Micheal's solar model

[RealityCheck01]

Michael asked me to start a new thread about his solar model

Stop hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss solar physics (something else you know nothing about), do it in the right thread. I won't respond to your solar questions in this thread.

so here it is .

Unless Michael has come up with a new solar model in the last few months then this is his idea that the Sun has a rigid iron crust.
Here is his web site: The surface of the Sun. The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.

There are many problems with this idea starting with the little fact that the photosphere is defined as the region where light escapes from the Sun. Thus by definition you can not see light from "under the photosphere" !
The opacity of the photosphere means that you cannot even see more than 100 kilometers below the top of the photosphere. Astronomers have tried really hard to look as deep as they can into the photosphere and that is the limit that physics stops them at.

The next problem is that the temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K as he admits here (but will probably retract) and the mainstream evidence supports. The melting point of Fe is 1811 K. So no iron surface can exist, rigid or not.

So let us see if Michael presents an actual model and predictions.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The surface of the Sun. The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.

A current problem with the web site is that there seems to only be the front page available - the other pages cannot be found, e.g. NASA's Hubble And Chandra Telescopes provides evidence of an ancient universe.

So what can we find on the front page?
A link to a PDF where Michael claims that that iron surface is a ferrite layer. Ferrites are solids! Not a good start.

 

[Tiberius]

I look forward to seeing his responses, as well as his explanations of the mechanisms which allow this to take place.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Don't you see? It all makes perfect sense when you ignore all the physics, and all that boring science stuff that just comes from the devil trying to trick you! I'm onto you satan, you can't fool me.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Deafening silance from Michael .
So here is a question that I asked before on the JREF forum:
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010

This is 1 of 65 questions about your model that you have not been able to answer since May 2011 and earlier. But now you have an actual model with actual predictions. So you should be able to answer the questions now.

 

[keith99]

I have a question related to number 47:

Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work?

Why do we see the spectral lines mainly from Hydrogen and not from Neon if the predominant gas above the Iron is Neon?

I'm one of those nasty science kind of guys who actually took real classes in college that had real labs where I did things like creating slides wh=ith the lines and matching them up.

Did every step myself (along with my lab partner). All by hand, nothing fancier than a prism and a silver emulsion on a slide.

 

[Michael]

FYI, Keith, I answered your question in the solar theory thread that I started back in January. This is a redundant thread and RC even butchered my name, so I'd just as soon we keep all the information in a single thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7620486-10/#post61582158

The mods are welcome to close this thread by the way.

 

[RealityCheck01]

is a redundant thread and RC even butchered my name, so I'd just as soon we keep all the information in a single thread.

Ok - see you in that thread, Michael.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Still no evidence presented by Michael to support his model, e.g.
"This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere" and so will emit the spectrum of neon, not mostly hydrogen + helium + about 0.12% neon.
Or that the transition region which is physically between the chromosphere and corona in the solar atmosphere is teleported somehow to below the Sun's surface.

So let us see if Michael presents an actual model and predictions.

 

[[serious]]

Old thread, i didn't know that he previously suggested a rigid sun surface.

@Michael, do you still hold this view?

 

[Michael]

Still no evidence presented by Michael to support his model, e.g.

You're in pure denial of empirical physics RC. Birkeland's cathode model *works in the lab*, unlike all the mainstream "pseudoscience" which *actually* begin and end with current flow and *circuits* and which stop working the moment that the current stops flowing.

Notice the corona and the aurora around the spheres of his *working* model RC? That's the "empirical testing" that you folks never did.

"This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere" and so will emit the spectrum of neon, not mostly hydrogen + helium + about 0.12% neon.

According to the spectral data, the sun not only emits a *few* wavelengths of light from a few ions of neon, it emits light from up and down the entire ion spectrum, just like we see with Iron and Nickel. Those electrical circuits which Birkeland talked about sustain the discharges in the solar atmosphere which we then observe in higher ion wavelengths galore from every element under the sun.

The sun's atmosphere is simply arranged in layers with hydrogen and helium, composing the corona and chromosphere, and heavier plasma layers (including neon) further arranged deeper in the atmosphere.

Or that the transition region which is physically between the chromosphere and corona in the solar atmosphere is teleported somehow to below the Sun's surface.

The light from the base of the coronal loops is visible from *below* the surface of the photosphere.

