Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Quote:
"This cannot be correct. I can think of at least half a dozen different lines of evidence that say that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium with only a tiny amount of iron," said David Hathaway of NASA's Marshal Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
"Solar astronomers don't 'assume' that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. We deduce it from several different lines of evidence," he said.
"We measure the composition of the sun's interior using helioseismology, the study of solar oscillations produced by sonic noise within the sun. We find 90 percent hydrogen and 8 percent helium."
|
|
So enlighten me on exactly what evidence from helioseismology tells us we have 90 percent hydrogen again? According to helioseismology, the inner part is MORE dense than the outer part. Xenon seems like a likely bet frankly.
I had another thought as well. Perhaps the mass problem is related to the earth and sun being charged and "pushing" against one another electromagnetically as well as attracting one another via gravitational forces.
There are ways to work with the mass issue, if you're willing to think creatively.
Quote:
|
This is a very short paper by Oliver Manual. As others have noted, there is the neutrino problem. He is assuming the following layers: Iron core, surounded by silicon, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen/helium surface. It doesn't agree with your model,
|
Actually, I personally spoke with him today about what you are calling his "model". That is simply an "onion skin" representation of the supernova explosion, it is not "his" model of the sun. His model does predict an abundance of iron, just like we see in the SOHO images. These ferrite emissions aren't coming from a tiny little hole in the core as the gas model would predict, but instead these ions spring from a whole SURFACE that spans a very wide distance. This layer has substance and rotates uniformly, day after day.
I consider Dr. Manual to be a good friend, and there is little we actually disagree on. I trust his work a whole lot more than most of the silly suggestions I see, like trying to determine solar composition from photon count alone.
Quote:
|
it doesn't say anything about a solid surface,
|
He'd never "seen" a solid surface till he visited my website. Trust me when I tell you we are both on the same page and both tickled pink to find each other's work. You can go ahead and ask him if you don't believe me.
Quote:
|
I don't see mass percentages, or where he addresses the concerns raised here or by solar astronomers.
|
What concerns specifically? Most of the so called "concerns" I saw in the other threads were based on a blatent misconception that one can determine solar composition by photon count alone. This thinking demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary grasp of nuclear physics. There are valence shells to consider. There is energy distribution between materials to consider. You can't just count photons and say "hey, it's mostly made of hydrogen". That's exactly the simplistic logic that's being used to create a "concern". It frankly "concerns" me that no one complained that you can't just count photons to determine solar composition. I understood enough about valence shells and energy states of atoms in high school to correct that error in thinking. Dr. Manuel and his group aren't taken nearly seriously enough because most people don't even grasp even a rudimentarly understanding of nuclear chemistry. Dr. Manuel certainly does.
[quote[So your sole source is the opinion of a scientist that has been generally rejected based on evidence? [/quote]
Most people who put forth non main stream ideas aren't taken real seriously. I can tell you this from direct experience. It doesn't suprise me one bit that his work wasn't accepted since it wasn't "politically correct". I was however "scientifically" correct as SOHO and TRACE and YOHKOH demonstrate. With these images, I don't think we can afford to ignore his work any longer.
If you saw a pea sized lump of ferrite in these images, I'd be right there with you cheering on the gas model. Since we see a whole SURFACE in these images, I'm going to have to listen to the good doctor of nuclear chemistry. It looks like he knew what he was talking about, even if others didn't take him seriously.
Quote:
|
I'm sure he is, but this is your proposal. You wrote the paper and I am talking to you. It is your duty to gather material that will support your proposal, not mine. I'm happy to wait until you've had a chance to contact him for references to answer questions about the percentages of iron, silicon, and neon - what the evidence is, and how it was determined. I'd also like to see his comments on your model.
|
I think that's a cop out on your part. I have a day job and he's a far better reesource that I am on nuclear chemistry and anyone can see. If you want a real answer ask him. If you are posturing or just trying to make my life difficult, forget it. I've got better things to do.