The Surface Of The Sun

[Michael]

The materials issue is an important one. The failure to specify what this solid surface is made of and compare their spectral lines with observes solar spectral lines makes the point moot.

Did I miss this information somewhere? It is rather fundamental to the topic.

Ok, I think I can finally make an educated guess and give you an answer that question. The answer that this layer is most likely it's composed of calcium ferrite, with whatever impurities might be required to keep it "solid" at the temperatures at the bottom of the photosphere.

I added a page called observations that you might read through. There are links there to support the temperature extremes and the testing that has been done on these materials in earth like conditions.

 

[Michael]

Sounds to me like you are assuming that despite all the scientific evidence we have that nothing can exist as a solid in those conditions, that ceramic forms of ferrite can. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well could be, but you probably shouldn't trying to discredit other's by saying they are assuming when you are assuming yourself.

Well, I'm certainly going to have to make some assumptions sooner or later. The difference between their assumptions and mine is that my assuptions are backed by solid evidence, in this case the wavelength of the photons in question. Iron ferrite ions can and do emit photons at that wavelength and these have already been observed by TRACE. I have a good photo the surface on the solar moss page where you can see three different spectrums of energy emitting from the same set of surface features. Each of these spectral lines can be trace to very specific types of ferrite ions, ions composed of iron. The presense of calcium is documented to exist in the chromosphere. I'm making no great leaps of faith so to speak. What does the gas model crowd have to offer us to explain such images, and how does iron "float" on top of hydrogen?

Now, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm all for questioning the world around us and it's view on life and the universe, but just be careful. Don't get so argumentative that you lose the ability to reason, think, and accept the fact that despite your best efforts you could be wrong.

I certainly accept that I might be wrong, but I must also make it quite clear that I might be right. Galileo's gas model was made 400 years ago using a primitive telescope and in all that time none of the scientists on earth have been able to explain the phenomenon we see on the sun. With this model, I can and have explained these phenomenon in great detail and you are welcome to make up your own mind in the matter. All I'm asking you to do is consider what I'm saying with an open mind, and offer me a "better" more scientific explaination for these images.

You say you have poured months of work into this. Yes, that is a long time. But nothing compared to the amount of time Einstein spent postulating a theory of everything, and he never succeeded.

But don't forget that I've studied the sun all my adult life and I'm no spring chicken. I've learned about electricity and photons and a lot of things that allow me to understand and explain what I'm seeing in scientific detail. I put my work out there so other could critique if for themselves. All I ask is a fair consideration of the idea.

If you want us to be open-minded to you, you must be open-minded to us.

I will certainly try to do that, but I will expect from you what I expected from myself, namely a "better", most elegant explanation for these important observations using the very best high tech satellite imagery available.

Why is it that I can explain so many of the phenomenon we see on the sun, from solar flares, to solar moss, the cause of moving sunspots, and the observed electromagnetic activity with this model, and the gas model crowd cannot?

 

[RoboMastodon]

Here it goes...

Actually, I'm not sure that stars form from hydrogen gas as the currrent theories suggest.

Well, considering the flies in the face of mainstream cosmology, I'm going to have to disagree due to the mere fact that baryogenesis only produces protons (i.e. hydrogen nuclei) and neutrons. If your statement above was true, then the universe would still be 100% composed of hydrogen.

I'd say the surface is composed of ferrite based on the fact that the 171 and 195 angstrom filters are designed to see very specific forms of excited ferrite emissions.

Photospheric compositions:
Hydrogen: 73.46 %
Helium: 24.85 %
Oxygen: 0.77 %
Carbon: 0.29 %
Iron: 0.16 %
Neon: 0.12 %
Nitrogen: 0.09 %
Silicon: 0.07 %
Magnesium: 0.05 %
Sulfur 0.04 %
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

The magnetic properties of ferrite also seem like just the material we need to explain these electrical arcs and magnetic surface alignments.

It is quite obvious here that you have not studied plasma physics. Electromagnetic properties of plasma have been demonstrated in labs, for that is the part of the very definition of a plasma and what differentiates it from a gas. A metallic compound is not necessary.

First of all, it is already known that the temperatures at the base of the photosphere are much cooler than the surface temperatures..

Temperature gradients for the photosphere show that it is hotter at the base than it is at the surface.

We don't really know what the temperature is at the very base of this layer.

Plasma physics and spectroscopic analysis gives pretty accurate models and allows us to estimate this.

We know from sunspot activity that the cooler areas of the photosphere are located in the LOWER areas of the photosphere.

Wrong, temperature decreases as radius increases. I don't see how this correlates to sunspot activity.

What the actual surface temperature might be at the actual base of this layer still remains a mystery to some degree.

Perhaps in precision, please specify excatly what you mean and where this source of uncertainty comes from.

Secondly, we can't adequately test how ceramic forms of ferrite will act in very high gravity wells, inside very high magnetic fields, when covered by a liquid-like plasma that conducts heat.

Well, we don't see enough iron on the sun for there to be any significant amount of "ceramic forms of ferrite" (reseasrching material sciences at the moment I have a hunch that this is BS also). Also, I don't see how "gravity wells" would have any effect on solid-state structures.

In short, it's WAY to early to be claiming "nothing" solid can exist at the base of the photosphere.

Given the high temperatures, and violent environment that is the photosphere I don't think it is physically possible for a solid to exist. The bonding energies between the molecules that allow it to form a rigid structure would be too weak to support such an environment.

We don't really KNOW that. We ASSUME this to be the case. My findings and my model call such ASSUPTIONS into question.

Do you have a problem with spectroscopic analysis? If so, please state your objections.

Again, these are all THEORIES that have never been PROVEN through observation.

I'm going to pretend I didn't hear this and assume you know better.

My model on the other hand was put together ENTIRELY through observation. More importantly I can use this model to explain virtually every observed phenomenon we see happening in these satellite images. That is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the gas model that for over 400 years has yet to explain even the more rudimentary elements of the suns activities like solar flares or changing sunspots.

So can current plasma physics models, and they seem to be far more parsimonious and they fit empirical data as well, not just qualitative phenomena. Lastly, like your "photino" model, you have not provided rigorous mathematical (i.e. physics) justification for any of your hypothesis, only qualitative conjecture.

Well, I'm certainly going to have to make some assumptions sooner or later. The difference between their assumptions and mine is that my assuptions are backed by solid evidence, in this case the wavelength of the photons in question. Iron ferrite ions can and do emit photons at that wavelength and these have already been observed by TRACE. I have a good photo the surface on the solar moss page where you can see three different spectrums of energy emitting from the same set of surface features. Each of these spectral lines can be trace to very specific types of ferrite ions, ions composed of iron. The presense of calcium is documented to exist in the chromosphere. I'm making no great leaps of faith so to speak. What does the gas model crowd have to offer us to explain such images, and how does iron "float" on top of hydrogen?

Source please? Spectral lines of the sun normally show it to have a very low iron and calcium composition.

