many types of data seen in photo recognition processes.


Despite protestations to the contrary, you need the inclusion of image size, scale, etc. to demonstrate the things you claim on your website.

If I was trying to tell you the size of various structures, yet. Showing you structures requires you know very little about pixel sizes. I have provided the orignal FITS file headers for the first image. What is the hang up now in analysing the image now at least on a rudimentary level?


You additionally need to better explain why filters designed to pick up iron ions to the exclusion of others show an abundance of iron.

That is probably a valid criticism.


Other common criticisms I have seen are the expected neutrino count,

I did not even try to predict an expected neutrino count so that cannot possibly be a problem with this model. You can't condemn me for not including some archane aspect "guestimate" without considering or dealing with the materials I did present.


the reliance on fission as the power source with no explanation of the fuel source, how it has lasted so long, or how long it will last, the observed mass / volume and resultant density, etc.

I can't asnwer such questions at this moment in time. I would like to stick to what I CAN prove first and then we can speculate about what is under the surface. First we have to establish there is a surface. Van seems to accept that it is a surface, but he has not placed this surface for us in relationship to the photosphere. Once he does that, we can discuss the issue fully. I'll await his answer and you can chime in if you feel you can help. Fair enough?


You have tried to answer some of these, but have not done so in a satisfactory manner. I will not repeat all of the answers to your answers here.

Like you folks have explained ANY of the images on my website in a scientifically satifisactory way? If you can judge things from a "personal satisfaction" perfective, can't I do the same with these images? These are after all direct observation of things we can see, not theoretical predictions about things we cannot see and don't have the technology to see?


Finally, in what capacity have you studied astronomy for over 30 years?

As an amateur.


What kind of study has that involved?

A lot of reading of a lot of theories for a very long time. It's involved photo analysis of satellite images for about the last ten years as well. I have a strong understanding of electricity and I've used a welder. I know what an arc looks like and how it behaves. Have you ever personally used an arc welder before?


I only ask because you have been surprised (or at least seemed to express surprise) at some concepts I learned in high school physics that are well established theoretically and empirically

No. That is wrong. They are not well established "empirically". They are well established "theoretically", but only in the past ten years have we had the technology to test any of these theories. I offer you images to test your theories against. How do they compare to real world observation? That is the only way you will know how well they hold up empirically. Even if you cannot explain every image on my website, can you explain even a single page of observations from my website with gas model? If not, and no one here can either, what should that tell you about the empirical usefulness of the gas model?


-- for example the bending of light due to the curvature of space. I keep up with basic research in medicine as well, but I would never attempt to correct my sister (a physician) on the more nuanced meaning of what I am reading. I may ask for clarification (or a second opinion), but would not question her based on my knowledge and level of education.

In this case, my concern about the "bending" of neutrinos in the sun's gravity well turned out to have merit in spite of the early resistence to the idea. I used the fact photons get bent but the sun as an example that even items WITHOUT presumed mass get bent in gravitation fields. Once I compare the two issues that debate died a quick death. Why you figure that should work against my model is a mystery to me.

Tim Thompson
2005-Sep-28, 07:07 PM
The fact of the matter is that inner plasma layers are in fact cooler than outer plasma layers.
Since you call it a "fact", I assume that you have directly observed these plasma layers, and measured their temperatures. Can you share the data with the rest of us?

Van Rijn
2005-Sep-28, 07:49 PM
Tim, thanks much for your informative post! (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=567117&postcount=204) I appreciate the inclusion of the references.

Regarding "solar moss" - this was apparently uncovered by TRACE. From this site: (http://www.asnsw.com/universe/2000/wots-0200.htm)



Scientists say they've discovered the long-sought-after link between the cooler main body of the sun and multimillion-degree coronal loops that break out of the sun's surface and powerful solar flares.

Called solar moss, the link is a spongy-looking mixture of huge blobs of 2-million-degree gas interlaced with slightly larger bubbles of cooler gas.

The patches of solar moss were uncovered in movies of the sun's ultraviolet light taken by NASA's Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, or TRACE, satellite.

"With this discovery, we are beginning to resolve the sun's mysterious transition region, a thin region in the solar atmosphere where the temperature soars from 10,000 degrees to millions of degrees," says Tom Berger, a Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab astronomer.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 10:29 PM
Since you call it a "fact", I assume that you have directly observed these plasma layers, and measured their temperatures. Can you share the data with the rest of us?

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/surface.htm
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/chromos.htm

How is the photosphere cooler than the chromosphere while sandwidched between a hydrogen fussion core and a hotter exterior? Whatever answer you come up with also applies to any plasma layers under the penumbral filaments. They would likely be cooler than the photosphere just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere.

Mosheh Thezion
2005-Sep-28, 10:41 PM
The calculations for the sun's energy output match the model used to describe hydrogen fusion.

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH MASS IN THE SUN TO MAINTAIN THE GRAVITATIONAL COMPRESSION OF A NEUTRON STAR!!!

If there were, we'd observe a stronger gravitational force on the planets.

A sun cannot fuse hydrogen and stay alive, it would require more energy than it puts out. This is mathematically demonstrated by well-founded principles.

That leaves you relying on fission to produce power. But fission of what element? Iron is stable. You need something both heavier and less stable, and you need enough of it to produce power for billions of years.

You don't have that, either. If the sun were made mostly of heavier elements, it would have more mass and therefore, stronger gravity.

NO MODEL MATCHES THE SUN'S OBSERVED ACTIVITY BETTER THAN THE HYDROGEN GAS MODEL!!!

And finally, the Earth could have turned out to have more hydrogen, but the sun fired up its engine first and blew it all away, leaving a rocky iron body.

Same is true of the rest of the inner planets. The same idea explains why the outer planets are so rich. They are much further away and can maintain their hydrogen.

You're blocked on all these ideas and you haven't demonstrated anything that overcomes them.

actually.. if you studied Dr Manuel's work.. you would see that two possibilites exist...
the nuetron dwarf mass.. being made of nuetrons... they are either above a ground level in energy or below it..
ie.. we either have to apply energy to pry a nuetron out...
or.. when a nuetron emits it emits with 200 Million eV...

so.. simply put.. just surface interactions.. such as absorbtion and emission, could power the sun for as long as you want.. assuming the core continually puts out more mass than it obsorbs....
i.e.. entropy.. in the exchange of mass at the boundry surface layer of a nuetron star and a plasma, could be all the answer we need.
-MT

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 10:42 PM
Tim, thanks much for your informative post! (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=567117&postcount=204) I appreciate the inclusion of the references.

Regarding "solar moss" - this was apparently uncovered by TRACE. From this site: (http://www.asnsw.com/universe/2000/wots-0200.htm)

If you notice the verbage here, the tell you the temps go from thousands up to millions of degrees. That should give you some idea of the temp range of this "surface". Now if all you do is recognize is an iron layer being eroded by electrical activity, you can explain such a drastic change in temperature in a short period of time.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-28, 10:53 PM
The burden of proof is on those who(whom?) propose an ATM idea to demonstrate that the idea has merit...that the idea better explains observations than do accepted theories. You keep saying that you have done so, but you have not.

...and since I find that I must explain that to you, I will leave this thread as I see no common ground for continued discussion.

The whole notion that a solid surface model is an ATM idea is arbitrary to begin with. That doesn't not exclude your model from critique, nor make your model right by default. When you want to continue the discussion again, you can start by demonstating the flaw in Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemical analysis, because I tend to trust the results of isotope analysis.

Duane
2005-Sep-28, 11:11 PM
Michael, take a break. You're letting your frustration caarry you into anger, and you're beginning to step towards the line of not playing nice.

Come back tomorrow, there's lots of time for you to discuss your ideas.

skepticfrog
2005-Sep-28, 11:46 PM
What do you mean by that statement? This is direct observation and I can tell you a LOT about these images. I am not able to answer every detail of every image, but that is never necessarily the case in photo recognition processes, nor is that a requirement for many types of data seen in photo recognition processes.



Michael, I think the debate here is that most people don't think there is anything to see in the pictures. By questioning the basis on which information can be derived from the photos, the photos themselves can be called into question.




I did not even try to predict an expected neutrino count so that cannot possibly be a problem with this model. You can't condemn me for not including some archane aspect "guestimate" without considering or dealing with the materials I did present.


My understanding is that finding the missing neutrinos confirmed predictions on how many neutrinos should be produced by the fusion process in the sun. Any successful alternative will have to have similar success.



I can't asnwer such questions at this moment in time. I would like to stick to what I CAN prove first and then we can speculate about what is under the surface. First we have to establish there is a surface. Van seems to accept that it is a surface, but he has not placed this surface for us in relationship to the photosphere. Once he does that, we can discuss the issue fully. I'll await his answer and you can chime in if you feel you can help. Fair enough?


