The Surface Of The Sun

[Michael]

Ok, this is sort of a shameless plug for a website I recently created, but I would be interested in starting a discussion on this topic if anyone is interested. I'd particularly like any feedback, particularly any skeptical feeback.

I believe the sun has very solid surface that conducts electricity and creates electrical ARC's through the medium of the photosphere, and sometimes the coronosphere as well. I've set up a website to explain my ideas using SOHO and TRACE satellite imagery. The site can be found at:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

 

[stubeeef]

I have been facinated by the sun since the total eclipse of 91? I was on guam and got video of it as a eclipse sunrise, it was VERY cool. Looked like a shark fin coming up.

Anyway, why look at a bunch of stars billions of light years away, when the sun it right there. I have begun reading your site, I hope your conclusions are well founded and recognized. I know little to nothing about the sun or astronomy for that matter. If having Hubble coffee table books made someone an expert, than I would be one! 8-}

Anyway, I will take my time and read your site, and try to learn something!

Good Job!

edit: NASA a few years back did a correlation btwn sunspots and earth weather. That the dark ages also had a sun that was barren of sunspot activity, and so on. Are you up on any of this. I am curious about solar activity cycles while the earth is in a pole shift. ie, as the present magentic field weakens, and solar activity is increasing, do we get a rapid increase in global warming? It is a silly thought of mine, and I'm sure explored somewhere, just haven't read up on it.

 

[TheBear]

Thanks for the link, Michael.

Good stuff.

 

[Yamialpha]

Very interesting website, although I have a question-how could a solid surface be sustained especially at such high temperatures? I searched the site but could have overlooked the explanation.

 

[Locrian]

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.

 

[Yamialpha]

How could the elements within the Sun even sustain a solid surface? It seems to me that you're offering observation but no explanation.

 

[Grey Eminence]

The opening post reminds me of pot-philosophy. It is one thing to suggest some things with no seriousness. It is another thing entirely to take some things with all seriousness.

 

[Yamialpha]

Another question-how did the solid surface form?

 

[Michael]

Very interesting website, although I have a question-how could a solid surface be sustained especially at such high temperatures? I searched the site but could have overlooked the explanation.

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. I'm more inclined to go with a composite material at this point that remains solid with such strong gravitational and elecromagnetic pressure. I guess the answer lies with the material itself, which is something I cannot answer at the moment. I suspect that meteors and their composition might give us this answer.

 

[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.

No, you didn't miss anything and it certianly *IS* a fundamdamental question that needs to be answered. Unfortunately I can't do that at this point. I can only observe with I can see via SOHO and TRACE. I do intend to research that aspect however, and I will continue to update the website as I find answers.

The running difference images however are a pretty clear indication that there MUST be a solid surface beneath the surface of the photosphere, much like there is a surface of the earth below the surface of the ocean.

The compostion of the corona remained a mystery until we understood the behaviors of surheated plasmas. We may need to understand the behavior of superheated "solid-like" plasmas to answer such a question.

The sunquake page however demonstrates that something "cracks" across a wide surface area. Such "cracks" explain a lot about solar eruptions and their cause.

 

[Michael]

The opening post reminds me of pot-philosophy. It is one thing to suggest some things with no seriousness. It is another thing entirely to take some things with all seriousness.

I'm not sure I follow. I take the idea serious based on what I see with my own eyes based on the very BEST technology we have available to us today to study the sun. These satellites (TRACE/SOHO) offer us data which we need to explain. If you feel the standard (gas) model is a better explanation for the running difference images I've posted on the site, please by all means put your explanation of these images on the table. If you can better explain the sunquake page or the tsunami page "better" with the standard model, again, I'm all ears. As it is, I think all these pieces of evidence, from the very BEST technology we have at our disposal, suggest the current model is flawed and the sun does have a solid and stable surface that changes dynamically over time.

 

[Locrian]

I'm not sure how you think these "solid-like" plasmas will bolster your theory. The fact is there does not seem to be the type of materials near the sun's surface to form a solid. I work use plasmas every day in my lab and have never heard of one being "solid-like" - and even if it was, it would mean the sun's surface still wasn't solid, but was instead "solid-like," would it not?

An interesting idea, and I appreciate your work, but without the proper materials science it really doesn't have any predictive value.

 

[Michael]

Another question-how did the solid surface form?

I would say it forms much like our own crust forms. While the core of the sun is hot, just as the earth's core is hot, space is very COLD. Earth forms a crust around a warmer core and protects itself from the cold of space. The sun must do so as well. The key here I guess is the material in question that makes such a thing possible. Unfortunately I can't answer that at the moment.

There is however a GLARING problem with suggesting that our earth, and every heavy element on it, came from the stars, but stars contain very little of these heavier materials themselves. We also need a valid explaination of these running difference images with a standard model if it is to hold up to serious scrutiny as well.

