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.

But I did explain this phenomenon by using the theory of relativity you folks claimed I rejected. There would be no change whatsoever relative to our two dimensional sense of gravity. In other words, my explanation does fit within the known laws of gravity and stiill explains the increase in density based on a 3 dimensional perspective. No noticeable difference would be apparent from out two dimensional perspetive.

Rome wasn't built in a day. I just started thinking about this problem a few days ago for goodness sake! Even still, my solution fits well with observed phenomenon, including the 22 year rotation of the sun's magnetic field.

[qoute] 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.[/quote]

That's a rediculace strawman since I just used the theory of relativity to resolve this problem in the first place. To then accuse me of somehow disagreeing with Einstein is simply absurd.

No YOU demonstated you know very little about nuclear chemistry. If you don't believe me, take it up with the good Doctor. He had this outcome pegged nearly 40 years ago using nuclear chemisty. Where in your explanation of these numbers did you include any concept at all of energy states of various valence shell configurations? Who do you think you are kidding anyway?

No, they are not. We both agree the sun formed form a supernova remnant and is mostly made of iron and heavy metals. We are even colaborating on work together at this point, so your point is mute. Whatever issues come up, we'll work though, don't you worry.

There is no "evidence" that disproves his work because its been OBSERVED to be true at this point. I've seen how this group rejects perfectly sound ideas on a whim and based on "bad science" like counting photons to determine solar composition. With that kind of ignorance to overcome, it's no wonder folks didn't understand the work he did. This whole notion that you can add up photons to determine solar composition is just based on pure ignorance of nuclear chemistry entirely.

No. You have NO direct measurement that demonstrates this as it relates to the composition of the sun or any other large body in the solar system.

When one does the math the RIGHT way, and includes valence shell energy states into the equation, it's quite clear the sun is mostly made of iron. The observational evidence confirms his math and his findings were right all along. You'll note that up until now he didn't have such evidence, but he has embraced it openly now that it is available. Sooner or later others will notice he was right all along and the information I compiled confirms it observationally.

What a GIANT cop out that is. It's not really an sunquake even though it LOOKS like a sunquake? If you beloved gas model had been accurate, these ion emissions would be coming from a tiny little core. Instead there is a whole LAYER of ferrite covering the width of the sun. You're just going to ignore that little problem eh?

No, that is pure denial on your part. I can see it with my own eyes and so can anyone else who WANTS to. The fact this LAYER rotates uniformly and all the structures stay intact day after day after day precludes you from claiming there is nothing "solid". That movie I handed you from Lockheed Martin precludes you from claiming this layer isn't solid. You've NEVER addressed this video or explained what holds those ridges together in that kind of heat range. You are simply in denial of the observational evidence at this point.

How do you explain ALL that iron? Did you even do some quick math to consider the ramifications of even a modest amount of ferrite over such a large surface area? There is NO WAY this amount of iron can be explained by the gas model.

See above yourself. You've never demonstrate that iron ANYTHING, solid or plasma will FLOAT on helium plasma and not separate from helium plasma. You are simply ALEDGING this like you have ALEDGED everything else. You do so in direct opposition to the clear abundance of iron all along a surface that rotates uniformly.

But of course you offer no explaination of your own? This really is a big time denial routine now.

I did. If you'd bother to watch the running difference images I put together you can see it for yourself. Show me ANY evidence in that video that anything rotates differently than any other part of the surface. You cannot and you will not.

No answer about the flare pattern. It didn't explain why the hole always closes from the outside in either. You are just tossing out a concept and HOPING it sticks. It doesn't fit since it doesn't address the important observations I have pointed out to you.

I addressed the density thing USING the relativity theory. You on the other hand didn't touch a single observation on my website and offer a rational explation of this observation using the gas model. That is because there isn't one. The sun never was a giant ball of gas and Dr. Manuel knew that 35 years before we could "see" it for ourselves.

As do I.

My attack really isn't that bad - just pointing out Monsieur Mozina's apparent ignorance on several fundamental physical ideas and postulating an explanation for such. If I am banned, I will go with grace. ^^

EDIT: Also, if ad hominem attacks frequently lead to bannings, then our dear Mozina might be on the fast track to not making any more posts.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. Why should the silicon layer be invisible? Why should we think that sunspots are holes in something, as opposed to areas that are darker than their surroundings? 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?

