I don't think they are immune from being lensed, they just don't get lensed as much as you claim they would. And they are a bit harder to observe.


Well, you would expect the photons, or any other objects, to travel through a straight line in space unless any force, or say, gravity affected them. (gravity isn't seen as a real force by the relativity btw)

Now, according to relativity, objects with (huge) mass bend and curve the space around them. Now, in a curved space (say, near our sun) the straight line isn't very obvious to us. Hence it looks like the photons curved around the sun. The amount of curvature of spacetime depends on the mass of the sun alone.

So, do you disagree with relativity in this particular case OR do you agree that current calculations of sun's mass add up? You really can't do both!

Excuse me, what? I'm confused!

Not positrons but POSITRONS?
What is the difference between positron and POSITRON?

As far as I know, positrons are antiparticles of electrons.
What are POSITRONs?

Yes, and I agree that "relative" to earth, these measurements of gravity between the various bodies in the solar system sure seem to work with great precision. I've been poking around through the methods of calculation however, and I see only 2D "measurements" of the sun's density. In other words, I see mention of the earths orbit of rotation around the sun, but no mention of the sun's 22 year rotation cycle of it's magnetic pole with its spin axis. If the sun and our whole solar system is rotating around once ever 22 years as I believe is the case, this movement in 3d (rather than 2d) should be factored into the density measurements of the sun in some way. I don't see anything even remotely like that happening in these measurements. That extra centrifical force from a 3rd dimension is not factored into any of these calculations as far as I can tell, and while it may not affect RELATIVE gravity to exclude this 3rd dimension of movement, it will certainly affect any density measurements.

That is the line of thinking I'm persuing at the moment. I'll let you know when I've got something to share. It think however you must admit that the sun's 22 year rotation cycle is not factored into these density measurements and that "could" be a significant issue as it relates to density, even if it does not affect relative gravity measurements.

I must agree. That's why I've found this problem to be so perplexing and why I think it's important to resolve this issue logically and scientifically. I'm still working on it. Nobody abandoned the gas model the first time one meausement didn't seem to jive with the model. That caution should be applied here as well. Until we understand how the rotation of solar system itself factors into these measurements, I think it is VERY premature to get too carried away over a single measurement. I have great confidence that this issue can and will be resolved logically. At the moment I suspect it will involve the sun's 22 year rotation cycle. It seems to me that this movement is very important as it relates to the question of density, even though in relative terms it may have little affect on gravity measurements.

Sure, but all these measurements are 2D measurements as far as I can tell. In other words they "assume' that there is no movement vertically. Every measurement is based on a "relative" orbit around a FIXED (non moving) star. Since we have some evidence the sun is rotating around a universal field, this rotation cycle SHOULD be factored into density meausurements since it will certainly affect these meausrements, even if it is not relevant to relative gravity.

I simply fail to see the point of using a particle that presumably has NO mass to measure a gravity well. What is more difficult to understand is how folks think a massless particle is lensed, but somehow we can ignore the affect of this lensing on neutrinos. That is illogical IMO. It the curvature applies to presumably massless particles, then it must also apply to particles with mass. You can't make one argument and ignore the other.

I'm starting to think that these currents are responsible for holding things together, not pushing them apart. In other words, I suspect when we factor in a 3rd dimension of rotation, we'll end up with the opposite problem of trying to explain what holds it all together. I've got a lot of work to do however before I can really comment any further.

http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_...Reactions.html
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1259.html

You'll note that fusion and fission reactions release positrons and electrons in the process.

Logically one would expect the path of something WITH mass to be bent in a gravitational well. Logically we would expect something with presumably exists without mass to be affected LESS THAN something with a measurable amount of mass. Something isn't on the up and up here. If photons are lensed, the neutrinos must also be lensed. You can't have one arguement without accepting the other.


Well, I'm having a tough time simply ignoring the fact that relative gravity measurements within our solar system seem to work quite well. There must be another force at play, and I suspect that force is centrifical force of movement in the vertical direction. That would explain how "relative" gravity makes it 'appear' that the sun is lighter than it actually is. That's the angle I'm persuing at the moment.

I still fail to see why a particle with mass is NOT lensed, whereas a particle that supposedly has no mass at all *IS* lensed. This doesn't add up any better than my gravity issue. If I have to address the gravity issue head on, then someone needs to deal with and explain that issue head on too.

Well, I've also emailed them several times. I assure you I asked them about their layering system specifically and why they put the 'ferrite' layer where they did. That is the reasoning they used. It is a layer that is known to contain iron ions and they know this.

The corona is WAY too hot to explain these solid surfaces. It's way too light in composition to hold up a layer of iron, and there is utterly NO consideration for heat in this model. In other words this model would simply melt the ferrite layer instantaneously rather than ripping pieces off the surface like it does.

You have never identified the carrier particles to convey or carry these magnetic loops, so your model is utterly incomplete, whereas my model explains the carrier particle and the cause of them. What's carrying the magnetic field in the loops?