I don't think anyone questions a surface; they question a solid iron surface. The surface of a lake is a surface; it is still liquid.


Have you ever personally used an arc welder before?

Yes -- and never once did I translate the electrical arcs from welding into processes going on in a star. Completely different conditions / outcomes.




No. That is wrong. They are not well established "empirically". They are well established "theoretically", but only in the past ten years have we had the technology to test any of these theories. I offer you images to test your theories against.

Tests of GR have been around almost since the theory was created, including the accurate prediction of the precession of Mercury and early tests on the bending of light. See this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_tests_of_general_relativity.




In this case, my concern about the "bending" of neutrinos in the sun's gravity well turned out to have merit in spite of the early resistence to the idea. I used the fact photons get bent but the sun as an example that even items WITHOUT presumed mass get bent in gravitation fields. Once I compare the two issues that debate died a quick death. Why you figure that should work against my model is a mystery to me.

As I recall, there was a pretty convincing explanation from two people explaining how the way the neutrinos were found precluded lensing by the sun. They had math and everything. It was quite convincing. That was on the BABB, and I'm not going to search it out. I guess we can disagree on the outcome of that argument.

Mosheh Thezion
2005-Sep-29, 12:08 AM
I say nuetrinos are themselves in question and therefore all of you and all of your views and beliefs are in question. .. since you all speak of them, as the answer to everything.. when in fact we cannot possibly be sure they exist.
its still theory.. just like quarks and curved space and fusion.
-MT

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 12:08 AM
Michael, take a break. You're letting your frustration caarry you into anger, and you're beginning to step towards the line of not playing nice.

Come back tomorrow, there's lots of time for you to discuss your ideas.

I'm very sorry if I came across that way Dwayne. I'm really not angry at all. If that is how I sounded, sorry.

I do however honestly believe that I can prove to you that I understand black body concepts well enough to convince you that I know more about it then Lockheed Martin. I wouldn't say that based on one image from their website had I not emailed them several times about it. I can assure you they know the error is there, but they refuse to correct.

If you'd rather, I'll take a break. I'm not angry however, not even a little bit. I just didn't understand why you approached me as you did today. I thought you and I had a better understanding of one another. I was just surprised to see you single me out is all.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 12:10 AM
I say nuetrinos are themselves in question and therefore all of you and all of your views and beliefs are in question. .. since you all speak of them, as the answer to everything.. when in fact we cannot possibly be sure they exist.
its still theory.. just like quarks and curved space and fusion.
-MT

Actually Mosheh, I have to take "their" side on this one. There is ample evidence that neutrinos exist IMO, but there is no way to image them with the same kind of precision we image iron ions at this point in time.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 12:19 AM
Michael, I think the debate here is that most people don't think there is anything to see in the pictures. By questioning the basis on which information can be derived from the photos, the photos themselves can be called into question.

I agree that casting doubt on my (or anyone's) expanation will always be infinitely easier than explaining these images yourself if that is what you mean. There is no debate from me that you can "cast doubt" by discovering what I do NOT know, but what do you know about these images that you are willing to say directly refute my interpretations?


My understanding is that finding the missing neutrinos confirmed predictions on how many neutrinos should be produced by the fusion process in the sun. Any successful alternative will have to have similar success.

That fact that some evidence supports a gas model is not evidence it excludes mine. I have never even tried to predict neutrinos with this model. I have predicted many things, but not neutrinos. I don't understand them well enough to make a prediction with this model yet. You finding of a "good" amount of neutrinos from a gas model perspective is of no consequence from my perspective since it does not help or hinder this model. I simply can't claim support from THAT particular issue at this time. That does not mean it will never support my model or my model will never have predictions of neutrinos. It is just at this time, I see not reason to think that one issue is the deciding issue since I never made any predictions either way.


I don't think anyone questions a surface; they question a solid iron surface. The surface of a lake is a surface; it is still liquid.

What is that surface made of in your opinion, and where does it sit in relationship to the surface of the photosphere in your opinion?


Yes -- and never once did I translate the electrical arcs from welding into processes going on in a star. Completely different conditions / outcomes.

How do you know that? Why is the light concentrated in the arcs of the sun like that?


Tests of GR have been around almost since the theory was created, including the accurate prediction of the precession of Mercury and early tests on the bending of light. See this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_tests_of_general_relativity.

I'm not disputing these measurments. Please see the thread about this topic.

[qoute]As I recall, there was a pretty convincing explanation from two people explaining how the way the neutrinos were found precluded lensing by the sun. They had math and everything. It was quite convincing. That was on the BABB, and I'm not going to search it out. I guess we can disagree on the outcome of that argument.

All I "questioned" was whether or not that issue had been factored into these "findings". I really didn't mean to start a huge debate, since again, neutrinos, or lack thereof has never been an issue for me personally.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 12:26 AM
http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/images/T195171combo_000404_1310.gif

Here is what I mean Dwayne about black body radiation and Lockheed Martin. Now you can't cheat and read their explanation of the image first. Just look at these images side by side of the same event and tell me are the red area hotter or colder than the blue areas?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 12:34 AM
I'll take your advice now Dwayne and take a break. Look at the picture and decide what you think about the color schemes as they relate to heat. Then take a look at Lockheed's description of that image and tell me they understand black body radiation as well as you and I do.

http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/TRACEpodarchive.html

Tim Thompson
2005-Sep-29, 01:56 AM
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/surface.htm
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/chromos.htm

How is the photosphere cooler than the chromosphere while sandwidched between a hydrogen fussion core and a hotter exterior? Whatever answer you come up with also applies to any plasma layers under the penumbral filaments. They would likely be cooler than the photosphere just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere.

OK, you have not observed or measured any of the internal plasma layers, and you have no data that relates to them directly. Therefore, you cannot assert that it is a fact that they are cooler as you go down. You are only assuming that to be true.

The photosphere is cooler because the processes that heat the chromosphere & corona are non-thermal. Alfven waves, magnetoacoustic waves, and energy from the constant reshuffling of magnetic field above the photopshere all contribute to the heating of the layers above the photosphere. All of this makes perfectly good physical sense, and the heat source of the corona is now fairly well understood, in principle, though the details remain to be worked out (i.e., The Coronal Heating Mechanism as Identified by Full-Sun Visualizations (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004ApJ...615..512S&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=43189d850a05505), Schrijver, et al., Astrophysical Journal 615(1): 512-525, 2004; The Heating of the Solar Corona, Walsh & Ireland, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 12(1): 1-41, 2003).

No, the lower layers should not be cooler, the photopshere should be the coolest layer, and it's not to hard to figure out why. As the energy propagates outward from the hot core, the same total amount of energy is distributed into larger concentric, spherical shells. So the energy density (i.e., ergs per cubic centimeter) goes down. A bit of matter will encounter fewer photons and therfore feel less heat. It will be cooler. Once the photosphere is reached, the matter density falls off sharply. So even if the temperature is much higher, the matter & energy density are both much lower, so there is no fundamental problem of energetics. The non-thermal mechanisms couple to the charged particles much more efficiently than does thermal transfer, so the particles can (and do) gain energy much faster, reaching higher temperatures. And note that temperature in the corona is a vector quantity, not a scalar, because it has a specific direction, generally outward from the sun, as the particles stream together.


I'm curious to know how neon surrounded by very high tempuratures acts as a refrigerant? Neon has a boiling point of 47K. At the temperatures you've listed that are above and below the neon layer, (4000k,6000K respectively) it's hard to imagine that the neon could cool anything down, much less exist.

I assume it passes heat electrically as well as chemically.

So, that's it? That's all the physical justification you can come up with? No, as a matter of fact, it cannot pass heat either electrically or chemically; neither of those thermal mechanisms. You have to come up with a way to convert thermal energy into electricity, and you have to come up with a way to conduct it.

But, aside from the details of figuring out a mechanism, it does not matter. A simple physical analysis shows that your idea is wildly impossible. It's the inverse of what I already described. You are pumping heat downward, into a smaller volume, so there's no escaping the obvious consequence, that the heat energy is pushed into ever decreasing volumes. The energy density has to go up, and go up fast, because it scales as the volume, which scales as the cube of the radius. That means the temperature has to go up fast, and now you have heat energy moving spontaneously uphill, from cooler to hotter. That rather obviously violates the fabled 2nd law of thermodynamics, and we don't believe theories that do that.

And if that wasn't enough trouble, the iron woule melt anyway, even if we allowed you mechanism to run free, because the heat could not travel through the iron fast enough not to melt it.