I certainly accept that I might be wrong, but I must also make it quite clear that I might be right. Galileo's gas model was made 400 years ago using a primitive telescope and in all that time none of the scientists on earth have been able to explain the phenomenon we see on the sun.

The "gas" model has improved boatloads since Galileo, the amount of knowledge we have on the sun's structures and dynamics is immense to what Galileo knew.

But don't forget that I've studied the sun all my adult life and I'm no spring chicken. I've learned about electricity and photons and a lot of things that allow me to understand and explain what I'm seeing in scientific detail. I put my work out there so other could critique if for themselves. All I ask is a fair consideration of the idea.

But you don't have any formal education in physics. Unfortunately, our current theories about the sun are very heavy in things such as plasma physics which have some rooting in electrodynamics and partially quantum mechanics.

So, Michael, why don't you submit these findings of yours to scientific journals? Anyway, if we are going to go about this the proper way, please submit the basic tenets of your "model" along with empirical justifcation for each tenet and how it fits the data better than our knowledge of how plasma physics, magnetohydrodynamics, and astrophysics in general apply to the Sun. Some simulations would be nice too, as our current models are supported by them.

Edit - I'd probably recommend for you to do it here (http://physicsforums.com) as there are actually trained physicists and astronomers of all kinds and the forums is actually geared towards the sciences and not just an obscure sub-forum of a christian forum.

Edit2 - Questions:
(1) Is this "solid" photosphere rigid throughout? Or is it more like sand? Or is it like "plates" of rigid calcium ferrite that float around the sun?
(2) If the former is true, then how does your "model" explain sunspots? It's been demonstrated that sunspots are regions of much higher magnetic fields due to the winding of the magnetic field caused by differential rotation. Differential rotation is not possible if the entire surface is rigid.
(3) How does this fit in into our current knowledge of stellar astronomy. What types of stars have this "solid surface" and what don't? It would seem extremely silly to think that supernova could have solid surfaces.
(4) How does a fully rigid solid surface in the photosphere account for the fact that the photosphere is not fully opaque?

 

[Michael]

Well, considering the flies in the face of mainstream cosmology, I'm going to have to disagree due to the mere fact that baryogenesis only produces protons (i.e. hydrogen nuclei) and neutrons. If your statement above was true, then the universe would still be 100% composed of hydrogen.

You are simply ASSUMING a preexisting set of conditions at the moment of the BB based on the gas model of suns. It's circular in the sense that the gas model is then used to predict BB events, etc, etc.

Photospheric compositions:
Hydrogen: 73.46 %
Helium: 24.85 %
Oxygen: 0.77 %
Carbon: 0.29 %
Iron: 0.16 %
Neon: 0.12 %
Nitrogen: 0.09 %
Silicon: 0.07 %
Magnesium: 0.05 %
Sulfur 0.04 %
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Yes, I'm well aware of what the science "bible" says. Then again these "predictions" are all based on Galileo's gas model. If that model isn't accurate, then neither is wikipedia explanation.

It is quite obvious here that you have not studied plasma physics. Electromagnetic properties of plasma have been demonstrated in labs, for that is the part of the very definition of a plasma and what differentiates it from a gas. A metallic compound is not necessary.

A metallic compound IS necessary to explain the photon emissions and the solid features we see at 171 angstroms however. These are telltale signs of ferrite ion emissions that are consistent with a (calcium?) ferrite surface that conducts electricity.

Temperature gradients for the photosphere show that it is hotter at the base than it is at the surface.

That is certainly true when we look at a sunspot during a solar eruption, or crack in the surface. What is a lot LESS understood is how this layer functions during NORMAL conditions.

Plasma physics and spectroscopic analysis gives pretty accurate models and allows us to estimate this.

I don't quite follow where you think I'm deviating from these plasma physics models.

Wrong, temperature decreases as radius increases. I don't see how this correlates to sunspot activity.

http://soi.stanford.edu/press/ssu11-01/Sasha/MPEG/sunssu2s.mpg

The temperature at the surface during an eruptions is elevated, but it's also cooled by other areas that surround this upwards moving column of heated plasma. If you notice in this video, you'll see lots of blue areas at the bottom of the photosphere in areas AWAY from the "hot spot" that is causing the hole to form in the penumbral filaments.

Perhaps in precision, please specify excatly what you mean and where this source of uncertainty comes from.

The uncertainty comes from your insistence that EVERY area along the base of the photosphere is ALWAYS hotter than the surface. That simply is not the case as the movie will demonstrate.

Well, we don't see enough iron on the sun for there to be any significant amount of "ceramic forms of ferrite" (reseasrching material sciences at the moment I have a hunch that this is BS also).

We certainly see LOTS of ferrite ion emissions from the TRACE and SOHO satellites. The only reason you BELEIVE there isn't iron there is because that's what the gas model predicts. This whole website is devoted to overturning that 400 year old model and every prediction it makes through careful OBSERVATION.

Also, I don't see how "gravity wells" would have any effect on solid-state structures.

The increase in gravity and electromagnetic flow might cause them to remain stable at higher temperatures than they do on earth.

Given the high temperatures, and violent environment that is the photosphere I don't think it is physically possible for a solid to exist. The bonding energies between the molecules that allow it to form a rigid structure would be too weak to support such an environment.

Well, I actually agree with that since I think this ferrite layer is UNDERNEATH the photosphere itself. The ion emissions in these images comes from SOMETHING. If not ferrite that is being ionized by electricity, then what?

Do you have a problem with spectroscopic analysis? If so, please state your objections.

Not at all. In fact I'd like you to explain how we see such rigid surfaces with these specific spectroscopic signatures.

I'm going to pretend I didn't hear this and assume you know better.

I know that the gas model has a TERRIBLE and I do mean TERRIBLE track record of explaining the phenomenon we see from these satellite images. Nasa can't explain solar moss, the cause of solar flares, the changes in sunspots, etc. A solid surface model can and does explain these behaviors. I'd say a solid surface model has FAR better explanative abilities over the current gas model actually.

So can current plasma physics models, and they seem to be far more parsimonious and they fit empirical data as well, not just qualitative phenomena. Lastly, like your "photino" model, you have not provided rigorous mathematical (i.e. physics) justification for any of your hypothesis, only qualitative conjecture.

I see nothing about my model that isn't backed by plasma physics as we understand it. I'm not even going to think about dealing with the photino issue in this thread. It's a topic in and of itself and has nothing to do with the solid surface model that I've presented.

Source please? Spectral lines of the sun normally show it to have a very low iron and calcium composition.

Could you explain the 171, 195 and 284 angstrom emissions in absense of ferrite ions for me?

The "gas" model has improved boatloads since Galileo, the amount of knowledge we have on the sun's structures and dynamics is immense to what Galileo knew.

We certainly understand plasmas better and the properties of the photosphere better than Galileo. We also have new instruments with new eyes to see what lies beneath the photosphere. Unless and until you can explain the uniform movement and rigid structures we see in with these filters that are sensitive to ferrite ion emissions, I've going to have to call that yet ANOTHER thing the gas model can't explain.

