The Surface Of The Sun

[Locrian]

FYI, you NEVER addressed ANY of the actual evidence I provided. You never explained the sunquake page, the tsunami page, the running difference images, etc.

Why should I do any such thing? I was very clear that I was not trying to prove your paper right or wrong, but was only dealing with whether it could hold up as a paper. I repeated this over and over in past threads. How could you have missed it? Read the opening paragraphs of my past posts again.

The things I listed are not stylistic choices. They are necessary constituents of any scientific paper, and for very good reason. I think its great that you have a new source - is it listed and referenced where necessary? That's exactly what I was pushing you to do. Your failure to do so will spell the end of your ideas.

Stop acting the martyr and put the time in like everyone else. You have a long way to go, and responses like the one above will never get you there.

 

[Michael]

Why should I do any such thing?

Because these OBSERVATIONS warrant a scientific explanation!

I was very clear that I was not trying to prove your paper right or wrong, but was only dealing with whether it could hold up as a paper. I repeated this over and over in past threads. How could you have missed it? Read the opening paragraphs of my past posts again.

It "holds up" as a paper just fine. I've read what passes for a scientific manuscript, and some of what I've read is just plain lame and full of all sorts of false assumptions.

The things I listed are not stylistic choices. They are necessary constituents of any scientific paper, and for very good reason. I think its great that you have a new source - is it listed and referenced where necessary? That's exactly what I was pushing you to do. Your failure to do so will spell the end of your ideas.

I'm working on a revised manuscript that will include his work. We just spoke last week in fact about his work and about his ideas. Whether or not I include or exclude them does not negate or change anything I have already offered. I will however offer a revised manuscript next week that will include a lot more data from my evidence page, and will include satellite data from Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer as well. It's going to be more of a "page burner" as a result.

Stop acting the martyr and put the time in like everyone else. You have a long way to go, and responses like the one above will never get you there.

I have NO where to go. I'm already there. It's the scientific community as a whole that has a long way to go. I've already started debating these issues on various astronomy boards, and these ideas hold up just fine. The responses I typically get are a lot like yours. They tend to throw rocks at the messenger rather than deal with the actual content. That's a pity. It shows just how closed minded the scientific community has become.

The responses I've gotten to date, combined with my conversations with Dr. Manuel make me certain I'm right. If I was not right, I'd know by now, and one of the 20 thousand visitors to my website would have blow me out of the water by now. That has not happened. In fact none of the emails I've recieived have been particularly "negative", and most of them have been extremely positive.

Dr. Manuel decided the sun was made of iron based on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT field of science, specifically nuclear chemistry as it relates to lunar samples. His work is first rate. He includes ideas like the energy states of valence shells and considers the distribution of heat as it relates to a model. This is real nuclear physics support for the model I've come up with from pure observation. Now you can continue to belittle the messenger if you like, but that isn't going to negate the message, nor change the outcome one iota.

Not you, and not anyone else have yet offered me a "better" explantion for the running difference movies, the sunquake page, the tsunami structure under the wave, the shock wave video, etc. Instead there is a strong desire to poke holes in the MESSANGER rather than the message. That is the part that is NOT scientifically acceptable, not my paper or my style.

 

[whatiswatanabe]

I believe the sun has very solid surface that conducts electricity and creates electrical ARC's through the medium of the photosphere,

You are very wrong. The sun is mostly hydrogen and helium and is very HOT. Neither condition allows a solid surface .

The Sun gets it energy from FUSION in the core which reaches a million degrees Kelvin

 

[whatiswatanabe]

That's very good question. I would say the answer is essentially "gravity" perhaps combined witht he possiblity that this "surface" is a type of solid "plasma" of some sort.

There is no such a thing as a solid plasma

 

[whatiswatanabe]

The answer that this layer is most likely it's composed of calcium ferrite,

The sun is made of hydrogen and helium

 

[whatiswatanabe]

Because these OBSERVATIONS warrant a scientific explanation!
.

No oberservation shows a solid surface on the sun

 

[Dexx]

I cant see how the sun could have a solid Ferrous surface - or even a solid metal core. Apart from the spectral signature, such a structure would make the Sun exceedingly heavy. Gravity would ensure that the "surface" material is the lightest - with all underlying layers being denser. We can calculate the Sun's overall density from its volume and gravitational mass. The commonly held figures for the Sun's density preclude a large ferrous (or similar) mass inside.