I notice that you and Bridgman continue to avoid dealing with your serious "reconnection" problem when SDO data demonstrated that any amount of "convection" that might be taking place is a full two orders of magnitude *smaller* than you originally "predicted"! Oooopsy?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07...wer-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/

I assume more denial of your failed predictions will follow?

 

[Michael]

Old thread, i didn't know that he previously suggested a rigid sun surface.

@Michael, do you still hold this view?

Well, actually, after seeing the various SDO images for years now, I'm even more convinced now that the sun does indeed have a solid crust rather than simply a more dense layer of plasma that is sitting underneath of the surface of the photosphere.

The way that various electrical discharges erupt and gain strength in the solar atmosphere all around the sphere are entire consistent with volcanic activity IMO. The moment that any non ionized material hits the highly ionized plasma atmosphere, the electrical energy immediately starts to ionize that new material and it tends to 'light up' the region directly above the volcanic event. We see electrical discharges in and around volcanic events here on Earth too.

It still 'could be' that the layer underneath of the photosphere is simply composed of a more dense plasma, but IMO the data heavily favors a solid volcanic surface.

Something relatively "rigid" however allows the various "structures" that can be seen in iron ion running difference images to survive for hours and even days, not just few minutes as is the case with the structures on the surface of the photosphere which tend to come and go in about 10 minute intervals.

 

[[serious]]

Well, actually, after seeing the various SDO images for years now, I'm even more convinced now that the sun does indeed have a solid crust rather than simply a more dense layer of plasma that is sitting underneath of the surface of the photosphere.

The way that various electrical discharges erupt and gain strength in the solar atmosphere all around the sphere are entire consistent with volcanic activity IMO. The moment that any non ionized material hits the highly ionized plasma atmosphere, the electrical energy immediately starts to ionize that new material and it tends to 'light up' the region directly above the volcanic event. We see electrical discharges in and around volcanic events here on Earth too.

It still 'could be' that the layer underneath of the photosphere is simply composed of a more dense plasma, but IMO the data heavily favors a solid volcanic surface.

Something relatively "rigid" however allows the various "structures" that can be seen in iron ion running difference images to survive for hours and even days, not just few minutes as is the case with the structures on the surface of the photosphere which tend to come and go in about 10 minute intervals.

What would be solid at those temperatures?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Solid iron? Neon? He was doing better when he just waved his hands and said 'plasma'.

 

[Michael]

What would be solid at those temperatures?

I would assume that it depends on exactly what temperatures we find at the actual surface. The mostly hydrogen corona layer of plasma is much hotter than the chromosphere which in turn is also much hotter than the surface of the photosphere. I believe that there are additional plasma layers between the surface of the photosphere and the surface of the sun. The inner layers of plasma tend to be cooler than outer ones due to the electrical current that traverses the entire system. That's also why we observe lower temperatures inside sunspots during sunspot activity when plasma from lower and cooler atmospheric layers are heated up and material rises up and through the surface of the photosphere.

I'd guess that the solid surface is less than 1200K.

 

[Michael]

Solid iron? Neon? He was doing better when he just waved his hands and said 'plasma'.

I doubt that the surface is solid iron. More likely it's mostly Carbon and rocky types of materials, probably a lot like the crust of Mercury in composition.

IMO, one of the most puzzling aspects of reviewing the SERTS spectral data of the sun was the presence of pretty much every Neon (and Silicon) ion that is present in the spectrum, and the amount of light from each of those wavelengths. At photosphere surface temperatures we simply wouldn't expect to see much output from higher ionization states of Neon.

I also struggled at first to figure out why sunspots were so much darker, and why the materials around sunspots emitted so much less visible light compared to the surface of the photosphere, and the angular patterns that are associated with the penumbra around the sunspot. I was also puzzled by the various "boundaries" between the surface of the photosphere, the chromosphere, and the corona.

Once it dawned on me that the plasma in the solar atmosphere might be mass separated by the element, the delineation between various atmospheric plasma layers made a lot more sense, as well as sunspot activity.

The material inside the sunspots is mostly composed of a different element (Silicon) than the rest of the surface of the photosphere (Neon). That's why there's such visual difference between the areas, and that upwelling material is what generates the penumbral filaments and angular sunspot patterns.