But you don't have any formal education in physics. Unfortunately, our current theories about the sun are very heavy in things such as plasma physics which have some rooting in electrodynamics and partially quantum mechanics.

Yes, I was formally educated in physics. I just didn't happen to believe everything I was taught. I've studied quantum mechanics and plasma physics for more than two decades. You're relying upon an appeal to authority fallacy by the way.

So, Michael, why don't you submit these findings of yours to scientific journals?

I am in the process of doing exactly that. The problem however is that the scientific community behaves very much like the religious community when it's comfort zone is threatened. People get uptight and attached to old ideas. Some myths take time to fall from grace.

Anyway, if we are going to go about this the proper way, please submit the basic tenets of your "model" along with empirical justifcation for each tenet and how it fits the data better than our knowledge of how plasma physics, magnetohydrodynamics, and astrophysics in general apply to the Sun. Some simulations would be nice too, as our current models are supported by them.

My "model" is supported by direct evidence from three different multimillion dollar satellites. Why do I need a computer model as well to observe just like Galileo observed?

Edit - I'd probably recommend for you to do it here (http://physicsforums.com) as there are actually trained physicists and astronomers of all kinds and the forums is actually geared towards the sciences and not just an obscure sub-forum of a christian forum.

I agree. I took you up on that suggestion.

Edit2 - Questions:
(1) Is this "solid" photosphere rigid throughout?

The photosphere isn't solid. The solid surface is UNDERNEATH the photosphere. It is rigid and compose of ferrite materials.

Or is it more like sand?

If you look at the running difference movies at 171 angstroms it's being eroded, much like a bad sandstorm, but again, the surface itself is rigid.

Or is it like "plates" of rigid calcium ferrite that float around the sun?

If you think of them as TECHTONIC plates, you get the idea. You might look at the sunquake page for a better explanation.

(2) If the former is true, then how does your "model" explain sunspots?

My model explain sunspots when the surface cracks or heats up from electrical flow and the rising heated photosphere pushes through the penumbral filaments into the chromosphere, where gravity pulls it back down.

It's been demonstrated that sunspots are regions of much higher magnetic fields due to the winding of the magnetic field caused by differential rotation. Differential rotation is not possible if the entire surface is rigid.

The differential rotation is cause by two things, electrical flow activity itself and the convection process of the heat rising in the plasma of the photosphere. Again, you have to get over the notion of the photosphere being the surface. They are two ENTIRELY different LAYERS in my model. The sufaces is underneath the photosphere in my model.

(3) How does this fit in into our current knowledge of stellar astronomy.

It blows it out of the water in many ways.

What types of stars have this "solid surface" and what don't? It would seem extremely silly to think that supernova could have solid surfaces.

I would think that EVERY star has a solid surface of some kind. When that is no longer true, THEN and ONLY THEN does it go supernova.

(4) How does a fully rigid solid surface in the photosphere account for the fact that the photosphere is not fully opaque?

The photosphere (a completely different layer than the surface) forms penumbral filaments at the very top layer of this plasma, next to the chromosphere. These filaments are responsible for emitting the photons that we can see with our eyes. When they are "disolved" by rising plasma, visible holes can be seen in the photosphere.

 

[RoboMastodon]

I'm somewhat busy right now so I'm only going to address the composition of the sun portion of this debate. I'll address the rest later.

Composition of stars is measured using spectroscopy and has nothing to do with the "gas model" (The sun is composed of mostly plasma). Although I'm currently having trouble finding the exact spectral signature of the sun and how it correlates to it's composition on google.

 

[Michael]

I'm somewhat busy right now so I'm only going to address the composition of the sun portion of this debate. I'll address the rest later.

Composition of stars is measured using spectroscopy and has nothing to do with the "gas model" (The sun is composed of mostly plasma). Although I'm currently having trouble finding the exact spectral signature of the sun and how it correlates to it's composition on google.

Try:

http://physics.memphis.edu/SOLAR/instruments.htm

These emissions are directly related to Fe IX/X, XII, and XV ions in the 171 (Fe IX/X), 195 (Fe XII), and 284 (Fe XV) frequency ranges.

 

[WhirlwindMonk]

I would think that EVERY star has a solid surface of some kind. When that is no longer true, THEN and ONLY THEN does it go supernova.

What causes the loss of this layer? And are you basically saying that every star on the inside of this layer is ready to go nova, and whenever this layer breaks down, the star can expand? And what about the fact that not all stars go nova? I thought that was supported by actual observation, but I could be wrong.

 

[Michael]

Gee, and I thought religion could make people act strangely.

FYI, your friends at physicsforum.com closed my thread before I could even respond to the first few responses and took away my posting priveleges as well. What was that about? I wanted to simply point out the fact that the temp at the base of the photosphere is typically cooler than the the top. They never even let me have that opportunity to respond.

 

[Michael]

What causes the loss of this layer?

Electrical erosion.

And are you basically saying that every star on the inside of this layer is ready to go nova, and whenever this layer breaks down, the star can expand?

No. This layer is being replentished from underneath, just like magma fills in the cracks in the earths "surface". A star probably goes supernova when it has no remaining photosphere to keep it cool.

And what about the fact that not all stars go nova? I thought that was supported by actual observation, but I could be wrong.

As long as the star has a way to keep it's surface "cool" and stable, it will remain star. It's only when it has no plasma layers like the photosphere and chromosphere that things become unstable. That's my best "guess" anyway.

 

[Locrian]

FYI, your friends at physicsforum.com closed my thread before I could even respond

Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum.

You must not have read the guidelines?

 

[Michael]

You must not have read the guidelines?

Didn't you folks suggest this place to test this idea? I read the guidelines, but I'm a little fuzzy on what constitutes "unfounded challenges of mainstream science", as it relates to my idea. I've provided a TON of foundational material for someone to explore if they are interested in reading it. Evidently they are NOT interested in reading anything new or anything that interferes with their miopic view of reality. The funny part is that the gas model of the sun doesn't explain ANY of the more relevant or important observeable behaviors of the sun, yet somehow a model that CAN and DOES offer such an explanation is an "unfounded challenge"? Come on. Talk about closed minds!

 

[RoboMastodon]

Didn't you folks suggest this place to test this idea? I read the guidelines, but I'm a little fuzzy on what constitutes "unfounded challenges of mainstream science", as it relates to my idea. I've provided a TON of foundational material for someone to explore if they are interested in reading it. Evidently they are NOT interested in reading anything new or anything that interferes with their miopic view of reality. The funny part is that the gas model of the sun doesn't explain ANY of the more relevant or important observeable behaviors of the sun, yet somehow a model that CAN and DOES offer such an explanation is an "unfounded challenge"? Come on. Talk about closed minds!