 

[Michael]

I cant see how the sun could have a solid Ferrous surface - or even a solid metal core. Apart from the spectral signature, such a structure would make the Sun exceedingly heavy. Gravity would ensure that the "surface" material is the lightest - with all underlying layers being denser. We can calculate the Sun's overall density from its volume and gravitational mass. The commonly held figures for the Sun's density preclude a large ferrous (or similar) mass inside.

Well, we need to explain the running difference SOHO and Trace images. These images show a series of solid features that rotate uniformly from pole to equator and retain their feature set for days. That is not like the behavior we see in plasma layers that change in MOMENTS.

Temperature will affect "density" as well.

 

[fireandwater]

The surface of the sun as a solid? That's a different idea, do you have any links? (sorry if I missed any of them since I'm kinda limited on time here).

 

[Yamialpha]

The surface of the sun as a solid? That's a different idea, do you have any links? (sorry if I missed any of them since I'm kinda limited on time here).

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

It was in the OP

 

[Michael]

Just as an FYI, here is a published paper that Dr. Manuel has published that include the running difference images from Lockheed Martin and from NASA. It is a relatively "hard core" presentation of the material from a nuclear chemical point of view, and includes over three decades of research.

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

In addition, there is new evidence from the field of heliosiesmology that confirms the presense of a "stratified layer" at .99R, or just under the surface of the photosphere.

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

 

[Michael]

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

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

 

[Locrian]

So how'd the Astrophysical Journal article go?

 

[Michael]

So how'd the Astrophysical Journal article go?

After sitting on it for nearly three months, the finally rejected my first paper. Since then I have worked with Dr. Oliver Manuel from the University of Missouri and and we have managed to publish three papers that have included at least some of the material I presented to the APJ, and quite a bit of new material as well. I'll eventually submit something new to the APJ that includes everything I've learned over the past few months and we'll see how they respond. I've now been involved in three different published papers.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

Now if it turns out that I am right, I don't think that the APJ will be real proud of rejecting my first paper. That paper is still useful as a "simplified" expanation of the visual satellite evidence. I will submit a new paper that includes Birkelands work, and Bruce's work and Dr. Manuels work and see how they feel about a "revised" paper in another month. I submitted the last one around the summer soltice, so I'll probably time the next one to coincide with the winter soltice. No doubt they'll reject that one too, but now that I'm published and being a taken a bit more seriously, perhaps they'll wait 6 months rather than 3 months before rejecting the next one.

If you thought that a wee bit of early rejection was going to bother me, think again. I'm more tenacious than you realize.

 

[bertie]

I personally am astounded and am sitting here with tears streaming thinking that this thread is a testimony to the power of love.God Bless youse all every one .Ill look for you on doctor Suzukis show shortly...but ill.....be back......thanks..

 

[KerrMetric]

After sitting on it for nearly three months, the finally rejected my first paper. Since then I have worked with Dr. Oliver Manuel from the University of Missouri and and we have managed to publish three papers that have included at least some of the material I presented to the APJ, and quite a bit of new material as well. I'll eventually submit something new to the APJ that includes everything I've learned over the past few months and we'll see how they respond. I've now been involved in three different published papers.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

Now if it turns out that I am right, I don't think that the APJ will be real proud of rejecting my first paper. That paper is still useful as a "simplified" expanation of the visual satellite evidence. I will submit a new paper that includes Birkelands work, and Bruce's work and Dr. Manuels work and see how they feel about a "revised" paper in another month. I submitted the last one around the summer soltice, so I'll probably time the next one to coincide with the winter soltice. No doubt they'll reject that one too, but now that I'm published and being a taken a bit more seriously, perhaps they'll wait 6 months rather than 3 months before rejecting the next one.

If you thought that a wee bit of early rejection was going to bother me, think again. I'm more tenacious than you realize.

Do you mean those cranks in the Chemistry department at the Rolla campus.

This is buffoonery of the first magnitude.

With your solid Sun model explain limb darkening at some wavelengths and limb brightening at others.

ApJ will never accept this nonsense, I guarantee it.


And posting on the arxiv server does NOT mean published.

 

[Michael]

Do you mean those cranks in the Chemistry department at the Rolla campus.

This is buffoonery of the first magnitude.

Oh please! Why is it that the very LEAST qualified on a scientific level are always the first to hurl baseless insults? The only "buffoonery" is your use of loaded language.