Additional plasma layers in the solar atmosphere also explains how it might be possible for cooler plasma layers to exist under the photosphere, and it explains why the plasma seen inside sunspots can often be thousands of degrees cooler than the surface of the photosphere too.

IMO the sun's atmosphere is mostly mass separated by the element, with hydrogen making up the corona, helium making up the chromosphere, and the photosphere being composed of mostly Neon. There are of course all kinds of trace elements flowing all throughout the solar atmosphere. It's not cleanly separated, but it's mostly separated. I also believe that there is a much deeper and cooler double layer of silicon that sits under the surface of the photosphere.

Id assume that the "rigid" (IMO solid) surface sits about 4800 KM below the surface of the photosphere, and most of that distance is made up of Silicon plasma. At around 4800KM below the surface of sunspots, Kosovichev noticed a significant change (flattening out) of the mass flow patterns in his helioseismology studies. IMO that's where the crust is located.

 

[Michael]

One of the interesting aspects of active regions as observed in satellite imagery is that they tend to crop up somewhat (not completely) randomly at various locations on the surface, and they tend to stay localized to one specific area for days, and sometimes even weeks on end. That's quite a feat for a region that is supposed to be experiencing all sorts of turbulence below it, and differential rotation, in supposedly very "thin" plasma.

If however the active region is simply centered over a volcanic event, the center of activity remaining fixed in one specific region for days and weeks on end makes a lot of sense.

The other interesting observations that Birkeland noted in his experiments with various textures of terellas, is that the electrical discharge activity tended to concentrate itself near the "bumps" on the surface. He also noted that he could put a strong magnetic field inside of his model and by cranking up the field, he could concentrate the electrical activity into two distinct bands in the northern and the southern hemisphere, just as we observe during the sun's magnetic field 'rotation' every 11 years.

Birkeland's solid cathode solar model produces a corona just like our own sun, and it generates an aurora around our planet as we also observe here on Earth.

Now you might try to point at the relatively hot corona around that solar sphere and just *assume* that nothing "cooler" could exist beneath that relatively hot layer of plasma, but you'd be seriously mistaken. Likewise I believe that our cathode sun has a solid volcanic surface, and that volcanic activity is part of what drives the active regions on the surface of the sun, and those volcanic events are what concentrate and keep the activity concentrated in one basic region of the surface for day and weeks on end.

Keep in mind, I'm still "open" to the notion of a simply more "rigid" layer of plasma located beneath the surface of the photosphere, but the SDO imagery tends to favor a solid surface model IMO. The RD images at 131A in particular tend to leave very distinct "rigid and angular patterns" that can be observed for many days, even weeks on end. I believe such persistent angular features are more easily explained as being related to solid surface features which produce consistent electrical discharge patterns around their various solid angular features.

 

[[serious]]

I would assume that it depends on exactly what temperatures we find at the actual surface. The mostly hydrogen corona layer of plasma is much hotter than the chromosphere which in turn is also much hotter than the surface of the photosphere. I believe that there are additional plasma layers between the surface of the photosphere and the surface of the sun. The inner layers of plasma tend to be cooler than outer ones due to the electrical current that traverses the entire system. That's also why we observe lower temperatures inside sunspots during sunspot activity when plasma from lower and cooler atmospheric layers are heated up and material rises up and through the surface of the photosphere.

I'd guess that the solid surface is less than 1200K.

I thought we were talking about right under the photosphere, correct? Are you questioning the temperature of the photosphere or moving the proposed surface well below the photosphere?

 

[[serious]]

Keep in mind, I'm still "open" to the notion of a simply more "rigid" layer of plasma located beneath the surface of the photosphere,

Hold on, how can a plasma be rigid? Solids, liquids, gases and plasmas are all distinct phases of matter. It's like saying you have a circular square.

 

[Michael]

I thought we were talking about right under the photosphere, correct? Are you questioning the temperature of the photosphere or moving the proposed surface well below the photosphere?

I doubt it's "right under" the surface of the photosphere. It's more like 4800 kilometers under the surface of the photosphere.

Ultimately I'm not questioning the temperature of the surface of the photosphere anymore than I'm questioning the surface of the chromosphere. Ultimately I'm questioning the *opacity* of the photosphere, and I'm essentially adding additional plasma "layers" to the model. Just as the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere, which is cooler than the corona, plasma layers under the photosphere are cooler than the layers above.