Maybe because a solid surface is really really out there? I was hoping you’d make a post in the form:
“here’s my idea and here’s the evidence” not just post a link to your website. This would be equivalent to a creationist going to the crevo forum and posting a link to AiG. You really haven’t presented much evidence for your claim. Your posts have consisted mostly of “Mainstream science sucks because it can’t explain this, this and this [no mention of the failures of current science and why the model is any better]. Here’s my model. It explains everything.”

You are simply ASSUMING a preexisting set of conditions at the moment of the BB based on the gas model of suns. It's circular in the sense that the gas model is then used to predict BB events, etc, etc.

Michael I would really like you to educate yourself more in science before spouting such unsubstantiated assertions. The nucleosynthesis stage of the big bang only lasted about 3 minutes so only very light elements could have been produces before the universe cooled below the temperature necessary to allow fusion. These predictions are based on quantum mechanics (yes I know you have problems with that too) and have nothing to do with stellar evolution models.

Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H. All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. The ratios predicted are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10-3 for 2H/H, about 10-4 for 3He/H and about 10-9 for 7Li/H.
The measured abundances all agree with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. This is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the universe should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Yes, I'm well aware of what the science "bible" says. Then again these "predictions" are all based on Galileo's gas model. If that model isn't accurate, then neither is wikipedia explanation.

I won’t address this objection later in your post since you make it more than once. Stellar compositions are based on spectroscopy:

Although we cannot sample the Sun directly, we can learn a great deal about its composition from the pattern of absorption lines in its spectrum (the Frauenhofer lines). The pattern of these lines serves as a set of fingerprints for the elements that are present in the surface of the Sun, and their intensity serves as a measure of the concentration of these elements.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes.../TheSun/SolarComposition/SolarComposition.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/suncomp.html
Spectroscopy is well-refined field of chemistry. So unless you think scientists are fooling themselves and miscalculated the solar composition every single time to have .14% iron by mass, I’m gonna go ahead and assume that the sun has .14% iron composition by mass.

Try:

http://physics.memphis.edu/SOLAR/instruments.htm

These emissions are directly related to Fe IX/X, XII, and XV ions in the 171 (Fe IX/X), 195 (Fe XII), and 284 (Fe XV) frequency ranges.

These identify the presence of those ions. You have to realize that different kinds of ions cause different levels of absorption. Don’t believe me? Shine light through a 1kg sheet of iron and then shine light through a 1kg quantity (in a transparent balloon I guess) of hydrogen and notice the difference.
Here is a more complete picture of the solar spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:High_Resolution_Solar_Spectrum.jpg
The mathematics of calculating the percent composition based on information derived from that image are beyond me and it is normally done with a computer.

Could you explain the 171, 195 and 284 angstrom emissions in absense of ferrite ions for me?

Again, these identify the presence thereof. The percent composition, however, is very small.

A metallic compound IS necessary to explain the photon emissions and the solid features we see at 171 angstroms however. These are telltale signs of ferrite ion emissions that are consistent with a (calcium?) ferrite surface that conducts electricity.

Substantiate this. Why would you need a metallic compound to explain photon emissions? Do you realize “photon emissions” is just a fancy word for light (well, technically it could also include other em radiation)? Why would ferrite ion emissions mean that there is a solid surface? Fe ions float around the vastness of space just like many other trace elements, that doesn’t mean there was necessary a solid source. Plasma conducts electricity pretty well, I don’t see why you would need to make up a surface.

That is certainly true when we look at a sunspot during a solar eruption, or crack in the surface. What is a lot LESS understood is how this layer functions during NORMAL conditions.

By eruption do you mean prominences?

I don't quite follow where you think I'm deviating from these plasma physics models.

Most of our knowledge and explanations of solar phenomenon come from the study of plasma physics. Stellar astrophysics is heavy on it.

http://soi.stanford.edu/press/ssu11-01/Sasha/MPEG/sunssu2s.mpg

lol, is that why you think the sun is solid? …because it looks that way in the picture? What is the scale of this? You do realize that over such a large scale structures will look fixed but if you zoom in a lot more you’ll see there is a lot of activity going on.

The temperature at the surface during an eruptions is elevated, but it's also cooled by other areas that surround this upwards moving column of heated plasma. If you notice in this video, you'll see lots of blue areas at the bottom of the photosphere in areas AWAY from the "hot spot" that is causing the hole to form in the penumbral filaments.

I don’t see any blue areas; the video has yellow hue all throughout.

The uncertainty comes from your insistence that EVERY area along the base of the photosphere is ALWAYS hotter than the surface. That simply is not the case as the movie will demonstrate.

The coldest parts of the photosphere are inside sunspots. The movie does not show any temperature readings.

We certainly see LOTS of ferrite ion emissions from the TRACE and SOHO satellites. The only reason you BELEIVE there isn't iron there is because that's what the gas model predicts. This whole website is devoted to overturning that 400 year old model and every prediction it makes through careful OBSERVATION.

I never said there wasn’t iron, I just said that its percent composition was tiny. Rest of the post already addressed. You haven’t made much observation except looked a bunch of videos. Observation is a lot more than that and there is a lot more to science than just looking at pretty pictures. There is also numbers and math involved, you haven’t shown any. You haven’t demonstrated any calculations that would fit any data. All you’ve done is conjure up a sort of mechanism by which some phenomena could “plausibly” be explained. You haven’t tested it at all.

The increase in gravity and electromagnetic flow might cause them to remain stable at higher temperatures than they do on earth.

HUGE UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION (to borrow from your form of writing). This is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance (your own by the way). First of all, the phrase “electromagnetic flow” is nonsensical. Second, gravity and the presence of electromagnetic fields do nothing to the stability of compounds. There is a reason we don’t factor gravity into quantum mechanics: it’s extremely negligible except in black holes and big bang singularities. Third, solids are held together by electromagnetic forces and if anything, the presence of strong turbulent electromagnetic fields would only impede on their stability. In addition, the temperatures involved are the reason why plasma is ionized: atomic nuclei have trouble holding their electrons and why it is extremely difficult for chemical reactions to even take place. You also never mentioned how it would be possible for a solid to crystallize in such an organized fashion (in a spherical shape around an exact radius). Lastly, there is still the temperature issue: the coldest parts of the photosphere are 5000K which is still way above the boiling points of all known substances, especially, ionic solids such as calcium ferrite.

Well, I actually agree with that since I think this ferrite layer is UNDERNEATH the photosphere itself. The ion emissions in these images comes from SOMETHING. If not ferrite that is being ionized by electricity, then what?

Plasma, by definition, is almost fully ionized. It’s notsurprise that emissions from the sun is full of ionized particle BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT PLASMA IS.

Not at all. In fact I'd like you to explain how we see such rigid surfaces with these specific spectroscopic signatures.

Where do we see rigid surfaces?

I know that the gas model has a TERRIBLE and I do mean TERRIBLE track record of explaining the phenomenon we see from these satellite images. Nasa can't explain solar moss, the cause of solar flares, the changes in sunspots, etc. A solid surface model can and does explain these behaviors. I'd say a solid surface model has FAR better explanative abilities over the current gas model actually.

