Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TrAI
Hmmm... I was thinking, wouldn't a solid surface of iron affect the results of the helioseismology data to a degree that would make it possible to detect?
|
Without some sort of solid resonance cavity, it's going to be hard to get heliosceismology to work at all IMO. What creates the resonance cavity in the first place?
Quote:
|
'I mean, if it is a high density(higher density than the underlying layer), and the reflection occurs between it and an overlaying neon layer, the wave would refract at the boundary between the iron and the underlying layers, affecting timing and positions of the place the waves surface on the visible side. As a side effect, waves going down from the surface could get reflected of the interface between the iron and the lower gas/fluid layers it their angles was correct, I guess one might even see waves traveling around the sun several times, totally reflected inside the iron layer, something that would have extremely different signatures than the deeper wave penetration that allows one to make an image of the other side of the sun.
|
I guess I'm still not quite following you. I would suggest that it is the arcing on the surface that creates the sounds that people interpret as "grains of sand" striking a bell. The heavier material inside the iron layer carries these waves to the other side where they relfect out into the lighter materials.
Quote:
|
I also think it seems strange that a denser layer would be able to keep from melting or breaking apart in the hostile environment of the sun and just sinking.
|
I agree. That's why I have a hard time with NASA's notion that iron floats on helium and why I'm inclined to believe that the only materials below the iron layer are at least as heavy as iron.
Quote:
|
Wouldn't also such a sphere have problems with keeping centred on the sun, if one side moves closer to the core, it would have more radiation pressure on it per unit of area, but it would have a lot more area on the other side, so would it not balance out, and simillarly for gravity?
|
If the core is heavy, then there really isn't a problem. When you suggest iron layers float on helium layers, the you are right, there is a HUGE problem. Fortunately my model suggests the iron is underneath the helium and and suspended by a molten core, probably of nickel and other heavier elements. It operates not that much differently than earth operatates, with a solid surface that sits on a molten core. It certainly does experience sunquakes however. I have a whole page devoted to that particular phenomenon in fact.
Quote:
|
If the iron layer was lower density, so that it floats, and that the reflection occurs at the interface between the lower layer and the iron layer. This I expect would mean that the iron layer is quite thick, or else it would not make that much of an impact on the iron, and my guess would be that it would be more fluid than solid...?
|
From the solar moss phenomenon, it is clear that this layer is thick. It's relatively solid however until the electrical activity ionizes the iron and we start to see the FE IX and FE X ions emit photons. As the iron is ionized it gets VERY hot and is carried by the electrical current into the arc.
Quote:
|
If it has the density and acoustic properties that makes it fit the gas/fluid model to such a degree that we do not notice that its there, it is a gas/fluid, and so do not fit the solid surface of the sun model, even if there is a higher content of iron than expected, it would still be a gas/fluid sun…
|
How do you explain even an iron plasma layer floating on a helium layer? It really doesnt' matter whether it's a solid, or some sort of exotic plasma layer of iron, it's still going to sink to the bottom, not float on hydrogen and NASA claims.