Quote:
|
Originally Posted by W.F. Tomba
COMMENTS ON THE MANUSCRIPT, CONTINUED
pp. 16-18
In these three pages, the author shows another set of SOHO images taken close together in time (a series showing shockwaves traveling across the sun followed by another "running difference" image) and points out that they show the same surface features. This is good evidence that those surface features are real, but it says nothing about whether they are solid. This section and others in the paper lead me to suspect that the author considers it impossible for persistent, relatively stationary surface features to exist as part of a non-solid surface.
|
I guess I'm having a hard time with the logic of this one. As you said, the surface features are "real" and the deflection of the shock wave off these "surfaces" show they are significantly more DENSE than any of the materials in the show wave going through the photosphere. Whatever it HITS is made of more dense material than the material that is carrying the shock wave, othewise these interaction patterns would never have occured.
Quote:
|
His interpretations of images make more sense if one takes that as a given. Unfortunately, I disagree. I am no expert on fluid dynamics, but I know that the Earth's atmosphere often displays well-defined visible features that move very slowly and persist for weeks.
|
But we are talking about a shockwave that occured over minutes not days, and ran into something HARDER than the material carrying the shock wave. Moreover the patterns of these interactions exactly matches the patterns of the running difference images, demonstrating the ability of the running difference image to accurately reveal the "ferrite" layers structures.
Quote:
|
One of them, Hurricane Dennis, is lashing the Gulf Coast as I write this, and has moved about 2000 km in the past four days. That distance is equal to roughly 0.2 degrees of the Sun's circumference, so a fluid feature moving as fast as Hurricane Dennis across the surface of the Sun would not appear to move at all in those SOHO images. In order for a surface feature to travel from the Sun's pole to its equator in a day, it would have to go about 40,000 km/h. If two features on the Sun's surface diverge by 1 degree of arc in a day, they are moving away from each other at about 500 km/h. Therefore, I would say that the degree of apparent "rigidity" seen in images of the Sun's surface is actually consistent with an entirely fluid model, once you take into account the size of the Sun and the tiny scale of the images.
|
That is a reasonable point except in this case the comperable comparison would be watching Dennis 'hit' solid features from space. The fact that features can "look" solid without "being" solid is a fair statement, but the fact we see the interactions of these much more solid surfaces with the shockwave itself demonstrates that it *IS* solid or we would not see these kinds of interaction patterns at all.
Quote:
p. 19
The author uses a "TRACE/YOHKOH composite image" to further support his conclusion that the "ferrite layer" lies at the bottom. I confess that I do not understand this page very well. It doesn't matter, though, since the author has already established fairly strongly that if it exists, the solid layer must lie below the other layers. All he has yet to do is establish that it exists.
|
The fact SOHO images this layer AS as layer demonstrates it exists. Lockheed Martin and NASA admit it exists and have even created an ordering system that shows this "layer". The purpose of that image was to show the relative positioning of this layer in relationship to other layers. The cool blue zone indicates this material is "cool", whereas the yellow arcs seen by Yohkoh further up, show these arcs passing into a warmer region, suggesting that it first passes THROUGH the photosphere and INTO the chromosphere and corona. I suppose I need to explain my point better.
[quote]pp. 20-22
In these pages the author attempts to make his model account for the other elements in the SERTS data, focusing especially on neon and silicon. He postulates two layers of plasma between the solid layer and the visible photosphere: a neon layer on top, and a silicon layer below it. He identifies the neon as the source of the Sun's visible light, and also argues that it acts as a coolant to keep the solid layer cool. In support of this, he says that neon is an extremely efficient refrigerant, and that "[l]iquid neon is used as a cryogenic refrigerant." But liquid neon and neon plasma are not the same thing, just as solid iron and iron plasma are not the same. I could be mistaken, but I have never heard of neon plasma being used as a refrigerant. I also suspect that the usefulness of neon liquid as a refrigerant has something to do with the extremely low boiling point of neon--- i.e., liquid neon is extremely cold. At any rate, when the author says that "neon adds a major cooling element to the model, something we desperately need if we are ever to explain solid ferrite on the sun," he has not shown that neon plasma is capable of filling this role. What's worse, as on pp. 13-14, the author makes no attempt to show that this "major cooling element," even supposing it works, would make any part of the Sun cool
enough to support a solid. For a second time, he has raised a major problem with his model and not solved it.[/qoute]
The convection patterns of the penumbral filaments show that it does convect heat, and does function much like it does as a gas. Again however, I gues I should work on that aspect of the presentation.
Quote:
|
After this, the author explains his proposed silicon plasma layer by returning to the sunspot picture he used on p. 4. He says that the picture shows a hole in the neon layer (caused by a temporary upwelling in the invisible silicon layer) through which the solid surface, with cracks, can be seen. This interpretation displays ingenuity, but the author makes no attempt to explain why it must be true.
|
The umbra is not lit underneath the neon layer. That suggest a DIFFERENT material, and the only material not yet accounted for in my model is silicon. I just so happens this is exactly the right kind of material to explain the insulation aspects of the arcs. I though I was quite clear aobut it, but I'll take another look.