Another unsubstantiated assertion. You say that the “gas model” does not explain these phenomena and then you do not explain them yourself. Solar flares are easily explained by coronal mass ejections and magnetohydrodynamics. The uncertainties (i.e. magnetic field shifts) of solar flare formation are not explained at all by your model. Hypotheses include the dynamo effect caused by differential rotation but the evidence is not conclusive. These also explain sunspots and their cycles.

(a) Here the Sun rotates differentially, with an initial global field flowing from south to north, with the equator rotating faster than the poles.

(b) As the equator rotates faster, the field lines get wound around, into a spiral field with a strong toroidal component.

(c) As the winding increases 'omega' shaped loops and kinks form in the toroid and float to the surface as active regions giving rise to sunspot groups and other forms of activity before decaying. As this decaying occurs, a flux loop forms connecting the leader and follower spots. The magnetic axis between leader and follower is tilted towards the equator. If the leader and follower spots move apart as the flux loop is decaying, the follower flux will move polewards and the leader flux will move equatorwards. These fluxes would then cancel with the existing polar fields, and a trans-equatorial poloidal loop would form, connecting follower flux from one hemisphere with that of the other.

(d) Accumulation of such loops would cancel the existing field, and create a new one, which is of an opposite polarity to the original, and this occurs every 11 years. http://physics.owu.edu/StudentResearch/2005/ChariniPerera/

The issues of solar moss are a problem more with physics aspect of it and I have no clue how a mystical solid surface could explain how coronal temperatures rise from around 50,000K to a few million K as the material expands into the vacuum.

I see nothing about my model that isn't backed by plasma physics as we understand it. I'm not even going to think about dealing with the photino issue in this thread. It's a topic in and of itself and has nothing to do with the solid surface model that I've presented.

Well, we use plasma physics to come up with our knowledge about the sun, since it is, you know, composed of plasma and stuff.

We certainly understand plasmas better and the properties of the photosphere better than Galileo. We also have new instruments with new eyes to see what lies beneath the photosphere. Unless and until you can explain the uniform movement and rigid structures we see in with these filters that are sensitive to ferrite ion emissions, I've going to have to call that yet ANOTHER thing the gas model can't explain.

Gravitational and electromagnetic forces provide enough cohesion to explain the degree of rigidity of solar rotation? Remember the sun isn’t fully rigid as can be seen by its differential rotation.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Yes, I was formally educated in physics. I just didn't happen to believe everything I was taught. I've studied quantum mechanics and plasma physics for more than two decades. You're relying upon an appeal to authority fallacy by the way.

Can you tell me exactly which courses? You said you’ve studied these subjects, do you have publications? Yes it is an appeal to authority, but a legitimate one. You, with limited understanding of the subject, have decided that this flaw of your understanding reflects a flaw in the knowledge of the scientific community. Then, you have the arrogance to, with little or no understanding (no more than that of layman) of plasma physics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, magnetohydrodynamics, or stellar astrophysics and a few months looking at some pretty pictures decide that you are going to come up with your own theory and that it, with no evidence to back it up or any correlation to physical data, somehow overthrows hundreds of years of research by hundreds of qualified scientists (who do have PhD’s in their respective fields). I’m sorry if I see your argument as nothing more than a more complicated version of “if we evolved from monkeys how come the monkeys are still here? I bet you didn’t think of that one Mr.Smarty-Pants scientist!”.

I am in the process of doing exactly that. The problem however is that the scientific community behaves very much like the religious community when it's comfort zone is threatened. People get uptight and attached to old ideas. Some myths take time to fall from grace.

This is nothing but a lie. If you present compelling evidence for your case, then the scientific community will treat you differently than the thousands of copies of crank that physicists and journals receive daily.

My "model" is supported by direct evidence from three different multimillion dollar satellites. Why do I need a computer model as well to observe just like Galileo observed?

Where is this evidence?

I would think that EVERY star has a solid surface of some kind. When that is no longer true, THEN and ONLY THEN does it go supernova.

Stars go supernova because they start fusing heavier and heavier elements and releasing enormous amounts of energy. I don’t see what a solid surface would have to do with it. Also stars with smaller masses than necessary for supernova go nova as well. Do red giants have solid surfaces?

I really don’t feel like addressing this topic anymore as stellar astrophysics is not really my study of interest and the fact that it is quite obvious to anyone without a rage-against-the-science-machine complex why your model is flawed. I’m going to resume my studies on general relativity. In addition, based on previous experience debating with you, I'm pretty sure that no matter what I do, say, or evidence/refutation I provide is going to change your mind as you will probably just respond with everything with an ad hoc explanation, an appeal to ignorance (i.e. a "what if?"), just simply dismiss it or use infactual information/non-sequitur reasoning. It seems that your couple of months of working on this has given you an emotional attachment to this theory, that, and your apparent rage-against-the-science-machine complex has rendered you impervious to any scientific criticism. I’ll add stellar astrophysics and plasma physics on the list of things to teach myself just because this thread has piqued my interest in it. If I get bored again I’ll come back to this thread, don’t count on it though.

 

[Locrian]

Didn't you folks suggest this place to test this idea?

I'm not sure who "you folks" is, since I'm not affiliated in any way with anyone else here. You can be assured I never suggested it, as I read (and enjoy, and learn a lot from) physicsforums.com all the time.

You claim to have provided a ton of foundational material. I respectfully disagree. Of the things I find important to this issue, you've provided very very little. As for suggesting those at PF are not interested in reading anything new, you are wrong. As for suggesting they have a miopic view of reality, you are exceedingly wrong, and as for suggesting they have closed minds, you are even more wrong.

Goodluck, and I"ll check your webpage now and then for additions. However, don't expect too much attention so long as you are intent on throwing cheesy insults around just because you chose the wrong medium to dissiminate your hypothesis.

 

[Michael]

Can you tell me exactly which courses? You said you’ve studied these subjects, do you have publications? Yes it is an appeal to authority, but a legitimate one.

No, it is NOT a legitimate way to deal with my presentation. If my error relates to some lack of understanding in some way, you SHOULD be able to point it out. Anyone can hurl accusations.

You, with limited understanding of the subject, have decided that this flaw of your understanding reflects a flaw in the knowledge of the scientific community.

WHICH FLAW?!?!? See the problem here? You are WAY thin on specfics. These are merely groundless accusations unless you have a SPECIFIC to cite for me.

Then, you have the arrogance to, with little or no understanding (no more than that of layman) of plasma physics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, magnetohydrodynamics, or stellar astrophysics and a few months looking at some pretty pictures decide that you are going to come up with your own theory and that it,

Woah! I have a good grasp of MOST of these issue, regardless of what you think. Again, you are attacking the messenger, where there is valid content to work with and to critique.

with no evidence to back it up or any correlation to physical data,

You must not have read the site AT ALL. I did back it up with OBSERVATIONAL evidence and explained how the model relates to physical phenomenon on the sun. That just so happens to be LIGHT YEARS ahead of anything that to do with the gas model which has demonstrated NO predictive abilities of any sort in over 400 years. I've explained solar moss. Where is the gas model explanation of this phenomenon? I've explained moving sunspots and solar flares using this model. Why hasn't the gas model crowd been able to explain the cause/effect relationship for these events?

somehow overthrows hundreds of years of research by hundreds of qualified scientists (who do have PhD’s in their respective fields). I’m sorry if I see your argument as nothing more than a more complicated version of “if we evolved from monkeys how come the monkeys are still here? I bet you didn’t think of that one Mr.Smarty-Pants scientist!”.

