That's exactly what I think is happening. The Fe ions are seen is SOHO images in the extreme UV (between 10-20 nm) with narrow filters; so in those images only the Fe in the solar surface is visible. Therefore the images are showing a uniform distribution of Fe and nothing else simply because the settings for the camera and filters prevent anything else to be seen. :roll:

No, he's not kidding. If you look back in the thread at least six or seven of us have answered the sunspot question, with references, and he keeps coming back with the same questions. As to what materials are involved, I provided a table back here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=495513#495513

That is, very hot hydrogen/helium with a bit of other elements. Michael seems to insist that sunspots are literally dark, and that only neon emits light, so he rejects anything that would indicate otherwise. *In my opinion* he doesn't understand the concept of "blackbody temperature." A number of references have been provided on sunspot physics and the effect of the sun's magnetic field, but he rejects that as well. For what it is worth, yours is one of the more detailed answers. Nicely done.

Yep. Three of the four EIT lines are from Iron (171 Angstrom, 195 Angstrom and 284 Angstrom) The fourth, at 304 Angstrom, is a helium emission line. One problem is that what we're seeing in these images is the sun's atmosphere or corona, not its surface. Also, the iron lines represent higher temperatures than the helium one (on the order of 1 million Kelvin according to the About these images page). The ability of iron to exist as a solid at these temperatures is left as an exercise for the student. The SOHO site also states that the higher the temperature, the higher up we are in the corona. So the iron SOHO observes is actually not at the sun's surface, but high up in its atmosphere.

Again Mike, this may not be your interpretation of the images, but it seems a reasonable conclusion given your statements. I invite you to correct any misrepresentations on my, and Baloo's, part.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

He had his followers, long before I found his work. You act as though NOBODY on the planet EVER believed him. That is false. Several of his friends have contacted me to vouch for his abilities by the way. If you'd llike to demonstrate he doesn't know what he's talking about, go right ahead. Until then, arguements based on appeals to authority aren't really going to impress me.

[quote="Michael Mozina"]
I made 26 seperate and detailed predictions you are welcome to falsify at your leasure. The fact I can't hand you a PERFECTED theory that has had all the benefits of hundreds of man year of effort doesn't negate the model. You have predictions. Disprove them.

I already *DID* that! I put up PAGES and PAGES of observations and explained how my model fits these observations and EXPLAINS these observations.

Because it's based on pure observation, it explains everything we see observationally. It explains the iron ion emissions from a whole SURFACE rather than pea sized core. It explains the sunquake on my sunquake page. It explains solar moss. It explains the 11 year cycles of the sun. It explains the light we see with our eyes. It explains EVERYTHING I can SEE observationally.

On top of that, it was PREDICTED based on nuclear chemistry and many years of efforts by dedicated and intelligent scientists.

No. It is based on SOHO images, TRACE images, Yohkoh images, Chandra images, Hubble images and Spitzer images as well. It's based on spectral data from the SERTS program and lunar analysis and comet analysis. What else would you like before you'll consider the idea?

Yes I do. I think a LOT of them did. I think a FEW of them tried to prove or disprove the idea with very PRIMATIVE technology. I happen to have the advantage of a lot better technology than any sceintist that has ever studied this issue up to today. Only in the past 10 years have we had the technology to fully test this ASSUMPTION. That ASSUMPTION was false according to these images from 6 different multimillion dollar satellite programs and from spectral analysis from the Serts program and from lunar analysis as well. Most of the technology capable of helping us has only been available to THIS generation of scientists, and only in the past 10 years have satellites designed to study the sun been launched into space.

I put a link to every photo I used in my manuscript at the bottom of my manuscript. I put links to the SOHO and TRACE websites where I acquired most of the materials I have used. I did NOT try to do that with EVERY single photo, but few websites I've ever seen attempt to do such a thing in minute detail.

It's a valid question. The fact you can explain something ONE way does not negate the possibility that it can be explained another way as well. The fact you offered me an explanation is not evidence it actually works that way. What evidence do you have that it works that way? If you keep avoiding my question about the flare pattern and the fact it always closes from the outside toward the inside, then I can't help but believe your answer remains incomplete and does not jive with observational evidence. I know my model DOES jive with observational evidence and I have no reason to believe that yours does since you can't explain these *IMPORTANT* observations. Throwing a half answer at me is not the same as explaining the observed behavior with your model. You have *AN* explanation. How do you know its the RIGHT explanation?

No way. You can't get away with that. You need a MATERIAL to explain how we get THIS KIND of visible light. I offered you a MATERIAL in my explanation. That makes my explanation a BETTER one at the moment. I can explain the flare and the fact it closes from the outside in. You've not done that. You've handed me half and idea and claim it fits observationally and you keep dodging difficult questions about the behaviors we see in these pictures.

Hey, we agree. I've isolated the materials as well. You did not. Again, my model is therefore superior and has more ability to be tested and more ability to be falsified.