Your model is physically impossible, so it is wrong.


Magnetic flux ropes? What are those? What lab experiment demonstrates such a thing can form in plasma at THESE SIZES without the flow of electricity through iron?

A flux rope is a current loop that runs along a toroidal magnetic field, surrounded by a poloidal field. They occur in plasmas at all scales, if the current is there. Why does the current need to flow through iron? Do you think that iron is the only thing that conducts electricity? Plasmas conduct electricity, last I heard, and they don't need iron to do it.

Au Revoir

Kristophe
2005-Sep-29, 02:39 AM
I say nuetrinos are themselves in question and therefore all of you and all of your views and beliefs are in question. .. since you all speak of them, as the answer to everything.. when in fact we cannot possibly be sure they exist.
its still theory.. just like quarks and curved space and fusion.
-MT

Why don't you tell this to Dr. Art McDonald at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory? Hmm? In fact, leave your contact information, and I'll give to him. His office is just down the street from my apartment.

Nereid
2005-Sep-29, 02:43 AM
Per yesterday's ATM thread, Transitioning to the new ATM rules - a plan (http://showthread.php?t=32999)*, I would like us to focus, from now on, in this thread on Michael Mozina's 'sun has a solid iron/ferrite surface' idea.


I have added a post to the other three threads containing much discussion of Michael's idea, and moved two of them to the Questions and Answers (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8) section.


I would like to remind readers of this thread of the Alternative Concepts rule, which applies to this ATM section of BAUT:
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST (http://showthread.php?t=16242). This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream (http://forumdisplay.php?f=17) threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.In particular, let's focus on Michael's idea ... if it's not clear, let's ask questions; if it has a theoretical underpinning, let's get it on the table; ....

And, for avoidance of doubt, "I don't know" and "That aspect hasn't been addressed yet" and "{observational results} are inconsistent with {ATM idea}" and so on, are all perfectly good kinds of answer.

*extract:
a ) Michael Mozina's 'sun has a solid surface' and
[snip]

Let's start with a.

Here are the (most recent) threads:
A Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen (http://showthread.php/?t=375), the main thread
B Big Bang or Big Slam? (http://showthread.php/?t=32560), which combines an excellent question about modern cosmology with a lot of discussion of Michael's idea
C Mass and/or Density of the Sun? (http://showthread.php/?t=32868), which addresses a particular aspect of Michael's idea
D Magnetic flux tubes or electrical arcs? (http://showthread.php/?t=32513), which really belongs in the Questions and Answers (http://forumdisplay.php/?f=8) section
In addition, there is some discussion of Michael's idea in some other ATM threads.

What I propose to do is:
- move B and D to the Q&A section, after I've added a post explaining what's going on, providing a link back to A, and requesting that further discussion be limited to answering the specific questions raised, within the framework of mainstream astrophysics.
- add a post to A and C, explaining what's going on, requesting that further discussion be in accord with the new rules (and, for C, providing a link back to A)

Nereid
2005-Sep-29, 03:31 AM
All quotes are from Michael Mozina's posts, in this thread (unless otherwise noted).
I can explain each and every image on my website and how it ties back to the model.Please provide us with the following information about each of the 4 Sun images on the main page of your website:
- image scale (arcsec or km)
- size of the original (presumably FITS) image, in pixels

For the "Yohkoh and the The Smoking Gun" image, please explain, in the following "This composite image shows the flow of electricity through iron ion arcs that travel from sun's surface, through the relatively cool photosphere and into a warmer corona where the iron particles pick up heat and begin to emit soft x-rays":
- how you determined there is a 'flow of electricity'?
- how you determined that the 'sun's surface' is below the photosphere?
- how you determined that it is 'iron particles' (and not, for example, iron ions) that are emitting x-rays?
You seem to think that if you find ANY flaw in my model, then you have a right to dismiss the whole thing.Speaking for myself, I don't think we have been presented with anything specific (a.k.a. quantitative) enough about your ideas that would allow us to have a decent discussion of those ideas, let alone dismiss them.

Once you have provided us (well, me) with specific answers to some specific questions, things might change.

(to be continued)

Fram
2005-Sep-29, 12:29 PM
I'll take your advice now Dwayne and take a break. Look at the picture and decide what you think about the color schemes as they relate to heat. Then take a look at Lockheed's description of that image and tell me they understand black body radiation as well as you and I do.

http://trace.lmsal.com/Public/Gallery/Images/TRACEpodarchive.html

While it is correct that their colour scheme is contrary to what we are used to, this in itself is irrelevant and is explained in the description. I don't know offhand if they have a good reason for this or not.
About the description: I have to admit that they understand solar moss, the chromosphere, and other aspects that can be seen in or deduced from the pictures better than I do.

Nereid
2005-Sep-29, 01:21 PM
Continuing a series of specific questions on Michael Mozina's 'sun has a solid iron/ferrite surface'. All quotes are from Michael's posts earlier in this thread, unless otherwise noted.
If you can look for problems in my model, then I can look for problems in yours as well.Per the Rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864), this section of BAUT is for folk to post their ATM ideas, and for others to attack those ideas, with glee and fervour. You are, of course, welcome to find flaws in mainstream theories, to poke holes in the logic astronomers use in their published papers, to highlight inconsistencies between theory and observation ... but not in this section of BAUT.



Care to explain how it is possible to have umbra and penumbra on the sun as long as the sun itself is the only light source available? Sure. The simple answer is you have two types of plasmas, one on top of the other. The top layer is relatively thin and emits visible light. The layer underneath tranfers it's heat to the light emitting layer, but it does not emit photons in the visible spectrum. Please clarify this point: when you're talking about umbra and penumbra you mean shadow produced by a source of light and an opaque body or you mean just "umbra-like patterns"?At about 700km, the glowing gives way to a layer that does not glow. The patterns I'm talking about are primarily seen in the umbra/penumbra layer, where dark gives way to light. You'll have to interpret these "layers" your own way of course, but there is a distinct depth at which the penumbral filements stop, all along each side, and all the way presumably to the core we see "little" visible light in these areas. That sure acts like a unique "layer".What is the '700 km' in reference to? How did you determine this value? Please quantify "little" (an OOM will do).
What Dr. Bruce said was that for solids to form we would need to see temperatures that were under 4000K. He found evidence of this in sunspots. In some ways this is misleading however since even though some silicon, particularly that middle zones tend to be cooler, but the sides tend to be quite hot. The silicon plasma is upwelling in these areas because it has been heated by the arcs. The column of silion rises, but then tornado like structures also form in the photosphere and chromosphere for that matter. The heat in these areas in other words is not uniform. What it does show however is that lower temperatures can be found UNDER the photosphere than on top of it.I'm afraid the context is lost here (I tried reading back through the Baloo-Micheal posts, but couldn't reconstruct it).

What, specifically, are you claiming here Michael?
The sunspots contain cool areas of silicon plasma as well as warmer areas. The sunspot activity simply allows cooler silicon from below to be "observed".Related to the above I'm sure; how did you determine that 'sunspots contain cool areas of silicon plasma'? Please explain both the 'cool' and 'silicon plasma'.

Er, I think you've missed quite a number of very important aspects, which introduce a range of consistency checks (based on independent physics). For example:
[snip]
* hydrostatic equilibrium I don't really see a problem with my model as it relates to this, but if you elobarate a bit I'll take a stab at it.Here is a one-page summary of the requirement (http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/phy213_hydrostatic.html).

Please show how, in your 'solid iron/ferrite surface' idea, the Sun, at each radial distance r from the centre of ths Sun, the outward (radial) force balances the inward (gravitational) force.

* mass conservationThere is no such thing as mass conservation in my model. The sun is in a state of constant neutron decay into hydrogen. Sooner or later that will be a problem. For now I think it's ok to assume the sun will rise tomorrow. :)I apologise for not being sufficiently clear. Here is a one-page summary of the requirement (http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/phy213_masscons.html).

Please confirm that your 'solid iron/ferrite surface' idea satisfies this mass conservation requirement.

* energy transport Primarily the energy transportation system is electrical and thermal in nature.I apologise for not being sufficiently clear. Here (http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/phy213_transport.html)and here (http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/phy213_convection.html) are one-page summaries of conduction, radiation, and convection as energy transport mechanisms.

Please describe, using the standard (physics) equations of energy transport, how you determine which of the three mechanisms is responsible for energy transport, at each layer of relevance (i.e. radial distance; if you do not assume a spherically symmetric Sun, please state this).

I am unfamiliar with an 'electrical in nature' energy transport mechanism; please provide references, preferably to standard physics texts, where this is described.