Pure appeal to authority and arguement by ridicule. I'm utterly unimpressed.

This is nothing but a lie. If you present compelling evidence for your case, then the scientific community will treat you differently than the thousands of copies of crank that physicists and journals receive daily.

Where is this evidence?

Explain the uniform rotation of the running difference images for me. Explain why I should believe that ferrite forms solid surfaces at temperatures near 20K degrees! Explain the structure in the tsunami video for me. You can't explain any of these things yet you claim there is no evidence. Come on.

Stars go supernova because they start fusing heavier and heavier elements and releasing enormous amounts of energy. I don’t see what a solid surface would have to do with it. Also stars with smaller masses than necessary for supernova go nova as well. Do red giants have solid surfaces?

I can't think of any reason to believe they couldn't have surfaces and be missing the chromosphere or something like that.

I really don’t feel like addressing this topic anymore as stellar astrophysics is not really my study of interest and the fact that it is quite obvious to anyone without a rage-against-the-science-machine complex why your model is flawed. I’m going to resume my studies on general relativity. In addition, based on previous experience debating with you, I'm pretty sure that no matter what I do, say, or evidence/refutation I provide is going to change your mind as you will probably just respond with everything with an ad hoc explanation, an appeal to ignorance (i.e. a "what if?"), just simply dismiss it or use infactual information/non-sequitur reasoning. It seems that your couple of months of working on this has given you an emotional attachment to this theory, that, and your apparent rage-against-the-science-machine complex has rendered you impervious to any scientific criticism. I’ll add stellar astrophysics and plasma physics on the list of things to teach myself just because this thread has piqued my interest in it. If I get bored again I’ll come back to this thread, don’t count on it though.

I think you have a lot of nerve accusing me of "ad hoc" explanations. I presented quite a bit of material you simply ingored and responded with "You can't be right because the establishment disagrees with you". I've spent YEARS, not months studing the sun through satellite imagery. I've spent years learning QM and Plasma physics and principles of electricity. I've constructed a WORKING model, one that actually EXPLAINS a cause and effect relationship between layers and explains how the model relates back to known phenomomen. The gas model does none of that.

Now if you have any actual SCIENTIFIC objections to the materials I've presented, I'm happy to listen. If you whole basis for doubt is based on an appeal to authority/ridicule routine however, I'm not interested in your ad hoc excuses for not even attempting to actually address the materials I've worked on and presented publically for peer review.

I've yet to hear a single explanation in this thread for the sunquake activity, or the ferrite layer itself. I've seen nobody even try to explain how a ferrite based surface floats on top of hydrogen plasma, or how it remains solid at temperatures over 20K degrees. No one has addressed the uniformity of movement found in the running difference images. In short, not a single valid scientific refute has been offered. Even though my model offers real explanations for the observed phenomenon and the gas model does not, you still pledge your blind allegiance to gas model only because it's the "party line".

I'm beginning to realize just how many parallels there are between argueing religious topics and argueing science topics. When any new idea is presented to such political establishments, first there is the appeal to authority cycle, followed by a ridicule cycle, followed by a public lynching if the new idea isn't abandoned during steps 1 and 2.

The scientific community is just like a religious cult IMO. If you don't comply and submit and accept the standard models offered, you're ridiculed into submission and austracized from the community. What a pity.

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure who "you folks" is, since I'm not affiliated in any way with anyone else here. You can be assured I never suggested it, as I read (and enjoy, and learn a lot from) physicsforums.com all the time.

You claim to have provided a ton of foundational material. I respectfully disagree. Of the things I find important to this issue, you've provided very very little.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Folks believed Galileo and accepted his model based on a few observations with a 200 dollar telescope. I've handed you multimillion dollar satellite imagery that refutes his core assumptions which you blithely ignored and did not address in any way. The running difference images show a UNIFORM movement of this FERRITE based layer. How do you then claim it has no "solid surface"?

As for suggesting those at PF are not interested in reading anything new, you are wrong. As for suggesting they have a miopic view of reality, you are exceedingly wrong, and as for suggesting they have closed minds, you are even more wrong.

As far as I can tell, it's just like religion, only a different topic. Folks seem to pledge blind allegiance to the gas model even though it has NEVER been able to explain anything. I've offered you a comprehensive alternative that explains EVERYTHiNG, and you simply ignored it. There's nothing logical about that reaction. It's based on fear and ignorance unless you can point out where I made a mistake. You did not do that.

Goodluck, and I"ll check your webpage now and then for additions. However, don't expect too much attention so long as you are intent on throwing cheesy insults around just because you chose the wrong medium to dissiminate your hypothesis.

I'm working on a formal presentation and I will submit it for formal peer review. Based on what I've seen so far however, I'm skeptical that anyone's really listening.

 

[Michael]

Maybe because a solid surface is really really out there? I was hoping you’d make a post in the form:

It's only "out there" because the gas model is 'in vogue' at the moment. It's certainly not "out there" in any objective sense, especially in comparison to the gas model which has almost no explanitory capabilities at all.

“here’s my idea and here’s the evidence” not just post a link to your website. This would be equivalent to a creationist going to the crevo forum and posting a link to AiG. You really haven’t presented much evidence for your claim. Your posts have consisted mostly of “Mainstream science sucks because it can’t explain this, this and this [no mention of the failures of current science and why the model is any better]. Here’s my model. It explains everything.”

I hear your point about potentially coming across as a hit and runner, but if they would have allowed the conversation to continue, I'm sure I could have alleviated that concern rather quickly. They never even gave me the opportunity respond and never touched any of the satellite imagery I cited.

Michael I would really like you to educate yourself more in science before spouting such unsubstantiated assertions. The nucleosynthesis stage of the big bang only lasted about 3 minutes so only very light elements could have been produces before the universe cooled below the temperature necessary to allow fusion. These predictions are based on quantum mechanics (yes I know you have problems with that too) and have nothing to do with stellar evolution models.

You really need to give your scientific superiority routine a rest. It's getting old now. Since we have no idea what conditions existed just prior the BB it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to know EXACTLY how things formed. I can't believe how many people try to assert THEORY as FACT and get on a soap box while they're at it. Come down from there before you hurt yourself.

I won’t address this objection later in your post since you make it more than once. Stellar compositions are based on spectroscopy:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/suncomp.html
Spectroscopy is well-refined field of chemistry. So unless you think scientists are fooling themselves and miscalculated the solar composition every single time to have .14% iron by mass, I’m gonna go ahead and assume that the sun has .14% iron composition by mass.