With your solid Sun model explain limb darkening at some wavelengths and limb brightening at others.

That's quite easy. It's a change in flow of electricity and how it all affects the various elements. There's nothing that difficult about it.

ApJ will never accept this nonsense, I guarantee it.

It's not "nonsense", and your use of such terms simply shows me you need a crutch of some kind. I've put pages of data and information and images together for you to look at. How about coming up with a scientific rebuttal rather than leaning on a logical fallacy?

And posting on the arxiv server does NOT mean published.

Point noted. Being "published" is likewise no measure of "correctness" for that matter.

I'm working on a revised manuscript that includes the heliosiesmology evidence from Stanford and Birkeland's work and Bruce's and Manuel's work as well. It will also include some predictions on the findings of the STEREO program as well. I'm also going to leave out all references to the gas model entirely. I'll should submit the new paper to the APj in a few weeks. We'll see how they respond. I'm not worried about a bit of rejection, and I'm not at all impressed by your need for a crutch based on logical fallacy.

If you have a valid scientific objection, put it on the table. Better yet, give us an explanation for any of those first few images on my website using gas model theory. Then you might explain why no gas model ever included a stratified layer at .995R? What's that stratified layer doing at such a shallow depth?

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

 

[KerrMetric]

Oh please! Why is it that the very LEAST qualified on a scientific level are always the first to hurl baseless insults? The only "buffoonery" is your use of loaded language.



That's quite easy. It's a change in flow of electricity and how it all affects the various elements. There's nothing that difficult about it.



It's not "nonsense", and your use of such terms simply shows me you need a crutch of some kind. I've put pages of data and information and images together for you to look at. How about coming up with a scientific rebuttal rather than leaning on a logical fallacy?



Point noted. Being "published" is likewise no measure of "correctness" for that matter.

I'm working on a revised manuscript that includes the heliosiesmology evidence from Stanford and Birkeland's work and Bruce's and Manuel's work as well. It will also include some predictions on the findings of the STEREO program as well. I'm also going to leave out all references to the gas model entirely. I'll should submit the new paper to the APj in a few weeks. We'll see how they respond. I'm not worried about a bit of rejection, and I'm not at all impressed by your need for a crutch based on logical fallacy.

If you have a valid scientific objection, put it on the table. Better yet, give us an explanation for any of those first few images on my website using gas model theory. Then you might explain why no gas model ever included a stratified layer at .995R? What's that stratified layer doing at such a shallow depth?

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

Why is it on the BadAstronomy website you danced without any discussion for pages.

You don't provide anything except look at these pictures.

Please tell me how you explain limb darkening/brightening not "electricity does it". That's a comment not an explanation.


Could you please summarise in about a sentence or two the physical structure of your model from core to photosphere.

What are the layers made of and the physical state of these layers. Is it iron, cheese, hydrogen whatever and the size of these layers.

 

[Michael]

Why is it on the BadAstronomy website you danced without any discussion for pages.

Sorry for the delayed response, but as you may have noticed I've been busy recently.

You might ask yourself why they would ban me for not knowing how to compute the diffusion rate of various wavelenths of light through various thicknesses of different plasmas? I would say that forum is appropriately named. They tend to burn their heretics at the stake.

You don't provide anything except look at these pictures.

That is utterly false. I've been involved now in 4 different published papers, including peer reviewed papers as well.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/jofe1.pdf

Please tell me how you explain limb darkening/brightening not "electricity does it". That's a comment not an explanation.

I susggest you read my first paper since I explained that quite clearly in that paper.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf

Could you please summarise in about a sentence or two the physical structure of your model from core to photosphere.

What are the layers made of and the physical state of these layers. Is it iron, cheese, hydrogen whatever and the size of these layers.

Again, why don't you start with papers I cited. I'll be happy to answer any specific questions you might have from that point.

 

[Locrian]

If you thought that a wee bit of early rejection was going to bother me, think again. I'm more tenacious than you realize.

No, my doubts aren't about your tenacity. However, having read astroPJ plenty, I was well aware of what they wanted in a paper, and the one you linked to from here wasn't going to be acceptable. After all the defensive outbursts you gave in response to reasonable objections, there is a certain satisfaction in being right.

It's good to see you've found a team to work with though, and I'm being honest when I say Good Luck in your research.