I'd say my case makes his case MUCH stronger. Not a single one of you has epxlain how iron is going to float on helium. Why not? How is this emission pattern that spans the ENTIRE surface of the sun, not consistent with his theory? If the sun was iron poor, why isn't the iron collected in the core? What's it doing floating on helium?

I'm finding that not many people actually READ his papers because they keep making many of the same false assumptions, like "photon count allows us to define the composition of the sun". Anyone with even a first semester exposure to nuclear chemistry should understand the compication of valence shells and energy states and would not make such a silly statement. Even still, I see it over and over again. Tons of people I talk to act like the sun's composition can be determined like that.

Let's look at it this way. Suppose you had 3 atom that made up the sun, iron, helium, and hydrogen. If you put X amount of energy into these three molecules, they hydrogen might emit photons 1000 times, the helium 250 times and the iron maybe 5 times. By this photon emission pattern, these folks suggest that by weight, the sun must be mostly made of hydrogen, with some amount of helium, and a tiny amount of iron. Thats exactly the logic that most astrophysisics use to determine solar composition from my discussions on these boards. That is simply irrational if you know ANYTHING at all about nuclear chemistry. I can see why he gets frustrated.

Well, my work just did that for him. His model predicts a layer of iron that is LARGE and emits across a wide area, unlike the gas model which predicts iron in the core only. Instead of seeing a small collection of iron in the core we see an entire layer of iron that emits ions from a whole SURFACE. I'd say his predictions were dead on.

Which error was that?

If you think he provided no math, then you did not read his papers.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No. This is an OVERsimplification. That might work fine for a gas model, but that isn't going to work in a solid surface model that involves electromagnetic currents. I'm starting to check out that plasma based universe idea I saw in the other thead on this board. I think those concepts make a LOT of sense and probably hold the key to understanding how to answer this question. There is no way to know if the suns "charge" and the earth's "charge" don't somehow influence these measurements. Until we understand these kinds of things, there is no way to answer this question. I'm sure it can be done, but it can't be done using purely a gas model prediction set. We live in an ELECTRIC universe and electricity is FAR more powerful than gravity. You can't simply ignore the implications of these things as it relates to a ball of iron. There are MANY other issues to consider, and your oversimplification isn't going to cut it.

The assumption you are making that no electromagnetic influence should be considered!

Then maybe I'll have to reconsider aspects of my model. I seriously urge you to check out the website that talks about plasma cosmology. That is an AMAZING website. The universe is certainly filled with all sorts of electromagnetic influences and plasmas of all kinds. To simply ignore all this in favor of an oversimplification seems like a VERY bad idea from my perspective.

I suspect other people were indoctrinated into astronomy just like me. You cannot sit there and tell me that it wasn't galileo who first claimed the sun didn't have a solid surface. That was HIS assumption, and it's never been verified or falsified by direct observation until NOW. NOW we know that there is an iron layer that does move uniformly from pole to equator that sits underneath the visible photosphere.

Here's the way I see it. None of you can really explain why we should ASSUME the sun has no solid iron layer. None of you can really explain why we should ASSUME that iron floats on helium. None of you can really explain a single observation from my website using the gas model. None of you can adequately explain why we see a SURFACE of iron rather than a pea sized amount of it in the core like the gas model predicts. None of you can explain why the sun would not be composed of the same heavy materials that formed the first four planets of the solar system. None of you have adequately explained why it wouldn't contain iron in abundance like every comet we "run into". Why in the world would anyone with even a first semester understanding of nuclear chemistry believe that you can tell an objects composition by weight based on photon count alone?

Until you guys can begin to answer some of these questions, I'm going to think you're just emotionally attached to being right rather than addressing the evidence I've presented.

Other than the fact it's big and shines, how do you KNOW it's "different" in composition than the first three planets of the system and different than comets? We already have evidence that our whole solar system formed from the remnants of supernova. There certainly was plenty of heavy material to work with. Why would only the lightest materials form at that center? That's not even logical.

That's one of the assumptions of the gas model proponents. They typically suggest that all matter formed from a single explosions and all matter was too hot to form for a very long time, and slowly hydrogen formed, and then is slowly came together by gravity and slowly formed suns and only AFTER one of these suns blew did we get heavy materials.