Pehaps then you could then to me why the SERTS program found so many ferrite ion emissions during it's study of the sun? How could an anemic sun, one almost devoid of iron, contain all that ferrite?

http://serts.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.shtml

These identify the presence of those ions. You have to realize that different kinds of ions cause different levels of absorption. Don’t believe me? Shine light through a 1kg sheet of iron and then shine light through a 1kg quantity (in a transparent balloon I guess) of hydrogen and notice the difference.
Here is a more complete picture of the solar spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:High_Resolution_Solar_Spectrum.jpg
The mathematics of calculating the percent composition based on information derived from that image are beyond me and it is normally done with a computer.

I don't think you quite grasp the implications here. We know hydrogen is present in the photosphere layer because we see photon emissions coming from it which fall into the hydrogen ion spectrum. We know that the chromosophere layer contains calcium, because we see the presense of calcium ion emissions coming from this layer. We must therefore acknoweldge the presense of ferrite in the ferrite level since it emits photons consisitent with ferrite ions. This layer is therefore very HEAVY compared to other layers. Some stash of ferrite must exist on the sun or SERTS would not have recorded these energy signatures. SOHO would have never imaged this surface with running difference images, and TRACE would never have been able to image it at 171 angstroms. It's there. Everyone knows that layer is there. Everyone SHOULD know it contains ferrites. The only remaining question is determining the order of these layer, since NASA aready acknowledges the ferrite layer and designates it in yellow in the 4 layer composite image on the obrervation page of my website. That image and ordering system comes from Lockheed. NASA and Lockheed just blew the order of the layers. Ferrite doesn't float on hydrogen.

Again, these identify the presence thereof. The percent composition, however, is very small.

SOHO and TRACE identify the presense of a LOT of this material all OVER a uniformly rotating surface. That's not a SMALL surface area. Where are all these ferrite ions coming from if not the surface itself? How are these ferrite particles ionized?

Substantiate this. Why would you need a metallic compound to explain photon emissions? Do you realize “photon emissions” is just a fancy word for light (well, technically it could also include other em radiation)? Why would ferrite ion emissions mean that there is a solid surface? Fe ions float around the vastness of space just like many other trace elements, that doesn’t mean there was necessary a solid source. Plasma conducts electricity pretty well, I don’t see why you would need to make up a surface.

We don't NEED anything. We OBSERVE a solid surface in these images that is quite unlike any of the other 3 layers.

By eruption do you mean prominences?

No, I mean volcanic eruptions from a solid surface.

Most of our knowledge and explanations of solar phenomenon come from the study of plasma physics. Stellar astrophysics is heavy on it.

So what about the study of plasma physics leads you to believe that a ferrite rich layer would float on top of a hydrogen plasma layer?

lol, is that why you think the sun is solid? …because it looks that way in the picture? What is the scale of this? You do realize that over such a large scale structures will look fixed but if you zoom in a lot more you’ll see there is a lot of activity going on.

Observation is a respected and critical part of science. It's the cornerstone of science in fact. If you go to the running difference images, you'll notice that the 171 A zoom in from TRACE looks mighty solid too. It's certainly more rigid in structure than the photosphere and chromosphere.

I don’t see any blue areas; the video has yellow hue all throughout.

Look at the BOTTOM of that image.

The coldest parts of the photosphere are inside sunspots. The movie does not show any temperature readings.

The temperature ranges are color coded. Blue is cool, red is hot, and yellow is somwhere in between. The coldest spots are typically INSIDE the sunspot BTW, though cool regions can be found, much like calm regions exist in the center of a tornado.

I never said there wasn’t iron, I just said that its percent composition was tiny.

Where is all that ferrite?

Rest of the post already addressed. You haven’t made much observation except looked a bunch of videos. Observation is a lot more than that and there is a lot more to science than just looking at pretty pictures.

These pretty pictures came with a pretty price tag, and observation is the cornerstone of the scientific method and Galileo's observation of the sunsposts through a 200$ telescope formed the foundation of the gas model.

There is also numbers and math involved, you haven’t shown any.

I haven't really had a lot of time just yet. I'm sure over time I'll get there. Right now I'm focused on putting together a formal presentation of VISUAL evidence which I intend to submit for peer review. When I'm done I'll try to find some creative way to support the model in other ways. Even if I had a page of heavy and intense math to support these observations, would anyone even care? I kind of doubt it based on the response to the content I have already provided.

You haven’t demonstrated any calculations that would fit any data.

What calculation do you figure is the most important one for me to work on, and why?

All you’ve done is conjure up a sort of mechanism by which some phenomena could “plausibly” be explained. You haven’t tested it at all.

The fact is PLAUSIBLY explains these phenomenon puts it LIGHT YEARS ahead of the gas model. Each and EVERY one of these ideas come from direct observation and in that sense it has been tested and correlates well with the actual events we see happening on the sun.

HUGE UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION (to borrow from your form of writing). This is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance (your own by the way). First of all, the phrase “electromagnetic flow” is nonsensical. Second, gravity and the presence of electromagnetic fields do nothing to the stability of compounds.

What? Are you trying to tell me that the gravity and electromagnetic fields of the sun would have no affect on the melting point?

There is a reason we don’t factor gravity into quantum mechanics: it’s extremely negligible except in black holes and big bang singularities.

Huh? I'm not even follow you on this point. Gravity will make ferrite sink in a hydrogen environment.

Third, solids are held together by electromagnetic forces and if anything, the presence of strong turbulent electromagnetic fields would only impede on their stability.

How do you intend to demonstrate that wild piece of speculation?

In addition, the temperatures involved are the reason why plasma is ionized: atomic nuclei have trouble holding their electrons and why it is extremely difficult for chemical reactions to even take place. You also never mentioned how it would be possible for a solid to crystallize in such an organized fashion (in a spherical shape around an exact radius). Lastly, there is still the temperature issue: the coldest parts of the photosphere are 5000K which is still way above the boiling points of all known substances, especially, ionic solids such as calcium ferrite.

It may be that the SURFACE of the photoshere is WAY above the melting point of some ferrite materials on earth. It is not known if the BASE of the photosphere is above the melting point of ALL forms of ferrite given the conditions at the surface of the sun. One thing is sure, the inner regions are the cooler regions and *IF* a ferrite structure can form on the sun, it MUST be beneath the photosphere for several reasons.

You aught to point out this issue to NASA since it insists this surface remains solid in temps over 20K degrees. If it can't survive the heat beneath the photosphere, it certainly can't hope to survive the heat ABOVE the chromosphere as NASA sugggests.

Plasma, by definition, is almost fully ionized. It’s notsurprise that emissions from the sun is full of ionized particle BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT PLASMA IS.

Is that supposed to be a revalation of some kind?

Where do we see rigid surfaces?

See the running differnce images page. Notice the structure I circled in the tsunami video. Notice the three spectrum photo on the solar moss page. How is that not a "rigid structure" that eminates all these arcs?