Look at the photo on that page again. You have a solid surface with pieces being ripped from it slowely but surely. Look at the video I provided. This electrical erorsion is SLOW compared to the thickness of the layer itself. They even talk about a "mysterious transition layer". It's a lot less mysterious when you recognize its a ferrite surface.

That gold video I showed you of solar moss activity shows NO signs whatsoever of this being a "very thin plasma" as you aledge. You are utterly ignoring the ridges in this video. Why? What keeps them there? What keeps that whole layer intact? Your answer is WAY too simplistic to explain these images and it has exactly NO observational evidence to support the notion that this layer it "thin plasma". That's a false belief. Period. You can tell from the video and the composit shot from Trace and Yokhoh that this layer is SOLID and sits UNDERNEATH the visible photosphere. It's not "thin" at all or SOHO wouldn't show this layer rotating uniformly day after day and keeping the same basic "structures" day after day after day. Your answer doesnt' jive with the observational evidence and neither does their answer.

The worst part is this not only defies the laws of gravity, but such a layer would simply block visible light entirely.

Not according to the video I just posted. I see nothing "melted" about those obvious ridges you keep ingoring. I see nothing "melted" about the structures that SOHO records day after day after day. PROVE to me now via observation that these are MELTED structures.

Even still, it would not float on helium as NASA believes. Gravity would pull that layer to the bottom. It wouldn't magically float on helium.

Prove that statement with observation for me. I see nothing MIXED in that video I posted. I see nothing MIXED about the structures I see in SOHO images that rotate uniformly from pole to equator. If this was somehow connected to the corona, and changed dynamically, then we would simply not see such rigidly defined structures rotating uniformly over the surface day after day after day after day. That answer simply does not jive with ANY observational evidence.

Your condescending attitude is exactly what's wrong with astrophysics today. You can't hear me because you THINK you know more than I do about this subject but you can't explain ANYTHING we see in these images. Your answers simply do NOT jive with observational evidence, in fact they CONFLICT with observational evidence. It's YOU that need to do some studying and show me observational evidence of your claim that this is a thin plasma via satellite imagery since I see exactly ZERO evidence to support that idea and you've never supported that statement observationally. If you can't do that I'm going to assume you are simply resting on your laurels and hiding behind a ridicule routine rather than addressing this issue scientifically.

No, it does NOT miss the point. It would be completely appropriate to use something with a known mass and the lensing of such a particle to compute the density of the sun. It makes a lot LESS sense to attempt to use a particle that is presumably massless to do this. Whether it works or not, it blows huge holes in the previous argument in this thread that neutrino lensing isn't observable on earth. That doesn't add up. You can't have one but not the other.

No. It's determined by the mass of BOTH particles. You guys insist I adhere to your definition of density based on mass calculations using the mass of earth and it's orbit but you turn right around and claim that a massless particle can be used to measure a mass. That isn't even logical. Worse however is you folks insisting that neutrinos are NOT lensed, but a massless particle *IS* lensed. The rationalizations around here are simply amazig.

It's too dense based on 2D defintions of gravity and 2D definitions of density, I agree. That does not however account for the suns 22 year rotation cycle, or eliminate the notion of vertical movement of the solar system itself. I'm starting to think that's where the real problem lies.

I think that you are confusing the basic concept that the mass of the Sun deflects photons (and presumably neutrinos), with the more sophisticated concept of gravitational lens (c.f. refraction and optical lenses.)
Massless particles are embedded in spacetime. If spacetime curves (due to the presence of mass), then the straight line paths that they would otherwise have carved out turn into curved geodesics that we see as deflections.
First of all, the neutrinos that we observe are relativistic particles, i.e. their energies are considerably greater than m_0.c^2. (Where m_0 is the neutrino rest mass.) This means that from the point of view of SR and GR they behave near enough as if they were massless.

Secondly, can I refer you to the post that you quoted earlier.
Maybe you missed this point.

Have you worked out the focal length for the Sun as a gravitational lens. It is 550 A.U. So will we observe gravitational lensing of photons or neutrinos by the Sun from our vantage point on the Earth? No.

You're going to have to provide more explanation of your reasoning here because I think that you are missing one of the essential points of central forces and the conservation of angular momentum.

FYI, my "answer" to the density problem in NO WAY violates the theory of relativity, in fact it COUNTS on it to be true. I don't want to hear anymore strawmen about me denying the value of the theory of relativity. [-X

Gah! I edited my last post rather than adding a new post. Rats.

Let me explain the relative gravity issue again:

If the universe itself rotates in a universal magnetic field and rotates once every 22 years, this movement would create the condition of producing local grativity conditions that are offset by the centrifical force of the vertical rotation of the universe itself. Within the confines of the local solar system, we we would experience a gravity measurement that is "relative" to the motions involved and yet this vertical movement would have the affect of making the sun "seem" lighter than it actually is when we factor in the rotation in 3D.