Hubble's instruments call such simplistic assumptions into question.

Only if you are personally naive enough to think that valence shells and energy states of atoms, and heat distribution between elements should be utterly ignored!

He didn't know much about nuclear chemistry either, nor do many folks today evidently.

LOTS compared to gas model predictions that suggested our universe began from a singlularity that was very hot and only formed hydrogen at first.

EARLY gas model predictions suggested that only hydrogen survived the early part of the Big Bang. Hubble suggests it may have began as a "Big Slam", or "Big Bloom". The current model is being altered every decade now to "push back" the dates to fit the data. That's a sure sign things are looking bleak for the gas model.

No, it wasn't. In fact there is now evidence that it formed from supernova remnants. That means that Dr. Manuel was right. If he was right about that, how do you know he was wrong in his analysis of lunar soil samples?

Yes. Have you ever taken a nuclear chemistry class? Do you understand energy states of valence shells? How would these factor into the spectrum data in your opinion?

I've seen a PART of it. I'm not exactly sure anyone has ever seen ALL of it.

I was really trying to focus on issues where I expected my model to deviate noticeably from the standard model. Since my model is based upon an expectation of free positrons and free electrons flowing from the surface, I didn't really expect to see much difference from my model and the gas model.

I'm guessing by all this focus on nuetrinos all of a sudden, that my original statements were really misconstrued. All I was trying to point out is that the gas model's predictions did NOT *AT FIRST* match the measured neutrino count. At that time, that gas model was not TOSSED OUT *ONLY* because it didn't jive with expectations. No concept should be "tossed out" only because it can't explain a single measurement. New tests were created to look for other ways to explain these contradictions. Nobody paniced however and claimed ONE test somehow ruled out the model.

No, it makes no sense SCIENTIFICALLY. If you know even the rudimentary aspects of chemistry, you know that there are energy states to consider and valence shells and heat distribution within the physical model to consider. There is simply no logical reason to add up photons and pretend that can tell us the solar composition. It is a LOT more complicated than that. I can't bury my head in the sand to an obviously overly simplistic set of assumptions!

I certainly do know the basics of the gas model. I was indocrinated into the gas model just like you. I just don't cling to it anymore, nor can I ignore what I see with my own eyes and can understand from my basic grasp of nuclear chemistry.

Start by explaining why we see an entire surface rather than pea sized amount of iron in the core. Start by explaining how the first four planets are made of heavy materials, as are every comet we've ever studied, yet somehow the sun only contains the very LIGHTEST elements our solar system in any real quantity. What is the logic in that?

How much of those materials is present?[/quote]

I don't know that purely from observation.

Be my guest. How much hydrogen and helium does the earth contain or any comet contain relative to it's overall mass?

Well, it COULD be solid as my model suggests. I COULD be an exotic plasma of some kind as well if I am to be intellectually honest about it. In either case, I would not expect to see this iron layer floating on top of a helium layer. That model would defy the laws of gravity. That however is the model that NASA uses to this day. Why do they do that?

Visit my webiste. Look around. Pick just one of my pages and explain the observed phenomenon using the gas model.

Sound travels through about anything except a vacuum. To have sounds like sand hitting a bell, you need a bell.

I explain it my noting that some evidence might support a VARIETY of models. Some evidence will not. In this case the evidence fits BOTH models and excludes neither one.

I was interested about this model of yours so I read the whole thread up until this and I find this fascinating and I'll surely talk about this with my friends later on, but now you got me a bit lost!

You seemed to earlier claim that your model supported that there was fusion reactions happening in the core of the sun, right? And I assumed you meant that there was hydrogen that indeed was the matter that was the fuel of the fusion, but now its something more massive that's in there after all?

You also were talking about how the majority of sun consisted of same materials as the planets. But if there is just a layer of these common materials on the sun and below that is something more dense, then isn't the majority of sun made of this something that is more dense or is the layer of iron, calcium, silicon, neon, hydrogen and helium that thick?

Or are planets majorly consisted of something more massive than iron? I hope someone can clarify this for me :-?

Pure grandstanding IMO.

Followed by a strawman? We aren't off to a good start.