 

[Michael]

By the way...

Please be patient with me for a while. As you can see, I'm spending a lot of time researching the sun at the moment, and I may not be as quick in my responses as I might like to be.

I'll also be adding another page about the problems with the current model. I'll let you know when I've completed it. I'm doing research at the moment so it may be a week or two.

 

[Yamialpha]

There is however a GLARING problem with suggesting that our earth, and every heavy element on it, came from the stars, but stars contain very little of these heavier materials themselves. We also need a valid explaination of these running difference images with a standard model if it is to hold up to serious scrutiny as well.

So are you suggesting that the Sun's surface could be composed of the heavy elements synthesized in the previous star?

 

[RoboMastodon]

I'm bored so I'll bite again to another one of your crackpot hypotheses (the "photons have mass" one still has me lol'ing)

I would say it forms much like our own crust forms. While the core of the sun is hot, just as the earth's core is hot, space is very COLD. Earth forms a crust around a warmer core and protects itself from the cold of space. The sun must do so as well. The key here I guess is the material in question that makes such a thing possible. Unfortunately I can't answer that at the moment.

Photosphere temperatures range from 5,000 to 6,000 degrees Celcius. No known material can exist as a solid in these temperatures.

There is however a GLARING problem with suggesting that our earth, and every heavy element on it, came from the stars, but stars contain very little of these heavier materials themselves. We also need a valid explaination of these running difference images with a standard model if it is to hold up to serious scrutiny as well.

Just because our star's (i.e. the sun) composition does not have a high proportion of heavy elements does not mean that the supernova that formed our solar system did not. Remember that as a star goes maturity it starts out only fusing hydrogen, but then it starts fusing heavier elements such as helium and eventually if temperatures reach about a billion degrees (as it happens often in supernovae) you can start fusing things like iron into very heavy elements.

 

[Yamialpha]

Just because our star's (i.e. the sun) composition does not have a high proportion of heavy elements does not mean that the supernova that formed our solar system did not. Remember that as a star goes maturity it starts out only fusing hydrogen, but then it starts fusing heavier elements such as helium and eventually if temperatures reach about a billion degrees (as it happens often in supernovae) you can start fusing things like iron into very heavy elements.

I was asking Michael about that-does he think that the hypothetical solid surface of the sun is composed of the heavy elements synthesized in the previous star.

 

[Michael]

So are you suggesting that the Sun's surface could be composed of the heavy elements synthesized in the previous star?

Actually, I'm not sure that stars form from hydrogen gas as the currrent theories suggest. 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. The magnetic properties of ferrite also seem like just the material we need to explain these electrical arcs and magnetic surface alignments.

 

[Michael]

I'm bored so I'll bite again to another one of your crackpot hypotheses (the "photons have mass" one still has me lol'ing)

If you think my solid surface model is a crockpot idea, perhaps you could demonstrate that for me SCIENTIFICALLY rather than relying upon a mere arguement by ridicule routine.

Photosphere temperatures range from 5,000 to 6,000 degrees Celcius. No known material can exist as a solid in these temperatures.

First of all, it is already known that the temperatures at the base of the photosphere are much cooler than the surface temperatures.. We don't really know what the temperature is at the very base of this layer. We know from sunspot activity that the cooler areas of the photosphere are located in the LOWER areas of the photosphere. What the actual surface temperature might be at the actual base of this layer still remains a mystery to some degree.

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

Just because our star's (i.e. the sun) composition does not have a high proportion of heavy elements

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

... does not mean that the supernova that formed our solar system did not. Remember that as a star goes maturity it starts out only fusing hydrogen, but then it starts fusing heavier elements such as helium and eventually if temperatures reach about a billion degrees (as it happens often in supernovae) you can start fusing things like iron nto very heavy elements.

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

Like I said, I'm very open to skeptical feedback, but I'd prefer it at least be in the form of a scientific refute rather than arguement by ridicule. Every scientists that's ever discovered something new was ridiculed for these new ideas originally. It's much harder to actually present a scientific rebuttal.

I've spent a LOT (months) of time preparing and collecting images and video from 3 very high tech "eyes" in space to support my case. I've provide a WORKING MODEL that explains the behaviors we see in great detail. If you have something SCIENTIFIC to offer me that demonstrates I'm wrong, put it on the table. If you expect to continue the arguement by ridicule campaign, don't expect me to be impressed in the least.

 

[WhirlwindMonk]

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. In short, it's WAY to early to be claiming "nothing" solid can exist at the base of the photosphere.
...
Again, these are all THEORIES that have never been PROVEN through observation. My model on the other hand was put together ENTIRELY through observation.

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.

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. 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.

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