As far as the "lensing" issue goes, I still haven't heard a rational reason to believe that a particle with LESS mass will be MORE affected by gravity than one with MORE mass. If I have to come up with rational answers that adhere to the known laws of physics, then you folks must also do the same. Whatever forces "bend" the photon, must also bend the neutrino for the very same reason.

So, where do we stand now?

I've addressed the density problem now. I've explained all the materials involved as seen in the SERTS data. I have a Dr. of nuclear chemistry that came to exactly the same conclusion I did about the composition of the sun based on a completely different field of science and a completely different set of data.

Gas model theorists have exactly NO evidence that hydrogen was EVER the most abundant element in the universe. I've seen exactly NO explanations from a single page of my website. I've seen no logical explanation for the fact this ferrite layer covers an entire surface rather than being collected in a small core like the gas model predicts. I've seen no logical explanation to believe why a ferrite layer floats on helium, and I've heard no logical reason to explain that TRACE video that shows a layer being peeled from a relatively solid surface. I've heard no explaination of how such a surface rotates uniformly over many days, nor any logical explaination for the penumbral filament patters we see during sunspot activity that is superior to the one I offered.

Where does that leave us now? Is there any other logical objection to the model I have presented at this point?

Well, you did ask for my opinion, so ...

In no way. You have denied that methods to determine the sun's density are valid, though these methods have great predictive power and are used to determine spacecraft trajectory and in observational astronomy, among many other things.

You have suggested a wild alternative to conventional gravitational theory, but have not provided references, evidence, or calculation. You have not demonstrated why we should throw out Newton and Einstein just because you say so. It is a leap of pure speculation, based on nothing except the insistence that your model is correct.

You demonstrated that you didn't understand what the data represented.

(1) Dr. Manuel's conclusions seem to be quite different than yours, and
(2) His conclusions have been firmly rejected based on the evidence. Justly so, from reading the "Universe Today" forum.


Except for multiple methods of direct and indirect measurement. Incidentally, you seem to confuse "existence of" and "relative abundance." You need to look at the actual numbers, not whether one experiment or another simply found evidence for an element.

There isn't much to explain. It is pure speculation based on image misinterpretation.

(1) Because there is no ferrite layer. There is nothing solid. Pretty logical, eh?

(2) The "gas model" doesn't predict iron would all be collected in a small core, but is primarily distributed through the volume.

See above.

Because that isn't what it shows. This is a complete misinterpretation of the image.

You have not demonstrated it is uniform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

Pretty much the same place when we started: It is pure speculation, completely at odds with many lines of evidence, including density, observed elemental abundance, temperature, satellite imagery, neutrino output, helioseismology results, etc. The speculation was fun to read, though.

Mr. Mozina:

Here's a quote from http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm?
"The sun's inner fission reactions act as a huge, seemingly infinite, fission battery while the surface acts as a giant discharge lamp, with the core constantly releasing positrons and surface constantly emitting and adsorbing electrons."

Would you care to explain how immense amounts of gamma radiation from these positrons colliding with electrons haven't been observed by any of our satellites?

Perhaps you meant "protons".

Also, I note in this sequence of images a large black feature in the lower left quadrant of images:
2005/05/29 19:13
2005/05/30 05:48
2005/05/30 13:13
2005/05/30 19:13
2005/05/31 05:46
This feature appears to distend consistent with the equatorial regions of the observed layer rotating faster than the more polar regions. How does your model explain this?

Finally, you say, in essence, that most of the sun's light is provided by a neon layer. I grant you that neon spectral lines are, in fact, observed in the sun's spectrum. However, if your neon layer is in fact providing most of the sun's light, the sun's spectrum should look more like a blackbody curve than a plasma gas spectrum - in other words, the sun's spectrum should be dominated by neon. How do you explain this discrepancy between your model and observation?

Thank you for your time, Mr. Mozina. You may stop reading now, as everything below this line is an unsubstantiated and really rather rude ad hominem attack.

People, this guy seems to be nothing but a crackpot. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a positron and a proton doesn't hold a lot of credibility in my book. I postulate that Mr. Mozina wasn't paying much attention during his high school physics classes, especially when they talked about spectra of radiation and subatomic particles.

[edited to conform a little better to board policy - my apologies again.]

If the universe rotates once every 22 years, can you tell me where the axis is that it rotates about? (It would also be nice to know where you get the figure of 22 years for the rotation period of the universe.)
I looked back through the thread to see if I could find anyone claiming that photons bend more than neutrinos, and frankly I couldn't. Can you point to a specific quote for this claim?

Given how you apparently missed VanRijns quote
even though you quoted him in the very post where you claimed
Anyway, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to be putting forward a strawman argument, I imagine that you should be able to find support for your claim.
Guess what? That is what we have been saying. It is just that neutrinos are a lot harder to detect than photons, and neutrino detectors typically don't have the anywhere near the same angular resolution as photon detectors so they aren't sensitive to small deflections.

You still won't be able to observe solar gravitational lensing at the earth, however.

Llyr, I think that the majority of posters disagree with MM based on the physical content of his posts. Ad hominem attacks, however, frequently lead to bannings.