* neutrino emissionI don't know yet. That image you presented earlier was fascinating to me since I'm a visual kinda guy. Unfortunately it's a bit "low rez" for me to make any sense of it just yet. One thing that did catch my eye was the way the yellow part went "outside the lines". IMO that "may" be evidence that arcs are the release mechanism rather than the core, but again, it may be a combo deal, or just too early to tell based on limited data. I was intriged with the image however. If you find a better resolution verision, by all means let me know.The image was likely created using data such as this (http://elvis.phys.lsu.edu/svoboda/superk/cossun.pdf).

* helioseismologyHelioseismology suggests that at a depth of about 4800km, the sound waves change their speed and hit something far more dense and/or much warmer at that depth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1641599.stmYou omitted a very important aspect of this work: that this observation pertains to the region under sunspots (or, more accurately, to one sunspot). Is it your claim that this same dense-or-warm transition occurs at ~4800 km under all parts of the Sun? If so, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

I apologise for not being sufficiently clear. Here (http://soi.stanford.edu/results/heliowhat.html) is a one-page summary of helioseismology.

Please show how your 'solid iron/ferrite surface' idea is consistent with the observed helioseismology datasets (usually represented as L-nu figures (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/art/lnu.html)).

What can we do to reconcile the different 'seeings'?And I see a months'-long lack of answers to even the most basic questions about those images; I see an apparent desire to make extremely broad, handwaving statements, but an apparent reluctance to address even the most obvious quantitative aspects of the claims; I see a self-professed ignorance of the physics underlying spectroscopy (as applied to astrophysics);I respectfully beg to differ Nereid. I think it is because I *DO* fully understand the implication of trying to link photon output with atomic abundance that I find this assumption questionable.Please explain how you determined the abundance of each element* in each of the layers in your 'solid iron/ferrite surface' idea.

*If you claim there are chemical compounds in one or more layer, please explain how you determined the abundance of those too.

(to be continued)

Nereid
2005-Sep-29, 02:18 PM
Please explain how you determined the abundance of each element* in each of the layers in your 'solid iron/ferrite surface' idea.

*If you claim there are chemical compounds in one or more layer, please explain how you determined the abundance of those too.It seems that Michael has, partly, already answered (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=567022&postcount=202) this question (my bold):
I began my search for elements in the SERTS data actually. That body of data details the solar spectrum down to the kind of ion that is present. That allowed me to establish which elements were present. I did not try to determine abundance from these numbers however, I was simply trying to understand which elements were involved. In most cases it was quite easy to see what elements were involved. For instance, there are many different kinds of iron ions represented in the SERTS data as well as many kinds of silicon ions. It therefore seemed quite logical to assume the presense of silicon and iron. Calibration however is a completely different issue. I did not attempt to make any assumptions about the layout of the sun from this data alone so I did not try to determine abundances from the numbers.How did you determine abundances?

More questions (as above, all quotes are from Michael Mozina, unless otherwise noted).
Keep in mind that Dr. Manuel and I have some disagreements about what is under the shell. I am not suggesting a neutron star at the core, but instead a fission core.What are the fission processes in the core, in your 'sun has an iron/ferrite surface' idea?

Where in the satellite images do you see an appreciable abundance of iron? In the arc for one place. The base of the arc for another. I see no evidence to suggest the whole surface isn't predominantly iron in fact.How did you determine the abundance of iron (and the abundance of any other elements) in these arcs?
If you can demonstrate the error in Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemical analysis, I will consider it. If you intend to do what a creationist does and handwave and say "isotope analysis is untrustworthy because it conflicts with my faith", then yes, I'm going to call it "handwaving". I'm looking for a serious scientific objection to the chemistry. I haven't seen it.
You could "help" by pointing out the exact nature of Dr. Manuel's error. Can you do that, yes or no? If not, how is that functionally different than a creationist who ignores isotope analysis because it conflicts with their faith?I'm not sure what, specifically, you are referring to re Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemical analysis, so what follows may be off-track (please clarify):
- if this (http://web.umr.edu/%7Eom/images/Fig3.htm) is Dr. Manuel's conclusion, then it's not so much his analysis that's faulty, per se, it's that the conclusion is inconsistent with the observed bulk density of the Sun (we've called it 'average density' in the other thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32868))
- the major shortcoming of Dr. Manuel's analysis is that it relies upon extrapolation, for example from mass fractionation lines (http://web.umr.edu/%7Eom/images/Fig2.htm), to the solar interior. In particular, Dr. Manuel does not (AFAIK) even describe the physical processes that operate below the photosphere, let alone model them. Why is this important? Because there is no reason to believe that the physics of the solar wind and of meteorites applies to any significant extent to the physics of the solar interior.

Or, in the terms you seem to be fond of using, Dr. Manuel made an ASSUMPTION for which he provided no justification.

BTW, if it's any comfort, this kind of 'extrapolate beyond the domain of applicability' is all too common when someone seeks to apply results to situations that are way beyond their technical training.

...it sure would be nice if an ATM proponent could demonstrate that their "idea" described reality better than accepted theories...instead of the "same old" prove me wrong argument..I have done that RAF. I put together a whole website full of direct observation and showed how it supported my model. I cited very specific events, times, places and images that support my model by direct observation.Indeed.

However, there is little, if any, quantitative material on your website; most (all?) images lack image scale information, for example, and none (as far as I can see) have any intensity information (i.e. the relationship between pixel/colour brightness and number of photons/energy. While the CCDs - or other detectors - may have had a linear response, it is common practice to convert this to a log scale for images added to webpages). Without quantitative data, and your explanations of how such supports your idea, it seems to me all you have done is collect a number of pretty pictures.
If you would like to take a single page for me and explain it using a gas model, I will surely consider your explanation and we can discuss it. What instead seems to happen more frequently is that people attack me as individual rather that putting their science on the table. That is but another form of handwaving from where I sit. I'm here to discuss this scientifically and I'll be happy to present all sorts of observation images here on this website as soon as we come up with a system that is fair and works for everyone. I'm trying to work within the rules or I'd post a half dozen links right now to show you a half dozen different ways my model conforms to direct observation.Let's start with some image scale and image size information, shall we?
Here's the deal. Take a page of my website and blow me out of the water if you think it's that easy to explain these observation with a gas model. So far I hear lots of people suggesting that "someone else" can do it, but so far no one has. To their credit, Baloo and Van have offered 'some' answers to direct questions, but few other have. What can I say if no one offers valid alternatives RAF?As you will have seen by now, and understood I hope, the way discussion of ideas posted here in the ATM section of BAUT proceeds by you presenting your ideas, you defending your arguments, you answering direct questions in a timely fashion; it is about people attacking your ideas (NOT you personally) with glee and fervour.

Back on the BA forum, in February this year, dgruss23 posted some Advice for ATM theory supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=352465&postcount=1). It started a thread that is now referenced in the Rules; it is excellent advice.

In light of your interest in understanding the Sun, per modern solar physics, I have created a thread which will (hopefully) provide you with a rich set of resources. If, after your studies of this topic, you have specific questions (as you did with magnetic flux tubes or electrical arcs? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32513)), please post them in the Q&A section.

Duane
2005-Sep-29, 09:14 PM
I know I said I'm done for the night, but did want to address this one point and let you sleep on it.

I am of the impression that because Dr. Manuel seemed to think there was a problem with the neutrino count that others here (mostly those involved in the discussion) seem to think this one issue is a "big deal". I agree that it is a "big deal" that from a gas model perspective in that it does "seem" to lend greater support to the model. I willingly accept this as fact.

What you are doing however is not scientifically sound IMO. You are trying to exclude my model for not making predictions on this one issue. That is no better than trying to exclude the gas model prior to it finding an answer to the problem. There is no one issue that makes or breaks a model IMO.

I did spend months putting together a complete explanation for many solar phenomeon that remain elusive to gas model theories. For instance, while magnetic flux tubes might be demonstrated in plasma, they are scales of energy too small to account for a "magnetic flux rope" that lights up iron to millions of degrees. If you want to resolve the next crisis issue for the gas model, I suspect this issue is going to be it.

Now I can understand your reluctance to accept these ideas Dwayne. I was reluctant myself at first. I would be shocked if you agreed with me today or tomorrow or even next week. Given enough time I'm sure that all your questions can and will be answered, but not by any single individual. This individual can answer many things about the sun that are not answered by the gas model as well. There will always be relevance to any new idea, even if there are some aspects that are yet to be explained by the model.

I do realize I'm the "underdog" in this discussion, but a lot of scientific breakthroughs are made by underdogs and amateurs. I didn't technically even make this particular breakthrough IMO, Birkeland did it 100 years ago. I can also cite many things from Dr. Bruce's work that show a very close relationship between the atmospheric phemonomen and electrical discharges and I can cite the work of Dr. Manuel to support the composition aspects.