You THINK, but you don't KNOW. That's the whole problem. You ASSUME that since it's the "accepted" answer it's the right one, but you can't explain it personally. I can PERSONALLY explain my model, what the material are, and why it flows the way it flows. My model is superior.

I've contacted NASA and Lockheed Martin and Stanford. I've asked all sorts of "experts" to explain these images. Their answers defy the laws of physics. In this particular instance I did NOT happen to contact the person who took the photo, but I am just as capable of interpreting this photo as anyone else. You are arguing an appeal to authority fallacy again.

It seems to me you are underestimating them.

What do I need to get through your appeal to authority arguement? This is more arguement by inuendo. Have you ever personally used an arc welder? Have you worked around electricity your whole life? Do you have your own business? What is your competency in general science? See how irrelevant this is?

If you believe I am in error, demonstrate the error. Otherwise this is nothing but an appeal to authority.

FYI, I *DID* use the term properly since this layer is IRON, which when crystalized is a FERRITE, and the surface is really an ALLOY of a FERRITE material. Your nitpicking is simply nitpicking IMO.

I do not know that it is not as the one described. Do you? Do you know that the iron isn't FERRITE in it's own right?

The honest answer is "I don't know". I could GUESS as some of the other metals involved from the SERTS data, but what would be the point?

Huh? No. I have a heat source at the bottom, a cool layer of silicon followed by a layer of neon and helium and hydrogen.

No I am not. The hot silicon rises to the neon layer where the neon convects this heat to the outer layers. Once the silicon is cool, it sinks again. If you buy a lava lamp and plug it in, you'll get the idea. Now laws of thermodynamic are contradicted.

False. Science is all about OBSERVATION. Sure observation is NOT unscientific no matter what you think.

You're big on the strawmen today aren't you?

Yes, I've already noted the nickel. Whatever is below the nickel is going to be heavier that both of these elements.

No, I mean POSITRONS.

Explain what was wrong and I'll read your thread. Until then you are just ALEDGING this to be true. I've seen enough of the way people CHALLENGE ideas and "show them to be wrong" around here to know that your statements means nothing unless you can explain it.

We can determine the average density of the sun from its size and mass. We can determine its size by simple measurement and trigonometry, and its mass by the gravitational acceleration it produces on everything in the solar system.

From what I understand, Michael claims that our current estimate of the sun's mass may be inaccurate, since we aren't taking into account the possible effects which electromagnetic forces may play. Fair enough. But we have an alternate method of measuring the sun's mass.

According to relativity, light rays passing near a massive object will be bent by its gravity. Photons have no charge, so their paths cannot be bent by electromagnetic forces, only gravity. We can measure the sun's mass accurately, without worrying about interference from possible electromagnetic effects, by measuring how much light from distant stars and radio waves from distant pulsars is bent by the sun's gravity. Measurements of the sun's mass this way agree with the mass determined by gravitational acceleration within 1%.

Therefore, unless Relativity is seriously inaccurate, electromagnetic forces play little to no role in planetary orbits, our estimate of the sun's mass is correct, and the average density of the sun is far too low for any significant part of it to be made of iron. In order to demonstrate the validity of his model, Michael is going to have to disprove Relativity. Good luck!

Why would I do that? I don't believe that in the first place.

Nope. Try again.

It's right in the photo. I got it from their page in fact. It's LINKED to their pages. Right click on the photo and pick "properties".

The aren't physical layers. They are ion emissions in three different wavelengths that all originate from the SAME layer.

171, 195 and 284 angstroms. They are ALL emitted from either FE IX, FE X, FE XII or FE XV ions. All of these arcs originate from the SAME surface points.

It's pretty clear that you haven't a CLUE what you are talking about again and you are again attempting to undermine my credibility by personal attack. That is NOT impressive in the least.

You have THREE DIFFERENT KINDS of ions here all originating from the same surface points, the surface you claim isn't there. According to the gas model, these arcs must be mystical arcs ather than simple electrical arcs I presume? This surface that these arcs originate can't be iron even though all the ions coming from these features are from iron ions?

The herd mentality around here is rediculace. You guys are amazing. If you can't explain the image, hurl childish insults at Michael instead. Is that SOP around here in all the threads? Do you guys just ridicule everything you can't explain?

But you don't know how electromagnetic charges influence planetary orbits.

What is the mass of a photon? How are you measuring this affect exactly and what calculations are you using?

I never said a word about the theory of relativity being wrong. That is called a strawman by the way.

What other elements? What makes it a "better" explanation than the one I offered?

I reject HALF an answer that doen't address the flare patterns, the flow patterns or the fact these close from the outside in. Until you address this stuff, I'm not going to be impresed. I did that with my model. You did not.

You are WRONG. I simply do NOT believe it applies to THIS specific observation. If you believe otherwise answer the other questions I have put to you and quit hiding behind a vague answer.

The sunspot is NOT caused by "black body radiation", nor is the light from the penumbral filaments. That is A possible explanation but you have utterly failed to prove it's the RIGHT explanation because you REFUSE to show how it matches observation. Evidently it's much easier to insult me instead.