Yes, I realize that. That was my point with the neutrino thing, but that got blow ALL out of proportion. There was a point to be made however in that observation that relates back the gravity issue as it relates to a solid surface model. I don't intend to abandon my model only because it doesn't yet fit ONE meausement.

But you guys seem to DEMAND one from me that includes all kinds of predictions about things I have no clue about!

Then the gas model SHOULD behave with a pea sized amount of iron in the middle rather than a LAYER of iron that spans a whole surface.

Sure, and likewise Galileo was right about the PHOTOSPHERE, but wrong about what was underneath the visible photosphere.

Forgive me. I've got limited time and I work on a budget.

I'll have to look at your links to respond to this. I will. What MATERIAL are you suggesting emits this light? Even if it can be explained one way, what makes you KNOW it's the right way? How do you know there isn't a better and more elegant way to explain the same phenomenon? How does your black body explanation explain the flare patterns and the flow patterns we see on this layer?

No, that is another of your strawmen. I said that I've used an arcwlder before and worked with electricity all of my life and I know some things about electricity and I know how it SHOULD behave given specific conditions. I see every reason to believe from my experience with electricity that the sun is electric and the arcs we see are electrical in nature. Now could you explain to me how you know they are not electrical in nature?

Toche'. I'll use the term IRON. In fact it's been pointed out by a few folks that my use of the term "ferrite" is more confusing than helpuful. I was trying to be specific about it being a ferrite alloy, but instead that seems to cause confusion. I'll work on it for you.

I was trying to imply that the layer isn't simply made of iron, but rather it's a magnetic alloy, thus the term "ferrite".

Yes, but we see ions from IRON over an entire SURFACE. :wink:

I agree with the official value of the sun that is assigned to the photosphere on out. The silicon beneath the visible photophere is cooler than the neon layer. Sunspots typically realease cooler silicon from below. How "cool" is "cool" remains to be seen, but it need to be cool enough to support a ferrite alloy of some kind.

I don't really know yet. I've been talking to Oliver about it. I'm not sure just yet, but the BBSO images make it clear that the ions are originating between the calcium and ferrite layers.

Purely visual inspection of the pattern in the crack and the pattern in the penumbral filaments. They seem be very connected in pattern and shape.

Well, for simplicity sake, yes. The longer explanation is that my model predicts the free flow of positrons and electrons. That IMPLIES fission or fusion, but how or what that looks like in the core is pure speculation at this point. It COULD be that dynamo affects are at least partly responsible for the flow of electricity as well. Since I can't really see what's going on beneath the surface and since I can't really know what is releasing the electrical current, I stuck with the "tried and true" method.

My "guess" is that the free flow of electrons begins with something heavier that hydrogen/helium, and heavier than iron. We could be talking a FISSION in the core rather than FUSION for all I know. All I'm suggesting is that electrons and positrons are released in these interactions. The rest is speculation. If you're asking me for my best guess, I think it's a fission reaction that releases the positrons and electrons and as well as dynamo affects from the rotation of the magnetic core accross the surface of ferrite/iron.

That would be my personal expectation, yes.

Since our own planet contains things more massive than iron, it's very difficult for me to imagine the sun not having uranium and plutonium and things like that at it's core. Iron is probably a relatively LIGHT substance compared to what is in the core. During "active" phases, SERTS data revealed elevated levels of nickel (heavier than iron) and sulfur. That suggest to me that whatever is underneath the iron layer is most likely heavier than iron. Gravity will pretty much rule out the interior being made of light materials. Something dense has to be holding up the iron.

Okay, thanks for the quick response!

What's left me puzzled now is that I think this would mean that the sun would be very much more massive and/or dense than previously thought!

I'm merely a student but I'm going to discuss this idea with my physics teacher next week and see what he thinks about this. 8)

I obtained most of the RAW dit video directly from the SOHO website. If you follow the link the archives, you'll find all the grey video located there. All images presented on my website are snapshots taken from these vidoes using Quicktime. I simply copied and pasted the Quicktime snapshots in Microsofts Movie maker program and used a "morph" between snapshots to simulate movement from one from to the next. I did not alter or change these images in any way.