I believe that you are being premature in dismissing any model over a "percieved" issue or two. The fact the gas model has enjoyed greater research money through the years and has found support for the gas model along the way is not evidence it is right, or that my model is wrong. Surely as a scientist you realize this?

I moved this from another thread, as I wish to asnwer it in the appropriate tread.


What you are doing however is not scientifically sound IMO. You are trying to exclude my model for not making predictions on this one issue. That is no better than trying to exclude the gas model prior to it finding an answer to the problem. There is no one issue that makes or breaks a model IMO.

No, I am not trying to exclude the model for failing to answer one issue. I disbelieve the model is sound because you have not addressed how your idea does or does not match the currently observed physical aspects of the sun, including:

1.) Solar Flux
2.) Apparent Magnitude
3.) Absolute magnitude
4.) Luminosity
5.) Broad spectrum radition output
6.) Particle output (including neutrinos)
7.) Size and mass
8.) Energy output
9.) Solar translucence and opacity
10.) Solar temperature

Each of these is answered in the current standard solar model (SSM). Each of them require the use of physics equations that are readily available in any university library and the internet.

Furthermore, the process leading up to the formation of the sun as a protostar is also laid out in solar physics. In order for your idea to be coherent, you must be able to explain how the sun formed to become that which your idea proposes.


The fact the gas model has enjoyed greater research money through the years and has found support for the gas model along the way is not evidence it is right, or that my model is wrong. Surely as a scientist you realize this?

You have it backwards. Financial support for the SSM now mostly accepted by the scientific community arose because of the discoveries regarding nuclear physics over the past 100 or so years. As discoveries were made, the people and facilities who made the discoveries were given money to further refine their research.

The "gas model" is accepted because it meets the strict tests that scientists have put it through. The model has a start, can explain why the sun is the size, brightness, mass and temperature it is, how it can last so long, how it relates to other stars all around us, etc etc.

There is no "conspiracy" to "put-down" other ideas or research. It is simply that the gas model works on many different physical levels. Your idea hasn't even dealt with the most basic physics, at least as far as I can see.

Surely, as someone who wishes to be accepted as a scientist, you can see that your idea needs much more work before it can be discussed as anything other than a bunch of pretty pictures?

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 09:42 PM
It seems that Michael has, partly, already answered (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=567022&postcount=202) this question (my bold): How did you determine abundances?

I would find it infinitely easier to show you the images as I recognized and used each one in my analysis so you can literally see the process I went through. You may even find it helpful in finding 'problems' if you understand the images that were inolved in my analysis. I will not post images however unless I have your permission. I can simply provide a link to the image with my description if you prefer, or use no images at all, but it would be far, far, far easier to show in some way rather than just tell you about the processes I went through. Do I have your permission to post images or links in my presentation from here forward? Originally I "eyeballed" the relative distances from two very spectific images. I then found images with distance measurements of the lit area of the photosphere, and distance measurements from Doppler imaging techniques that set the final "Depth" figure. The average depth of the top of the photosphere to the top of the suface is about 4800km according to the research of Dr. Kosovichev. Keep in mind he disagrees with my assesment of a solid surface at this depth, but he pegged the depth at which sound waves hit a new layer at 4800km.

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


More questions (as above, all quotes are from Michael Mozina, unless otherwise noted).What are the fission processes in the core, in your 'sun has an iron/ferrite surface' idea?

I would presume that the same fission processes that apply to the earth's core would apply to the sun's core on a much more massive scale. It's tough to know how much fissionable material is present other than by looking at the overall energy output and working backwards.


How did you determine the abundance of iron (and the abundance of any other elements) in these arcs?

Now I would use Dr. Manuel's work. Then I simply went by visual observation. I could see an abundance of iron flowing from a surface at a relatively shallow depth. I could see that the layer contained lots of iron all along the surface. I could not tell if the whole thing was iron, but obviosly (IMO at least) there could be a whole layer of iron there. It could be that some was crystalized granite, or other such things. I then went looking into comet fragments. Before I got very far into that process I got a call from Dr. Manuel who has seen my website. Once I saw his work, I realized it's significance immediately. I would simply suggest at the moment that his methods and the methods of many other nuclear chemists that he has worked with over the years is the "best" way I can think of to determine solar composition. Not only did Dr. Manuel isolate relative abundances of elements, but he pegged the arrangement of these elements (mass separated/mass fractionalized) with far better precision that I was able to do with observation alone. If you are looking for a method of determing solar composition from a nuclear chemical standpoint (the best method IMO) then his work and a host of other people he cites along the way have already already determined via isotope analysis that the layers are most likely arranged by the isotope, not just the element as in my original model. The precision of his method stuns me, everytime I learn something new from it. (nearly daily at this point)


I'm not sure what, specifically, you are referring to re Dr. Manuel's nuclear chemical analysis, so what follows may be off-track (please clarify):
- if this (http://web.umr.edu/%7Eom/images/Fig3.htm) is Dr. Manuel's conclusion, then it's not so much his analysis that's faulty, per se, it's that the conclusion is inconsistent with the observed bulk density of the Sun (we've called it 'average density' in the other thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32868))

The "observed" density is but one measure of density as we are discussing in that thread. As he has pointed out, density and temperature are interrelated here. Even though I fully understand the nature of your concern, if there were a nuclear chemical problem to be found in his work, where is the person who will step forth and say what it is? I have a dilemna at the moment. I have a nuclear chemist that has used other methods to determine solar composition. I've looked at the basic logic behind them, and his methods and observations (not just his by he way, many other nuclear chemists as well) look sound and logical to me. The look a lot more logical to me than simply counting photons and guessing at how they are put together and then trying to link abundance to photons measured. I have already pointed out how this method could easily lead to inaccurate numbers. The density measurement we use, is in fact a relative density measure and does not include any external movements, only the movements of the bodies within the solar system.


- the major shortcoming of Dr. Manuel's analysis is that it relies upon extrapolation, for example from mass fractionation lines (http://web.umr.edu/%7Eom/images/Fig2.htm), to the solar interior. In particular, Dr. Manuel does not (AFAIK) even describe the physical processes that operate below the photosphere, let alone model them.

But those mass fractionation lines show the locational relationships even between various ions of the same element, something that had never even crossed my mind till reading his material.

Why is that so important IMO? Well, for one thing, he was lead to conclude that elements were not simply arranged by atomic weight as I "observed" in satellite images, but it led him to define the relationship between various ions within the layering system itself. The later part of that argument had never even occured to me but once I saw it, I could see the logic in it, and how that might help explain how easily the electricity flows in the atmosphere and into space.


Why is this important? Because there is no reason to believe that the physics of the solar wind and of meteorites applies to any significant extent to the physics of the solar interior.

I humbly disagree with you on that one. You have four inner planets that are all iron rich. Assuming gravity plays no favorites, the sun should "relatively" the "same" as it closest neighbors as it relates to composition. That is a "logical" assuption at least. Now unless you know of some magicl form of gravity that separates the lightest elements to center, I fail to see why the sun would be so radically, and I do mean radically different than it's closed neighbors. For you to suggest that meteorites do not apply significantly suggest to me that you have some kind of magic crystal ball that I don't have access to at this time. I'm looking at Spitzer images of areas of star formation and they look like areas that are abundant in iron to me. I don't see how you can be so sure they did not play a larger role than you suggest.

Let's note here that I'm not proposing anything special, just gravity and a relative amount of uniformity. I won't be a stickler or anything, just a cloud of stuff and time and I'm figuring things will collect with gravity and be reasonably homogenous. It may separate some, but for the most part, I would expect some amount of homegenous interconnection.

In this case you are proposing some radially different process applied to the sun than applied to it's closest neighbors and I personally see no logical way to support that assertion. It seems to me like the best you could offer would be some kind of explanation as to how that is possible, but you could not rule out some form of homogenous gravity drawn process that would make the sun at least "similar" to it's closest neighbors. Generally under such circumstances the onus of responsibility falls the one proposing a special model to explain it. I'm not propsing anything unique here, so it seems to me that you'll need to at least explain the circumstances that lead to these radically different chemical units forming from the same supernova cloud.

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 09:49 PM
Or, in the terms you seem to be fond of using, Dr. Manuel made an ASSUMPTION for which he provided no justification.

