The day of reckoning. What will replace the standard solar theory?

[Michael]

It is exactly the same effect that you are pointing at with your green line. The lines originate from the surface, not from within the sun.

Nobody doubted that magnetic ropes originate above the solid surface in the first place! The lines originate at the *solid surface* and they rise 4800KM through the atmosphere before they even reach the chromosphere shown in orange. The magnetic ropes *are the light source*, and they can only occur *above the solid surface*. The limb *darkening* is the part you're ignoring, along with it's relationship to the orange band! The limb darkening in the iron lines shows us the horizon of the solid surface, whereas the inside edge of the orange band shows us where the photosphere is located. There is a 4800KM gap between the two going in the *WRONG* direction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nobody doubted that magnetic ropes originate above the solid surface in the first place!

There is no solid surface 4800KM below the photosphere. Only 4% of light makes it through 400KM of that portion of the Sun, and the opacity increases with depth.

The Photosphere of the Sun

Not only that, but heat increases with depth, and given the opacity there is nowhere for that heat to go. This puts the temperature at 4800KM at around 9000K, well above the melting point of your supposed solid surface.

Add to that the pure insanity of a hollow sun needed for your solid surface fantasies . . . well, need I go on? This and many more massive problems for your hollow iron sun have already been outlined by RC:

JREF Forum - View Single Post - [Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries...

 

[46AND2]

It's utterly baffling to me how you can think that the sun has a solid iron surface. How do you "think" you get around the temperature problem? How does iron that hot remain solid?

 

[Michael]

It's utterly baffling to me how you can think that the sun has a solid iron surface.

Welcome to the conversation. You'd have to read the website to have some appreciation of *why* I think there is a solid surface on the sun.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

Suffice to say it's mostly based upon satellite images and heliosceismology data.

How do you "think" you get around the temperature problem? How does iron that hot remain solid?

One primary difference between the standard model and a Birkeland cathode model is the fact that a Birkeland model has more cooler layers sitting underneath of hotter layers than the standard model. The standard model has a million degree corona sitting on top of a 20K chromosphere, that sits on top of a 5800 Kelvin photosphere. The silicon plasma layer that sits under the Neon photosphere in a Birkeland model is significantly thicker and cooler than the surface of the photosphere. That deep silicon layer acts as a temperature buffer, along with the constant stream of charged particles from the cathode surface. The net effect is to move heat up and away from the surface and into the lighter, thinner, hotter layers above.

During sunspot activity, 4000 degree plasmas are often observed in the umbra. That is the part of the silicon plasma double layer 'upwelling' from below. Compared to other silicon plasma in the solar atmosphere, that 4000 degree plasma in the umbra is quite "hot" actually. The silicon plasma double layer is over 4000KM in depth and it's quite "cool" (about 1200K) where it meets up with the actual solid surface.

The overall temperature of the sun is a combination of radiation from various plasma double layers in the solar atmosphere, some thinner and hotter than others.

 

[Michael]

There is no solid surface 4800KM below the photosphere. Only 4% of light makes it through 400KM of that portion of the Sun, and the opacity increases with depth.

You're still quoting a *falsified* solar theory? You seem to fail to recognize the significance of not only the HMI data, but the AIA images as well. That first light image *destroys* all your claims related to the "opacity" of the thing you're calling a "photosphere". It's not "opaque" to iron ion wavelengths, at least not until about 4800KM *under* the thing you claimed was "opaque". It's quite obviously *not* opaque to these wavelengths as that SDO first light image demonstrates. The limb darkening in the iron lines takes place a full 4800Km *under* the chromosphere/photosphere boundary.

Not only that, but heat increases with depth, and given the opacity there is nowhere for that heat to go.

It's not "opaque" in a Birkeland solar model, therefore there is plenty of places for the heat to go, most notably out into space along with all the moving charged particles flowing from the cathode surface.

This puts the temperature at 4800KM at around 9000K, well above the melting point of your supposed solid surface.

But then the umbra of a sunspot blows your claims out of the water. We often see plasmas in the umbra of a much *lower* temperature, therefore *crushing* your claims about it being "opaque" and there being nowhere for the heat to go. In fact umbra temperature are often *thousands* (plural) of degrees cooler than the 5800K photosphere.

Add to that the pure insanity of a hollow sun needed for your solid surface fantasies . . .

Not my model. I've never claimed the sun was hollow. Apparently the insanity you're experiencing is the due to fact you've never actually listened to a word I've said.

This and many more massive problems for your hollow iron sun have already been outlined by RC:

RC hasn't read a single textbook on plasma physics, and I'd venture to guess that you have not read one either. Neither one of you has particularly good listening skills since you both talk about hollow suns and I've never proposed anything of the sort. Quote me where I claimed that the sun was 'hollow'.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're still quoting a *falsified* solar theory?]/quote]

You have never shown how it has been falsified.

That first light image *destroys* all your claims related to the "opacity" of the thing you're calling a "photosphere".