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. The few that are directly testable are mostly things that previous models explain just as well. 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.

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.

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, 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.

pp. 30-32
Summary and references.

I'm sure there are protons as well, but both fission and fusion release positrons as well. The fact these reactions are encased heavy metals would probably just release a lot of heat.

I don't see any black feature that rotates differently from anything else. There are some intensity differences from one shot to the next, but the features themselves move uniformly from pole to equator.

My model would predict that most of the heat is passed onto the helium and hydrogen layers which will emit most of the photons, and the interaction of all these various photons will create "black body" pattern.

Anyone who doesn't understand that positrons are released in nuclear fission and fusion clearly doesn't know a lot about nuclear physics. The fact you keep harping on protons is irrelevant to the fact that these reactions *ALSO* release positrons as well as a host of other particles. GEEZ! This place is rediculace. The fact you can't READ is does not make me a crackpot.

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/ob...hapter_22.html
Wake up! Positrons, electron, protons and neutrinos are ALL released in these reactions, not just ONE particle! Who's the crackpot?

First off, welcome to BABB! We like to see new faces, but there are some pretty strong rules. It is supposed to be family friendly, and curse words as well as simulated curse words are a no-no. The rules for what constitutes an ad hominem can get a bit blurry, but I agree your comment went a bit too far here.

That being said, I think there is general agreement here that from his statements, Michael appears to have a substantial number of fundamental misunderstandings in physics and astronomy, but so far does not seem to be inclined to correct this. Still, his speculations are interesting, and I have learned a number of things both from others here and from the research I've done for my own posts.

It's a rather large black line crossing the entire lower left quadrant. The upper (equatorial) part appears to be rotating faster than the more polar parts.

Also, in a spirit of helpful, friendly correction, it is, in fact, spelled "ridiculous".

I get the 22 year figure based on the time it takes for the sun to complete one full cycle of it's magnetic field rotation. How does the gas model explain this phenomenon by the way?

I was specifically told the nuetrinos wouldn't lense until "pluto" if I recall, but somehow a particle of light is bent VISIBLY by the sun. Something doesn't jive here. The very same affect that bends light would necessarily apply to neutrinos as well since they presumably have MORE mass than a photon.

All I am noting here is that whatever is bending light must also bend neutrinos. I realize that neutrinos are tougher to detect than photons, but I have no doubt they will be BENT at least as much a something that presumably is without any mass at all.

Why? Why would a neutrino with more mass than a photon not be visibly altered by the gravitaional forces of the sun just like a photon? Why would a photon get bent by the time it gets to earth, but a heavier particle not be bent at least as far?

I apologize to Mr. Mozina and any other members of the board I may have insulted, and will strive to more thoroughly moderate my posts in future.

You can say that again. ^^

In fact, they are, but postulating universal rotation (tantamount to postulating a fixed center of the universe, no?) through a universal though hitherto undetected magnetic field seems to me slightly preposterous.

EDIT: I would be pleased to further participate in this discussion, but I do believe that is the smell of cookies wafting down from upstairs. You will please excuse me.

Sorry. I've watched it now a dozen more times since you posted this comment and I just don't see black line that moves differently than anything else. I've sat down with these images and graph paper and played with these enough to know they rotate uniformly. I'm working at adding a grid to the photos themselves to demonstrate it mathematically in the photo itself so I can include this in the next revision of the manuscript. I simply don't see the black line you think rotates at a different speed, and I've never run across that phenomenon during any the printouts I made and graphs I made.

Whatever. It figures you folks would focus on the trivia.

Alas, but they don't. The SOHO website says so themselves. Scroll down to the description of the EIT and you find: So the different iron wavelengths actually come from different parts of the sun's corona, not from a single layer, as you claim. And by the way, how do we see through the iron layer to the helium emission lines at 304 Ang ?

No Mike, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm a physicist and have been studying problems such as this for over 20 years. I think I have a good feel for what's physically plausible and what isn't. Solid layers of iron at MegaKelvin temperatures and a sun powered by nuclear fission aren't among them. As to undermining your credibility, I have no need to do that.

Again, I refer the reader to the SOHO site. The EIT iron emission lines represent different temperatures and come from iron present at different coronal altitudes. As to prominences, no they are not "mystical arcs." While we may not know everything about solar dynamics, we do know what prominences are. They are plasmas following magnetic field lines from the sun. They have far too much structure and last too long to be some sort of spark.