If Dr. Manuel had been the only chemist to ever notice mass fractionation in only one element, I would understand your position here, really I would. As it is however, this phenomenon has been documented in a number of different elements from a number of different comets. It cannot be an anomoly, or a single individual's mistaken experiment. There is something going on here at a nuclear chemistry level and it is demonstrateable and repeatable. I trust that nuclear chemical analysis works very well in the right hands, and these results have been confirmed by more than one pair of hands.


However, there is little, if any, quantitative material on your website; most (all?) images lack image scale information, for example, and none (as far as I can see) have any intensity information (i.e. the relationship between pixel/colour brightness and number of photons/energy. While the CCDs - or other detectors - may have had a linear response, it is common practice to convert this to a log scale for images added to webpages).

I'll be happy to add measurements and other things to my website as I go based on these conversations and what I learn along the way. My website has always been a work in progress. I treat it as such. I'm constantly adding material and images to the presentation. I fully undertand and respect your desire for math and numbers, but the fact you may have to look them up yourself sometimes should not prevent you form doing so if you have doubts as to my "interpretation" of something based on a scaling issue. I don't typically ask people that hand me a picture what the camera resolution was that took the picture before I am willing to look at the picture and "interpret" what's in it. I trust my ability to recognize some things, with or without much in the way of scaling. For instance, my "revelation" came from looking at 512x512 pixel images of full surface shots from SOHO. It was more of a "big picture" that allowed me to grasp what I was seeing, not a pixel to distance measurement or a math formula. I'm not saying the last two aren't important as well, but they may not always be the most important aspect of visual interpretation.


Without quantitative data, and your explanations of how such supports your idea, it seems to me all you have done is collect a number of pretty pictures.

These are far more than just just "pretty pictures" on my website. There are many explanations next to each image. These images are direct observation of what is *actually* going on within the sun's atmosphere. It's not a theory. I've seen absolutely beautiful math formulas applied to a flawed premise and seen if get absolutely nowhere. A pictures is often worth a thousand worths, and perhaps a thousand math formulas as well. The whole concept of science is to start with observation, not start with theory when looking for 'truth'. Observations aren't the problem even if you can find some problem with my "interpretation" of the image.


Let's start with some image scale and image size information, shall we?As you will have seen by now, and understood I hope, the way discussion of ideas posted here in the ATM section of BAUT proceeds by you presenting your ideas, you defending your arguments, you answering direct questions in a timely fashion; it is about people attacking your ideas (NOT you personally) with glee and fervour.

I agree. I'll do as you said and after work I'll get together the numbers for the first several images on my website so we can start to discuss the ideas and compare our ideas to real observation.


Back on the BA forum, in February this year, dgruss23 posted some Advice for ATM theory supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=352465&postcount=1). It started a thread that is now referenced in the Rules; it is excellent advice.

I have read it, and read it recently as well. I agree, it is excellent advice. I will do my best to adhere to these rules and follow the advice in that thread.


In light of your interest in understanding the Sun, per modern solar physics, I have created a thread which will (hopefully) provide you with a rich set of resources. If, after your studies of this topic, you have specific questions (as you did with magnetic flux tubes or electrical arcs? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32513)), please post them in the Q&A section.

I'll be happy to discuss it in any location you deem fit. I just don't want you to get mad at me if it turns out that electricity is required to explain them. :)

Michael Mozina
2005-Sep-29, 10:25 PM
No, I am not trying to exclude the model for failing to answer one issue. I disbelieve the model is sound because you have not addressed how your idea does or does not match the currently observed physical aspects of the sun, including:

Let me turn the tables here and throw all my images back at you and I'll claim your model must be excluded because it lacks a specific explanation for every specific detail of every specific image I present. Would you say that is a fair way to compare our two models? You can't condemn me for things even the gas model doesn't FULLY explain itself. I think it would be nice to have 10,000 scientists churning away on the model 24/7 for a few years and I'll be these kinds of things could all be addressed. You've had the luxury of a few more years of scientific research to support the gas model. In time things will change. Until then, you can't condemn a model for what it doesn't do to your personal satisifaction over a personal list of criteria. I haven't even heard anyone adequately address the light source in these image yet using a gas model, so how can you condemn me for more intricate issues?

If you feel there is an inherant conflict with my model and some direct observation, I'll consider it. You cant just toss out a generalized list and expect me to respond to it or answer every element of every single question.


Each of these is answered in the current standard solar model (SSM). Each of them require the use of physics equations that are readily available in any university library and the internet.

Each of these things has been considered using a model that may or may not apply, but most of the explanations are gas model related. It's a bit of a catch 22 I'm afraid.


Furthermore, the process leading up to the formation of the sun as a protostar is also laid out in solar physics. In order for your idea to be coherent, you must be able to explain how the sun formed to become that which your idea proposes.

It's been laid out and knocked out recently:

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

Why are these people all so surprised if this was all so cut and dry? The model gets "changed" with every new observation. I hardly call that "laid out". The problem here as I see it Dwayne is that if these ideas were so accurate and so useful at helping us predict the conditons of the early universe, why is everyone so suprised at the newest findings? Why is it that we have "teenage" galaxies where we orininally expected to see nothing at all, and then a few stars, and then maybe a baby galaxy? Everytime a new image is published with better resolution, the gas model gets less and less helpful and predicting anything. I simply do not see how this model has accurately allowed us to predict anything at all related to the early universe. I therefore question its usefulness in that capacity. I see plenty of evidence to suggest to me at least that the iron has always been plentiful, both in planets and stars and has always been abundant in the early universe.


You have it backwards. Financial support for the SSM now mostly accepted by the scientific community arose because of the discoveries regarding nuclear physics over the past 100 or so years. As discoveries were made, the people and facilities who made the discoveries were given money to further refine their research.

But sooner or later, regardless of everyone's best best intentions, the money flow will and does create a political beaurocracy. I'm not condemning anything, I'm just noting the process. "Unusual" ideas are less likely to get funding that more "standard" things.


The "gas model" is accepted because it meets the strict tests that scientists have put it through. The model has a start, can explain why the sun is the size, brightness, mass and temperature it is, how it can last so long, how it relates to other stars all around us, etc etc.

Yet you didn't expect one or two folks to do all the work themselves or put it through all it's test all by themselves! That is effectly what you are asking me to do isn't it? I can and will be happy to provide you with all the answers I can. I'm quite confident that this model can and will also meet all the same critieria you just laid out, once it has time to mature.


There is no "conspiracy" to "put-down" other ideas or research. It is simply that the gas model works on many different physical levels. Your idea hasn't even dealt with the most basic physics, at least as far as I can see.

If that were 100% true, then I would have recieved a lot more help from Lockheed Martin about that image. Even a single explanation of anything related to the image would have been more help that I actually recieved. Have you tried asking Lockheed Martin about that running different image? Try that once and then tell me about the altruistic nature of scientific research. I hear what you are saying, but you should try this from my perspective just once and walk in my shoes for a month or two. The expetations are off scale and the help is very limited indeed.


Surely, as someone who wishes to be accepted as a scientist, you can see that your idea needs much more work before it can be discussed as anything other than a bunch of pretty pictures?

I fully realize that the model "needs work". That's why I'm putting this information out there in front of the public, so others will get involved. I do however resent your comments about 'pretty pictures'. These are observations for which I have offered sincere and straight forward explanations. I've stuck my neck out and risked my reputation in offering these explanations for these images. So far I've seen very few gas model "believers" have the "faith" to even attempt to explain these "pretty pictures" with gas model theory. I think that is an unfair putdown considering the lack of viable options offered to explain these "pretty pictutures" from the gas model side of the isle. Van attempted to do so, but never explained million degree photon releases from a presumably 6000K degree surface, and his answer was actually just as ATM as mine since his placement is nothing like Lockheeds. If and when you see all these image explained using gas model theory, then you can refer to them as "pretty little pictures". Right now they remain direct observations of solar processes that remain unexplained by gas model theory.

Nereid
2005-Sep-30, 02:26 AM
How did you determine abundances?I would find it infinitely easier to show you the images as I recognized and used each one in my analysis so you can literally see the process I went through. You may even find it helpful in finding 'problems' if you understand the images that were inolved in my analysis. I will not post images however unless I have your permission. I can simply provide a link to the image with my description if you prefer,Please do this
or use no images at all, but it would be far, far, far easier to show in some way rather than just tell you about the processes I went through. Do I have your permission to post images or links in my presentation from here forward?links, not images, please.
Originally I "eyeballed" the relative distances from two very spectific images. I then found images with distance measurements of the lit area of the photosphere, and distance measurements from Doppler imaging techniques that set the final "Depth" figure. The average depth of the top of the photosphere to the top of the suface is about 4800km according to the research of Dr. Kosovichev. Keep in mind he disagrees with my assesment of a solid surface at this depth, but he pegged the depth at which sound waves hit a new layer at 4800km.OK, let's see the 'links to pictures plus analyses'.