Just as this photo destroys the claims that the skull is opaque:

It clearly shows that steam is rising from within the brain and goes through the skull. I can demonstrate this by measuring the distance from the top of the skull limb to the emergence of the steam from within the skull which is several inches.

RC hasn't read a single textbook on plasma physics, and I'd venture to guess that you have not read one either. Neither one of you has particularly good listening skills since you both talk about hollow suns and I've never proposed anything of the sort. Quote me where I claimed that the sun was 'hollow'.

So says the person proposing a hollow iron sun.

 

[Michael]

You have never shown how it has been falsified.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

Say bye-bye to standard solar theory. It's most important and key prediction in terms of solar physics was off by *two whole orders of magnitude*!

Just as this photo destroys the claims that the skull is opaque:

If so, I don't see how. I can see light reflecting from it and lighting up hairs along the edge. I can see water on it. I can see steam rising from it. That image only has a single light source vs. trillions of light sources in a iron ion solar image, so I fail to see how it's even remotely related to solar physics.

Show me a relevant image. Show me a iron ion images of the sun that doesn't show a bright horizon sitting directly above a dark limbed disk all along the edge of the limb.

It clearly shows that steam is rising from within the brain and goes through the skull.

It shows nothing of the sort at the limb where I'm talking about. In fact it shows reflected light at the limb, *falsifying* your claim outright.

I can demonstrate this by measuring the distance from the top of the skull limb to the emergence of the steam from within the skull which is several inches.

Do you have anything related to solar physics to talk about?

So says the person proposing a hollow iron sun.

Apparently you have comprehension problems. I asked you to point me to any quote where I claimed the sun was "hollow". I have never made such a claim. Either you have never spent any time understanding my statements, or you simply refuse to correctly represent my statements. Are you intentionally falsely testifying against someone on a Christian forum?

 

[Loudmouth]

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

Say bye-bye to standard solar theory. It's most important and key prediction in terms of solar physics was off by *two whole orders of magnitude*!

How does this indicate that the Sun is a hollow iron ball?

If so, I don't see how. I can see light reflecting from it and lighting up hairs along the edge. I can see water on it. I can see steam rising from it. That image only has a single light source vs. trillions of light sources in a iron ion solar image, so I fail to see how it's even remotely related to solar physics.

Did you measure the distance from the top of the head to where the steam starts? It is quite a few inches from within the head using the very same logic you are.

Show me a relevant image. Show me a iron ion images of the sun that doesn't show a bright horizon sitting directly above a dark limbed disk all along the edge of the limb.

Show me your solid surface in this photo:

http://ia600505.us.archive.org/18/i...1-orig/447365main_f_211_193_171-orig_full.jpg

Where is the supposed green line? Did it just disappear that day?

Do you have anything related to solar physics to talk about?

So says the guy who thinks the Sun is a hollow iron ball.

I asked you to point me to any quote where I claimed the sun was "hollow". I have never made such a claim.

The mass measurements require it. You already know this as it has been shown to you on numerous occasions.

 

[Michael]

How does this indicate that the Sun is a hollow iron ball?

First of all you asked me for evidence that falsified the standard model, and I gave it to you. Secondly, I have never suggested that the sun was a "hollow iron ball", that's apparently your own misstatement of fact.

Did you measure the distance from the top of the head to where the steam starts? It is quite a few inches from within the head using the very same logic you are.

Oy Vey.

Show me your solid surface in this photo:

http://ia600505.us.archive.org/18/i...1-orig/447365main_f_211_193_171-orig_full.jpg

Along the limb,it the limb darkened are, right below the bright horizon line.

Where is the supposed green line? Did it just disappear that day?

It's the light blue "bright horizon" line that sits directly above the limb darkened surface. In this case it's light blue due to the choice of color assignments given to the iron ion wavelengths, in this case three lines rather than two.

So says the guy who thinks the Sun is a hollow iron ball.

Apparently you're talking about yourself since I have never made any such claim.

The mass measurements require it. You already know this as it has been shown to you on numerous occasions.

The mass measurements of the sun require nothing of the sort. I did in fact sit down and calculate the mass and density of the interior, less the crust and the various sized cores for Nereid once upon a time. I worked out to just about the density of water.

The only thing that rings hollow is your blatant and continuous misrepresentation of my beliefs and statements.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all you asked me for evidence that falsified the standard model, and I gave it to you.

How does it falsify the model?

Secondly, I have never suggested that the sun was a "hollow iron ball", that's apparently your own misstatement of fact.

So what is inside of the iron surface? Any fusion going on in there?

Along the limb,it the limb darkened are, right below the bright horizon line.

It isn't there.

It's the light blue "bright horizon" line that sits directly above the limb darkened surface. In this case it's light blue due to the choice of color assignments given to the iron ion wavelengths, in this case three lines rather than two.

That is not the green line that you are pointing at in the other picture. It seems to have disappeared.

 

[Michael]

How does it falsify the model?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7718970/#post62256812

Did you even read the first post of this thread? I even quoted the relevant scientists for you:

“If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”

So, they have need of an overhaul of at least two major aspects of their solar claims, one related to mass separation, and one related to the strong magnetic fields in the sun and the solar atmosphere, which of course are actually created by strong *currents* in a Birkeland solar model.