If you want a "physics" based answer, I suggest you study the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. He studied lunar soil samples and comet debris. My model however was in fact based on direct observation as you suggest.

No, you didn't really miss anything. Dr. Manuel and I came at this issue two different ways. He based his conclusions on the nuclear chemistry and has every degee you could hope for in an nuclear chemist.

I came at this problem based on satellite imagery. We both arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Why?

I don't think that's a minor nit pick actually. I need to make some time to document my images better. I'll have to quit responding to messages in the forum for awhile and apply some of the feedback I've gotten to my website sooner or later. All of the images on my website come straight from the SOHO or TRACE archives, or from Harvard or Stanford. I made only the running difference movies from SOHO. All the rest are public domain photos and videos.

I'm currently working on a joint effort with Dr. Manuel. I hope to update my manuscript in another week or so to include the data from the other 3 satellites from my evidence page as well as links to Dr. Manuels work. You might check back in a week. I should have it finished by then. I'll probably change some wording as well and use the term iron rather than ferrite. I thought it was a clever idea at first to talk about a magnetic ferrite, but I'm finding it confuses some poeple. The term IRON would be a better choice in certain sentences of the manuscript.

Not really. I ASSUMED that readers had some understanding of valence shells and energy states and some understanding of nuclear physics. That turns out to be a bad assumption on my part. I think I'll reference Dr. Manuels work a lot more often in the next "draft".

Thanks for your feedback by the way. I appreciate it.

I believe the sun is much more dense than previously thought. I suggest you read the thread on plasma cosmology next. I think that area of study offers the best hope of explaining the orbital relationship of earth to the sun from a more "wholistic" and "electric" point of view. I'd guess there is a "charge" associated with the sun and the planets that affect their orbit. That's my best guess at the moment.

One more thing, you seem to talk few times about how you put lots of money to this idea.

Well, it can be a two bladed sword in some cases. Have you thought, maybe because you put so much money to this, you would have harder time admitting if there were any errors in your model? No offence, just a thought!

But on the other hand, I think you have just shown that you *are* willing to adjust your model, by changing "ferrite" to "iron" in some cases, where it works better, so there we go!

I'd say it's the ferrite on the surface that is magnetically charged and creates the magnetic fields to begin with. The iron ions are carried into the arc, and the electrical current within the arc creates it's own set of magnetic fields. When the magnetic poles point roughly toward the equator, it creates a condition where one side of the equator is more positively charged while the other side is being negatively charged. This creates an active condition where sunspots start to interact not only with the area around it, but with other sunspots in the other hemisphere as well. Things get VERY hot indeed!

When the magnetic poles align themselves with the spin axis, things are relatively "quiet" on the surface.

The term LOTS Is realive. Relative to me, it's lots. Relative to what's been spent building the satellites that produced the images I'm using, it's a mere pitence.

That's actually a fair observation and a fair point to raise. I assure you however that I wouldn't have put money into the idea if I didn't think it was important for the idea to be heard, even if not everyone jumps on board at the moment. I'm basically a businessman and I believe in the power of "competition". I'm simply trying to provide a competitive model to the gas model. I'm still certainly open to valid criticism, and I here with the express intent of getting feeback about my model.

On the other hand a lot of scientists make their living on grants related to some study related to the gas model. They are just as apt to not hear me because of the way it affects them financially and how it affects them professionally.

I don't make my living on scientific grants. If I'm wrong, I can just close up my website and walk about anytime I wish. So what if I'm wrong? Who cares? It won't affect my job since I'm a self employed software developer by trade. It would actually save me money were I to find out I was wrong and accept that idea. I'd say I have a lot less at stake than most professional astronomers who've been earning their living by promoting the gas model. That observation should factor into this discussion as well.

I'm not afraid of being wrong nor am I deaf to valid criticisms. I'm not attached to anything but "getting it right". I'll be happy to adjust things as necessary to make things right and I've essentially treated my website as a "blog" of sorts where I've added materials as I've found them and fixed mistakes as I've noticed them and found out about them.

On the other hand I'm VERY pleased with how this model holds up to the scrutiny I've seen to date and I think this process will help me a great deal with the next draft of my manusript. It has certainly been a worthwhile process from my perspective.