What are the fission processes in the core, in your 'sun has an iron/ferrite surface' idea?I would presume that the same fission processes that apply to the earth's core would apply to the sun's core on a much more massive scale. What evidence do you have (other than a vague 'presumption')?
It's tough to know how much fissionable material is present other than by looking at the overall energy output and working backwards. OK, please show us your workings.

How did you determine the abundance of iron (and the abundance of any other elements) in these arcs?Now I would use Dr. Manuel's work. Then I simply went by visual observation. I could see an abundance of iron flowing from a surface at a relatively shallow depth. I could see that the layer contained lots of iron all along the surface. I could not tell if the whole thing was iron, but obviosly (IMO at least) there could be a whole layer of iron there. It could be that some was crystalized granite, or other such things. I then went looking into comet fragments. Before I got very far into that process I got a call from Dr. Manuel who has seen my website. Once I saw his work, I realized it's significance immediately. I would simply suggest at the moment that his methods and the methods of many other nuclear chemists that he has worked with over the years is the "best" way I can think of to determine solar composition.Just so that I'm clear on this, you relied on Dr. Manuel's estimates of the abundance of various elements in the arcs; you did not do your own quantitative analyses? If you did, indeed, do quantitative analyses to derive abundance estimates, please state that (and show us your workings).
Not only did Dr. Manuel isolate relative abundances of elements, but he pegged the arrangement of these elements (mass separated/mass fractionalized) with far better precision that I was able to do with observation alone. If you are looking for a method of determing solar composition from a nuclear chemical standpoint (the best method IMO)I asked a specific question - how did you determine the abundance of iron (and the abundance of any other elements) in these arcs?

For avoidance of doubt, I am not asking you how you determined 'the solar composition from a nuclear chemical standpoint'.
then his work and a host of other people he cites along the way have already already determined via isotope analysis that the layers are most likely arranged by the isotope, not just the element as in my original model. The precision of his method stuns me, everytime I learn something new from it. (nearly daily at this point)Again, just so that I'm quite clear on this, you yourself did NOT derive quantitative estimates of abundances?

if this (http://web.umr.edu/%7Eom/images/Fig3.htm) is Dr. Manuel's conclusion, then it's not so much his analysis that's faulty, per se, it's that the conclusion is inconsistent with the observed bulk density of the Sun (we've called it 'average density' in the other thread (http://showthread.php?t=32868))The "observed" density is but one measure of density as we are discussing in that thread. As he has pointed out, density and temperature are interrelated here.How? We are discussing the average (or, as OM says, bulk) density; the (measured) mass divided by the (observed) volume.

Please explain how the temperature relates to this? Please use math.
Even though I fully understand the nature of your concern, if there were a nuclear chemical problem to be found in his work, where is the person who will step forth and say what it is?So, let's be clear about the rules here.

You've read the new rules ... you are presenting an idea that is most certainly an ATM one. You need to defend your idea against the challenges which I, and others, will mount with glee and fervour. If you wish to present OM's ideas, and defend them, please do so.

For avoidance of doubt, it matters not one jot how excellent anyone's work is, in terms of its internal consistency; if the conclusions of such work are strongly inconsistent with good observational results, then at the very least such inconsistency needs to be acknowledged.
I have a dilemna at the moment. I have a nuclear chemist that has used other methods to determine solar composition. I've looked at the basic logic behind them, and his methods and observations (not just his by he way, many other nuclear chemists as well) look sound and logical to me. The look a lot more logical to me than simply counting photons and guessing at how they are put together and then trying to link abundance to photons measured. I have already pointed out how this method could easily lead to inaccurate numbers. The density measurement we use, is in fact a relative density measure and does not include any external movements, only the movements of the bodies within the solar system.Well, since it's your idea, you need to decide which way you'll handle this dilemma.

FWIW, the discussion in the other thread (about how the Sun's mass can be estimated) is fast approaching the point where you may need to declare that you will throw out Newton and Einstein, in favour of Manuel.

the major shortcoming of Dr. Manuel's analysis is that it relies upon extrapolation, for example from mass fractionation lines (http://web.umr.edu/%7Eom/images/Fig2.htm), to the solar interior. In particular, Dr. Manuel does not (AFAIK) even describe the physical processes that operate below the photosphere, let alone model them.But those mass fractionation lines show the locational relationships even between various ions of the same element, something that had never even crossed my mind till reading his material.So, are you using OM's material to make your case?
Why is that so important IMO? Well, for one thing, he was lead to conclude that elements were not simply arranged by atomic weight as I "observed" in satellite images, but it led him to define the relationship between various ions within the layering system itself. The later part of that argument had never even occured to me but once I saw it, I could see the logic in it, and how that might help explain how easily the electricity flows in the atmosphere and into space.That's nice. However, it doesn't address the challenge I raised - OM made no (apparent) effort to show that the extrapolations could be valid an environment where, clearly, quite different physical processes dominate.

Quite separately, you need to explain how - quantitatively - you determined these layers. Note that this is not a 'historical' question; it's about how - with your current understanding of your idea - you can show consistency between good obervational results and your idea.

Why is this important? Because there is no reason to believe that the physics of the solar wind and of meteorites applies to any significant extent to the physics of the solar interior.I humbly disagree with you on that one. You have four inner planets that are all iron rich. Assuming gravity plays no favorites, the sun should "relatively" the "same" as it closest neighbors as it relates to composition. That is a "logical" assuption at least. Now unless you know of some magicl form of gravity that separates the lightest elements to center, I fail to see why the sun would be so radically, and I do mean radically different than it's closed neighbors. For you to suggest that meteorites do not apply significantly suggest to me that you have some kind of magic crystal ball that I don't have access to at this time. I'm looking at Spitzer images of areas of star formation and they look like areas that are abundant in iron to me. I don't see how you can be so sure they did not play a larger role than you suggest.OK, now, other than by handwaving, show, quantitatively:
1) how the Sun and planets formed, resulting in bodies which have their observed (average) densities, and the abundances you claim
2) what the iron abundance is in the Spitzer areas of star formation.

Remember, this thread is about you defending your idea against challenges (and answering questions).

(to be continued)

Nereid
2005-Sep-30, 02:29 AM
Let's note here that I'm not proposing anything special, just gravity and a relative amount of uniformity. I won't be a stickler or anything, just a cloud of stuff and time and I'm figuring things will collect with gravity and be reasonably homogenous. It may separate some, but for the most part, I would expect some amount of homegenous interconnection.Good; now please show us, with equations, math, numbers and stuff.
In this case you are proposing some radially different process applied to the sun than applied to it's closest neighbors and I personally see no logical way to support that assertion. It seems to me like the best you could offer would be some kind of explanation as to how that is possible, but you could not rule out some form of homogenous gravity drawn process that would make the sun at least "similar" to it's closest neighbors. Generally under such circumstances the onus of responsibility falls the one proposing a special model to explain it. I'm not propsing anything unique here, so it seems to me that you'll need to at least explain the circumstances that lead to these radically different chemical units forming from the same supernova cloud.Let's refresh: you asked why I thought OM's conclusions were wrong (they conflict with the observed average density of the Sun) and why (he extrapolated beyond the domain of applicability).

However, this thread is about Michael Mozina's ideas concerning the Sun; specifically, that it has a solid iron/ferrite surface.

To the extent that you choose to use OM's work in defence of your idea, you must also be prepared to answer questions about that work.

Nereid
2005-Sep-30, 02:39 AM
I'll be happy to add measurements and other things to my website as I go based on these conversations and what I learn along the way. My website has always been a work in progress. I treat it as such. I'm constantly adding material and images to the presentation. I fully undertand and respect your desire for math and numbers, but the fact you may have to look them up yourself sometimes should not prevent you form doing so if you have doubts as to my "interpretation" of something based on a scaling issue.Let's be quite clear on this: you have chosen to come here, to BAUT, to present your ideas.

You have read the rules posted, concerning how ATM discussions are to proceed.

You may choose to not provide answers to direct questions, directly relevant to your idea, or you may choose to answer "I don't know", or you may choose to answer "I don't have that information to hand". In the last case, we may decide to suspend further discussion until you do.
I don't typically ask people that hand me a picture what the camera resolution was that took the picture before I am willing to look at the picture and "interpret" what's in it. I trust my ability to recognize some things, with or without much in the way of scaling.Indeed.