Quote:
|
Why should the silicon layer be invisible?
|
It just is, or at least it's "invisible" to visible light.
Quote:
|
Why should we think that sunspots are holes in something, as opposed to areas that are darker than their surroundings?
|
In a sense they are, no matter which model you are looking at.
Quote:
|
Why should we think that those irregular lines are cracks rather than something else, such as thin streams of more luminous matter flowing through or above the darker matter of the sunspot?
|
Because we have other evidence to demonstrate a surface and that suggests a surface explanation is both acceptable and "better" than a pure guess. It *COULD* be a lot of things, but the evidence suggests there is a crack in the surface and heat rising into the penumbral filament layer in roughly the same pattern as the surface cracks below.
Quote:
pp. 22-26
After noting that competing models must be judged by their predictive value, he lists twenty-six "predictions" made by his model. Nearly all of these are just repetitions of arguments made elsewhere in the paper.
|
Perhaps, but they were 26 separate and very testable predictions related to this model.
Quote:
|
The few that are directly testable
|
The are all "directly testable" were we to have the right gear. I'm assuming that sooner or later they all WILL be directly tested in fact.
Quote:
|
are mostly things that previous models explain just as well.
|
That is a misleading statement IMO, since I've yet to hear a "just as well" explantion for solar moss, or 11 year cycles or solar flares for that matter. I certainly have seen a "better" gas model explanation for the sunquake video. I think the term "just as well" is quite misleading.
Quote:
|
Number 25 is interesting, however: the author predicts that silicon "blobs" would occasionally be flung out of the Sun into space. This is a very good prediction, because if there are blobs being flung into space from the Sun, it should be fairly easy to see them being flung out, and if we saw one we could use spectral analysis to determine if it was made of silicon.
|
Yes, it should be easy enough to directly test that one.
Quote:
|
Next the author lists "predictions" of his model's main competitor, the prevailing standard model, but stops before he has finished listing them, saying that he "might as well stop right here with these first few testable assumptions since it is clear there is a major problem with this 16th century model based on 21st century observations." Of the four he does list, two say essentially the same thing ("There are no solid surfaces or rigid ferrite layers beneath the visible photosphere" versus "No rigid or solid surface would be seen at shallow depths beneath the photosphere") and cannot be used to test the competing theory because they amount to statements of what he is trying to prove. That leaves the prediction that the Sun is mostly hydrogen, which his paper has not actually challenged, and the prediction that "[n]o layer of the sun rotates evenly and uniformly from pole to equator." As for this last prediction, see my comments to pp. 10-11.
|
Well, gas model predictions never suggested a LAYER of iron until we found one. The gas model predicted a CORE of iron only. Now we see a whole layer of it instead. If we say a pea sized core of iron in the middle, I'd understand your objection, but since we see uniform movement, sunquakes and structures underneath the visible photoshere during tsunamis, I fail to see the point of moving on with the gas model. The whole thing is predicated on the notion that everyting started out as an explosive BB and Hubble has already undermined this theory substancially. I do intend to add the info from Hubble, Chandra and Spitezer in the updated manuscript BTW.
Quote:
pp. 26-29
The author uses his model to explain several solar phenomena: arc-shaped features, solar moss, solar flares, and the eleven-year activity cycle. His explanations seem quite ingenious, although I can't be sure whether they are physically sound. Some of this section is a rehash of material from pp. 20-22 (including the same sunspot photograph, shown for the third time), and all of it is highly speculative, since it is all based on the premise that this paper's main point--- that the Sun has a solid surface--- is correct. Three things are worth noting, though. First, previous models of the Sun also propose explanations for all these things,
|
The solar moss explanation of the gas model is particularly weak, and I've yet to see the gas model predict a solar flare. In the sunquake video, you could actually see the crack before it split and created the solar flare. A solid surface model has more predictive abilities.
Quote:
|
and since the author does not mention any of these other possible explanations, he does support his contention that his model's explanations are better. Second, none of the author's explanations of solar phenomena are quantitative, so it is possible that his model predicts the right phenomena but with the wrong frequency or intensity, etc.; thus he cannot yet say that his model explains things accurately. Third, his explanation of the Sun's eleven-year cycle sounds as if it would work equally well with a non-solid model, so I am not sure why it is in the paper.
|
I included it because it was an observed phenomenon the model explains.
I think it's noteworthy there that my intent was not to PROVE the model was "better" than the gas model in the first place, it was intended to PROVE this model was just as worthy of consideration based on it's ability to PREDICT as well as it's ability to explain the observed phenomenon.
There are always likely to be multiple ways to explain various phenomenon. This model offers us a different and IMO a much EASIER and BETTER explanation of what we see. There are 26 separate predictions that are all testable and all falsifyable.
The gas model however is not very useful at explain that sunquake incident or the strutures we see underneath the shockwave or explaining the structure under the tsunami.
I *REALLY* appreciate the time you have spent on your response and don't take my causual response as any sort of brush off. I will listen to your feedback and I will improve the manuscript as per your suggestions. Thank you.