Another unsubstantiated assertion. You say that the “gas model” does not explain these phenomena and then you do not explain them yourself. Solar flares are easily explained by coronal mass ejections and magnetohydrodynamics. The uncertainties (i.e. magnetic field shifts) of solar flare formation are not explained at all by your model. Hypotheses include the dynamo effect caused by differential rotation but the evidence is not conclusive. These also explain sunspots and their cycles.

Give me one example of an explanation that shows the flow of energy and the actual CAUSE of a solar eruption using your beloved gas model.

I have explained these events as simple surface eruptions caused by the errosion that exposes magma, or from sunquakes. Magnetic field shifts are easily explained by the arc taking another path as the surface cracks and magma is exposed. I'm in agreement on the dynamo idea actually. I think thats partly why we see so much activity when the magnetic poles are almost perpendicular to the spin axis and point toward the equator. The north half of the equator becomes polarized in one direction whereas the southern end is charged the other direction. When the magnetic pole then traverses the equator and reverse the polarity, all hell breaks loose for awhile.

The issues of solar moss are a problem more with physics aspect of it and I have no clue how a mystical solid surface could explain how coronal temperatures rise from around 50,000K to a few million K as the material expands into the vacuum.

First of all, I'm proposing nothing mystical, and nothing which hasn't already been observed by NASA and TRACE. I simply disagree with where they PUT the layer that we both agree exists. The surface model explains this because prior to the electrical discharge the surface is relatively cool. At discharge, the surface is heated, pieces come off and are ionized in the electrical arc which heats these particles, as does the corona if the arc gets that far. Corona temps rise because the hydrogen plasma EVAPORATES off the top of the chromosphere and becomes hydrogen gas and ignites.

Well, we use plasma physics to come up with our knowledge about the sun, since it is, you know, composed of plasma and stuff.

How do you know the ferrite layer is made of plasma, and how do you know where is sits in relationship to the other three layers?

Gravitational and electromagnetic forces provide enough cohesion to explain the degree of rigidity of solar rotation? Remember the sun isn’t fully rigid as can be seen by its differential rotation.

You aren't watching my videos. Show me any sign in the running difference images from SOHO that there is even the slightest hint of differential rotation in the ferrite layer.

 

[Locrian]

I've offered you a comprehensive alternative that explains EVERYTHiNG, and you simply ignored it. There's nothing logical about that reaction.

On the contrary, PF forum's response is quite logical. People want a place to discuss certain topics. They made guidelines in these places and you couldn't seem to follow them. Your suggestion that i've ignored your hypothesis is uacceptable, since i've clearly done nothing of the kind.

I hope you'll place a copy of the paper you will be submitting for your review on your website, as I'd love to read it. In the meantime, giving up some of the narcisim, martyrdom and childish insults will go a long way to keeping conversations civil.

 

[Michael]

On the contrary, PF forum's response is quite logical. People want a place to discuss certain topics. They made guidelines in these places and you couldn't seem to follow them. Your suggestion that i've ignored your hypothesis is uacceptable, since i've clearly done nothing of the kind.

I hope you'll place a copy of the paper you will be submitting for your review on your website, as I'd love to read it. In the meantime, giving up some of the narcisim, martyrdom and childish insults will go a long way to keeping conversations civil.

This is a formal manuscript of the solid surface model that has been recently offered for web peer review with The Astrophysical Journal. It includes a more formal presentation of this material.

 

[Locrian]

This is a formal manuscript of the solid surface model that has been recently offered for web peer review with The Astrophysical Journal. It includes a more formal presentation of this material.

I appreciate your being bold enough to let us read your paper. I'm going to suggest some changes that I believe should be made, even though you haven't asked. Although I don't endorse or accept your premise, all suggested changes are made under the assumption that they can be made. In other words, these aren't tests to the validity of your idea, but are important to the publishibility of the paper.

1) Captions should be provided for all photographs. There are some readers (such as myself) who go through a paper first and look at all the pictures - a quick way of reading thousands of words, if you will. However, they are only useful with well written captions.

2) Reconsider some of the exclamation points. I realize this is very exciting for you (and can certainly understand why), but like it or not it is standard science writing faire to keep a very cool attitude. I would suggest removing the smileys as well.

3) Are the pictures courtesy of someone? I assume you have permission to use them or they are freely available. Still, you will want to be very clear who allowed you to use them (or who donated them to the public) so the reader never has to guess about it.

4) The introduction needs to be drastically shortened. It is typical of an introduction to be short and to the point. The history of the gas model sun is well known (though I believe you failed to mention all 20th century studies in the area), so it does not require much discussion. Statements asking the reader (because they will be scientists) to keep an open mind will either do nothing at all or anger them. They should be removed. The rest should be packed into a couple of paragraphs heavily cited so the reader can do more research on their own, as needed.

5) There are a number of phrases that i thought could be touched up. "electrical energy flows" should be changed to "electrical current flows". The statement "laws of physics are laws because they work" is both condesending and possibly wrong at the same time. There are others, but I'd need a word file to efficiently go through them.

6) There is a real dearth of references considering the scope of this paper. I see fourteen cited, but they are not referenced throughout the paper like they should be. Within the paper, when giving information from those sources, you will want to link to a specific part of the website that confirms that information, not just the general website.

Remember, every new, important statement of previously known fact must be backed by a cited reference. Some references I immediatley missed were ones dealing with the quantity of ferrite observed ("large amount" is no good - a scientific paper demands quantitative measurement), the thermal conductivity of neon, the properties of caclium ferrite, and almost any other statement of fact. This is a paper killer, as it does not conform to standards, makes it difficult for the reader to verify your content, and makes the paper generally more difficult to read. Thankfully it is also not hard to fix. You've done your research, so will only need to stick the references in where they belong.

7) There are a number of logical leaps I couldn't follow.

-Neon is a good refrigerant as a liquid. What does this have to do with its thermal conductivity as a gas in a star? Those are not necessarily proportional.

-What is the temperature of the surface layer? How does it stay at this temperature? Some statistical mechanics deriving its equilibrium temperature would go a long way.

-If our sun has a neon layer near the surface that is giving off huge amounts of light, why don't we observe a neon emission spectrum when the sun is viewed? When i taught astronomy lab, we would look at the emission spectrum of neon plasma. We looked at the spectrum of our sun. They are opposites, of course, with the solar spectrum being an absorption spectrum that contains so little neon you can't observe it without powerful equipment.

-The properties of this solid layer must be better described in the paper. This, to me, is the most important aspect of the entire paper! Of course, I now work in materials science, so I suppose I'm biased.

8) Finally, you need a list of predictions that haven't been confirmed yet. You have a section where you write "We might predict" followed by a prediction. Firstly, replace that with "This model predicts." Secondly, have a section for the predictions that have been previously verified and have a robust section for new predictions that have not yet been verified. That's where the big money for any paper such as this is.

These are changes I genuinely think would help, and I hope you find some or all of them useful. Goodluck!