However, I am asking you to provide such basic information about the images you yourself have chosen to make your case as image size (in pixels), image scale (arcsec, or km, per pixel), and intensity and colour scales.
For instance, my "revelation" came from looking at 512x512 pixel images of full surface shots from SOHO. It was more of a "big picture" that allowed me to grasp what I was seeing, not a pixel to distance measurement or a math formula. I'm not saying the last two aren't important as well, but they may not always be the most important aspect of visual interpretation.And I'm not saying one way or the other; for avoidance of doubt, I am simply asking you, again, to provide basic image information (number of pixels, image scale, and intensity and colour scale).
These are far more than just just "pretty pictures" on my website. There are many explanations next to each image.Without any quantification, equations, math, or numbers; i.e. handwaving.
These images are direct observation of what is *actually* going on within the sun's atmosphere. It's not a theory. I've seen absolutely beautiful math formulas applied to a flawed premise and seen if get absolutely nowhere. A pictures is often worth a thousand worths, and perhaps a thousand math formulas as well. The whole concept of science is to start with observation, not start with theory when looking for 'truth'. Observations aren't the problem even if you can find some problem with my "interpretation" of the image.That's nice.

Once you've supplied the minimal information necessary for us to have a discussion about your interpretation (other than handwaving), we can begin to determine the extent to which your interpretation is consistent with the data.
I agree. I'll do as you said and after work I'll get together the numbers for the first several images on my website so we can start to discuss the ideas and compare our ideas to real observation.Thank you; I look forward to it.

Duane
2005-Sep-30, 03:22 AM
Let me turn the tables here and throw all my images back at you and I'll claim your model must be excluded because it lacks a specific explanation for every specific detail of every specific image I present. Would you say that is a fair way to compare our two models?

That is a cop-out Michael. The sun's physical attributes are right outside your window. (well, during the day anyway). YOU are the one who is trying to argue for a new idea. If you cannot even provide OOM estimates for the most basic of the sun's physical characteristics, what is the point of listening to you further.

Don't you get it Michael? If fission is the sorce of energy for the sun, then show us how it would work! Show us something besides pictures and quotes from scientists who have been repeatedly shown to use incorrect physics to explain their theories.



You can't condemn me for things even the gas model doesn't FULLY explain itself.

Doesn't fully explain Michael? I am asking you to explain how the basic physical features of the sun would be explained by your idea. You know, things like how bright it is, how much mass it has, how much energy it puts out, how it generates the particles that stream from it. The SSM explains each of these things. What good is your model if you can't even do that?



I think it would be nice to have 10,000 scientists churning away on the model 24/7 for a few years and I'll be these kinds of things could all be addressed. You've had the luxury of a few more years of scientific research to support the gas model.

Actually, the idea of a sun filled with iron has been around for a lot longer than the current SSM. It was the findings of people like Eddington and Hoyle and others, where they realized that the physical attributes of the sun could not support such a proposition, that the idea of hydrogen fusion as the source of energy for the sun arose.

See, thses scientists worked with physics and math to determine things like solar luminosity, energy release, nuclear fusion, and other such subjects. With the advancements in observational equipment, up to the satillites currently peering at the sun 24 hours a day, every single one of the mathematical predictions they made have been realized--even up to the "mythical" neutrino.

Show me the MATH Michael!!



I haven't even heard anyone adequately address the light source in these image yet using a gas model, so how can you condemn me for more intricate issues?

What are you talking about? The light source, as in the sun? I'm pretty sure that you are looking at images of the sun Michael, so what other light source would there be?

Plus this isn't a personal list. To try and be clear, again, you need to do the work necessary to confirm that your idea of the sun will meet the physical attributes of that big bright ball we call the sun. In other words, if your idea cannot match what is there, then your theory is dead, regardless of whatever pretty pictures or odd isotopes you parade around.

The SSM does mean that criterion Michael.


If you feel there is an inherant conflict with my model and some direct observation, I'll consider it. You cant just toss out a generalized list and expect me to respond to it or answer every element of every single question.

What model? You haven't presented one yet Michael. Once you have answered the questions I posed, you can begin to put parameters togeather by which to make a model. Until then, it is just the blush of a possible idea.


Each of these things has been considered using a model that may or may not apply, but most of the explanations are gas model related. It's a bit of a catch 22 I'm afraid.

No, each of these things has been done using well established LAWS of physics. You know, like Kepler's, Newton's, Einstein's, Maxwell's, the laws of radiation, the laws of energy, etc. Remember, until about 1940 all science thought the sun was made up of the same stuff as the Earth. It was using these law's that scientists realized it could not be!



The problem here as I see it Dwayne is that if these ideas were so accurate and so useful at helping us predict the conditons of the early universe, why is everyone so suprised at the newest findings? Why is it that we have "teenage" galaxies where we orininally expected to see nothing at all, and then a few stars, and then maybe a baby galaxy?

What does this have to do with the make up of our sun? And please, stop thinking that because some journalist looking to sell a magazine uses the word "surprised" that the scientists actually doing the work were.


Everytime a new image is published with better resolution, the gas model gets less and less helpful and predicting anything. *snip*I therefore question its usefulness in that capacity.

The SSM has nothing to do with predicting the earliest epoch of the universe. You're confusion solar physics with cosmology, or at the very least, big bag theories. And what has that got to do with what makes the sun shine anyway?


I see plenty of evidence to suggest to me at least that the iron has always been plentiful, both in planets and stars and has always been abundant in the early universe.

That's an exaggeration, and you know it. You have seen a couple of articles that say there is more iron than expected, nothing more.


But sooner or later, regardless of everyone's best best intentions, the money flow will and does create a political beaurocracy.

Ah, cynicism, no wonder I like you. With this, I mostly agree.


Yet you didn't expect one or two folks to do all the work themselves or put it through all it's test all by themselves! That is effectly what you are asking me to do isn't it? I can and will be happy to provide you with all the answers I can. I'm quite confident that this model can and will also meet all the same critieria you just laid out, once it has time to mature.

Each advance in our understanding of solar physics was done using good, solid physics and applied mathematics to try and duplicate what we actually see happening on the sun. The SSM does this to a remarkable degree.

I am not asking you to do every one of these calculations. Give us a handful, say 3. Pick them at random. Show us how they match to the sun itself.


If that were 100% true, then I would have recieved a lot more help from Lockheed Martin about that image. Even a single explanation of anything related to the image would have been more help that I actually recieved. Have you tried asking Lockheed Martin about that running different image?

Well, LM probably sees you as someone looking for free information, and likely hold you in about the same regard as they likely hold Hogland. I wouldn't take it personal. You have no connection to any scientific institution, you are not well versed in physics and you probably didn't offer to pay for the material.




So far I've seen very few gas model "believers" have the "faith" to even attempt to explain these "pretty pictures" with gas model theory. I think that is an unfair putdown considering the lack of viable options offered to explain these "pretty pictures" from the gas model side of the isle.

What you don't get Michael, is that there is really nothing to explain. Where you are seeing electric arcs and electric erosion I see simple CME's. You see structure, I see what appears to be the transition area between the convection zone and a lower area that rotates like a solid body--but isn't one. You claim thousands and thousands of tons of iron, I see a filter that is set to preferentially see iron ions.

This is your theory. Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to explain your theory to us. We are not here to prove you right or wrong, we are here to gleefully attack the idea based on it's merits.



Van attempted to do so, but never explained million degree photon releases from a presumably 6000K degree surface, and his answer was actually just as ATM as mine since his placement is nothing like Lockheeds. If and when you see all these image explained using gas model theory, then you can refer to them as "pretty little pictures". Right now they remain direct observations of solar processes that remain unexplained by gas model theory.

I read what Van said, and I think you have misinterpreted him. The surface of the photosphere is about 6000K and the layers get progressively hotter from that point down to the center of the sun. The coronosphere is much hotter, but they are beginning to understand why this is. This has nothing to do with the make up of the sun though Michael.

They remain pretty pictures Michael, until you provide the math equations showing that your idea for the solar makeup can even work.

Mosheh Thezion
2005-Sep-30, 06:33 AM
OK..

Lets get serious. i want
1)
2)
3)
answers.....

Michael.. what is the most fundamental basic evidense.. i mean.. the nuts and bolts of the basis for the idea in the first place... I.e.. Iron sun?

where does it all come from..? Im open to see it..

and to all who oppose the iron sun concept.
and who seem stuck in the over 90% hydrogen sun world:

same thing..

1)
2)
3)
answers..

what is the fundamental basic evidense used to convince you that the sun is all hydrogen??

and act like im an un-educated man.. and don't assume i know stuff, and
dont just post references to other work.. Explain it to me.. simply.
i want to know what your references work is fundamentally based, on..
the evidense.
only.. evidense..

don't interpret it for me. just point out the relavant facts.
-MT