You were talking about the layering forming a resonant cavity, I see no reason for there having to be a resonance for the MDI system to work out.
I guess, though, that the self-regulating nature of the fusion process in the gas/fluid model may very well make the sun oscillate, and that would be a sort of resonance... The MDI uses the waves created by the convection of gas in the sun for its imaging IIRC, no need for this to form a resonant cavity...


Well, Its the photosphere, the visible surface of the sun, not high density as such, but it has a higher density then the layers of the atmosphere above it and so it allows reflection, and since the sunspots are in this layer it affects the waves. since it is visible its rather obvious its not a solid layer

Well, I was thinking of the pressure caused by the radiation and convection of heat from the core pushing outwards and deflecting the wave. But thinking about it, the wave may actually be refracted by the layers under the photosphere. Anyway, the end result is that the waves path curves towards the surface again, where it can be reflected again.

Hmmm.. Actually the waves that is detected by the MDI is caused by the turbulence from the convection, that is powered by the heat from the core.

I see now, I misunderstood what you were referring too, my apologies. Yes, the EIT instrument images three types of ionized iron. Its not really a homogenous layer of iron, though, the iron ions float because it is a low density fluid i expect, you know, a plasma of more than a million degrees is not a very dense thing, I mean, there are stuff that is denser than air here on earth, but that will become less dense if you apply enough energy to make it into a gas...

Well... Fusion has a big advantage over fission, light elements are at this time much more abundant in the universe than heavy, meaning there will be much less fuel, and fission gives less energy than fusion for the same mass of fuel, I am not really sure its feasible with a fission star. Of course, I do not deny the possibility that some fission takes place inside a star, but the amount is neglishable relative to fusion.

By the way, I was thinking, could it be possible that the inner planets has less hydrogen because the pressure from the sun in the young solar system caused hydrogen that was not bound with other stuff to be stripped away? Jupiter would likely have enough mass for the gravity to be able to better keep its hydrogen for example. Of course its not likely that the cloud was completely homogenous either though...

Dynamos need relative movement, between the two parts of it, the energy to keep this movement must come from somewhere, so it is not really a power source in itself.

I see, so the neon is ionized by colliding with hydrogen and other gasses, that would be possible perhaps, the iron is said to be ionized by collision. But what do you mean by it being created?

Its just, I am not sure about the feasibility of fission stars. even if they existed I would think they were rare and short lived compared to fusion stars...

Hmmm.. Well, the sun has a large magnetic field, so a little interaction there would be, I would think...

No... Electricity is a form of energy, but its not a source of energy. But I guess that you mean it is induced by the dynamo effect you were talking about earlier. Still do not see where the independently moving magnetic field would come from though.


Well its not against the laws at all, less dense gasses can float on denser gasses. The iron is ionized and quite hot. Hot fluids are less dense than they would be when colder. Also, seems like the EIT images just show the amount of ionized iron of a specific type and does not show if there is a lot of other gases in the same layers, so if I interpret this correctly it does not indicate that the layer is just iron based.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

IIRC Feynman said something like "it is better to not know than knowing and be wrong". Well, at list I've tried, I think my skills in english and pedagogy don't allow me to be more persuasive than that. :roll:

From the link (wikipedia) I've posted earlier: "A positron is the antiparticle of the electron. It is antimatter, has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron. When a positron annihilates with an electron, their mass is converted into energy in the form of two gamma ray photons."
Now, is this the particle you're talking about or something else?


Actually I was very serious; interpreting an image whitout knowing how it was obtained is not recomended at all and could lead to completely wrong conclusions.


I think your sentence resumes in the best way this thread. Yes, I think first and only after that I claim to know. It seems that you're disagree with this way to reach a conclusion, therefore I see no reason to continue this discussion since this has ceased to be a scientific debate (if it ever was... :-? )

It can be safely said that EM charges do not influence planetary orbits to any significant degree, since all the planetary probes wouldn't have arrived at any of the planets, since those trajectories and the planetary orbits used only gravitational considerations. if you want to claim or imply otherwise, you're going to have to show it.

The mass of a photon is 0 and the calculations used are here. Do you disagree with them?

No strawman here. The amount of bending of lEM radiation is based on the sun's radius and density (Which will give you its mass). If the sun is made of heavier elements as you claim, then the density and mass is greater that what is used to calculate (and those calculations match observations) the bending of light and orbital parameters. IOW if the sun's composition is as you claim, the calculated predictions and observatios wouldn't match as they now do.

And BTW, you have claimed relativity is wrong.


Claiming you can show us a problem with GR math indicates you think it is wrong. So, I'll repost the math links here or here, if you want to include a spinning star. So where exactly is the problem, or are going to retract your claims of the sun focusing neutrinos at 1 AU, instead of the the ~540 AU focal length based on GR calculations and your claim there is a problem with GR.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.