So what is inside of the iron surface? Any fusion going on in there?

Apparently so, since Birkeland "predicted" that the sun was powered by a 'transmutation of elements' and neutrino data would seem to confirm that prediction he made over 100 years ago.

It isn't there.

Of course it's there, it's the limb darkened area just below the bright horizon line in *every* iron ion related image of the sun. Show me one iron ion image from *any* solar satellite that doesn't show the same limb darkening feature at the 'surface' along the limb.

That is not the green line that you are pointing at in the other picture. It seems to have disappeared.

No, it didn't "disappear", it simply "changed colors" in this case to mostly a light blue around most of the horizon, and a dark blue around the poles. Again, the color of the horizon depend *entirely* upon the colors they assign to the iron ion wavelengths. Regardless of which colors they give the iron ion wavelengths, they all show the same limb darkening feature along the surface of the sun all along the limb, just under the bright horizon line. Pity for you that the the first light images of SDO show that the 'opaque surface' we see in iron related images is *4800* KM *under* the photosphere/chromosphere boundary.

SDO falsified mainstream theory in it's very first few AIA images of the sun. The HMI equipment has also been used to falsify mainstream solar theory. It's *definitely* time for a major overhaul. It's time to select a new solar model, one that can actually explain the existence of high currents and large magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere, and one that jives with the AIA images.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you even read the first post of this thread? I even quoted the relevant scientists for you:

So how does this falsify the model whereby the Sun produces heat through fusion without a solid iron surface around the outside of it?

Apparently so, since Birkeland "predicted" that the sun was powered by a 'transmutation of elements' and neutrino data would seem to confirm that prediction he made over 100 years ago.

But we have the density of water. Last I checked, there is no fusion going on in the ocean. If we have the majority of the mass on the outside in a rigid body, as your model has it, we can not have fusion.

Of course it's there,

No, it isn't. Please, show zoomed in photos and point to it. It isn't there. All you have is a doctored PR photo.

 

[InternetApostle]

Michael, your ideas are very interesting. What do you think about heliocentrism?

 

[Michael]

So how does this falsify the model whereby the Sun produces heat through fusion without a solid iron surface around the outside of it?

The heliosceismology data only falsifies standard theory, as do the SDO images. Whatever solar model ultimately prevails, it *will not* be the standard solar theory that is taught in school today. Get used to it.

But we have the density of water. Last I checked, there is no fusion going on in the ocean.

It's an *average density*, just as the standard model has an *average* density that is only *slightly higher* than Birkeland one (1.4 vs. 1.2-1.0). It's not the *average* density that matters in terms of fusion, it's the *conditions in the current carrying ropes* near the core that matter most.

If we have the majority of the mass on the outside in a rigid body, as your model has it, we can not have fusion.

False. The model in my published papers depends upon fusion near the core. It's generated in large discharges near the core, and even some discharges in the solar atmosphere.

No, it isn't. Please, show zoomed in photos and point to it. It isn't there. All you have is a doctored PR photo.

Every single Iron ion image shows a bright horizon sitting above a limb darkened disk along the horizon. This occurs *without exception* in every iron ion wavelength, on every spacecraft. SDO is not the exception in that observation, it just demonstrates the process in higher resolution, and it shows those features in relationship to the chromosphere/photosphere boundary.

[FONT=&quot]Your accusation of NASA "doctoring" the first light images is very offensive to me frankly. Unless you have documented evidence that NASA in any way "doctored" that image, you come off as a moon landing "skeptic" that makes reckless and unsupported allegations. [/FONT]

I might disagree with some of NASA claims, but I have *never* and would never accuse them of "doctoring' important images, and I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that NASA "doctored" that image. Do you? If not, you owe them a public apology.

 

[Michael]

Michael, your ideas are very interesting. What do you think about heliocentrism?

That was cute. Welcome to the discussion.

 

[InternetApostle]

That was cute. Welcome to the discussion.

???

EDIT: I take it by your response, you mean you're a heliocentrist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

???

EDIT: I take it by your response, you mean you're a heliocentrist?

Far from it, though his ideas are definitely not orthodox when it comes to astronomy.

 

[InternetApostle]

Cool. I'm glad I found this place. It's rare to find others that put the Bible over science. Even the catholic church embraces heliocentrism these days.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool. I'm glad I found this place. It's rare to find others that put the Bible over science. Even the catholic church embraces heliocentrism these days.

Big Oops on my part:o:o. I meant to say he does believe the Earth rotates around the Sun. And that the Sun rotates around the Milky Way.

But if you believe in an Earth Centered system why not go all the way and revert to a view of a Flat Earth. A spherical Earth is no more Biblical than a heliocentric one.

 

[InternetApostle]

Because the Bible states over and over that the Earth is stationary and immovable, and that the sun revolves around it. But it doesn't say the Earth is flat.