(edited to fix a bb code error)

__________________
"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

Are you now claiming the Sun rotates as a solid body, pole to equator?

To bad, you have claimed GR is wrong. In your discussion with EtaC concerning the neutrino flux and your claim that the solar neutrinos could be focused from the backround neutrinos, from this post on page 7 you claimed that:

Few post later this post also on page seven. My claim that the neutrinos couldn’t focus at 1 AU and your response:

Now if you want to claim again, that you never made that statement, follow those links and see where those statements are. So if you are now saying you don’t disagree with relativity, are you retracting your claim that the solar neutrino flux can be focused from backround neutrinos?

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

In a different post

There are no 2d definitions of gravity in a full treatment of GR. GR uses 4 dimensional spacetime for it's calculations, three spatial and one time and velocity is part of it. The above is nothing less than handwaving as you provided no quantitative support for your claim and it's wrong.



Van Rijn and Fortis provided you with an explanation for why neutrinos cannot be focused at 1 AU (thanks guys, I didn't get back to this unitl tonight). Nothing says neutrinos (or other massive particles) can't be focused, but as neutrino mass have 30eV as an upper bound, their energies require them to be traveling almost at the speed of light (with 99.99% of c as a lower bound), which means the focal point for neutrinos will be approx 99.99% of the photons focal point. The photon's focal point is ~540 AU, a neutrino's will be at 539.9 AU, well away from the 1 AU you need for the focal point to be at 1 AU. If you disagree (but, then again, you claim you don't disagree with GR ) with this you've been provide the equations, [b]you[/] asked for. So either show us where the equations are wrong, or quit making this claim.


Now in a later post you post this:

You are not using any theory of relativity that is recognizable by anyonw who has studied it. Your claim that you don't understand the difference in how mass and massless particles can be focused or how it is calculated; your 2d gravity claim above; your misunderstanding of how gravity can affect massless particles; and your inability to understand how massless particles can be used to show the density of the sun does nothing but demonstrate your understanding of General Relativity is seriously deficient. If you are going to continue try and use GR to support of your idea, I suggest you do some serious study on GR.

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

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

First of all, these emission are related to the TYPE of photon that is released, and the heat it takes to release it, not NECESSARILY its relative location in the layering system. Electricity can release MANY types of ion emissions from many types of materials from ANY location.

These temps are caused by ELECTRICITY, not the position of the material in the layering scheme. That's EXACTLY the same thing that Lockheed Martin overlooks as well. Their model INSISTS that the heat comes from the corona, whereas they have not even CONSIDERED The notion the heat comes from the electrical actiivity rather than the corona. It is that very ASSUMPTION that is false in the first place! I know what they "believe" since I've talked to them repeatedly. This concept ignores even the POSSIBILITY that the heat comes from electricity. That's their whole problem in a nutshell in fact. Both NASA and Lockheed had never even considered that option.

No, it comes from a single layer that gets pieces stripped off and then these pieces get heated by the electrical activity of the arc itself, not the corona. You are also INSISTING there is only ONE POSSIBLE explanation when I have already offered you a perfectly vialble alternative, one that doesn't defy the laws of gravity either.

You don't. The helium layer is ABOVE the iron layer. It the iron layer was above the helium as NASA claims THEN your criticism has merit, hence my model over theirs.

It's that kind of arrogance that has led to this problem in the first place. If you have all this experience on these issues, please explain to me why electricity cannot possibly be the heat source rather than the corona.

We'll decide if that is true, once I hear you explain to me how you KNOW the heat isn't from electricity. Otherwise you are just appealing to authority at this point.

Huh? Given enough electricity and heat arcs will travel much further distances than we see on the sun. I'm afraid your focus on ONE possible heat source does NOT preclude other possible heat sources. Until you can provide me with a carrier particle to create these arcs, and explain why all three sets of arcs originate from the same structure, your arguements don't hold water.

I'll wait to hear you explain to me with your greater expertise of electricity, how it's simply not possible that the heat releasing these photons cannot possibly be from electricity. Then we'll talk. Until then you're explanation is just smoke and mirrors and does not explain how such structures could EVER be stable at the temps in the corona itself. In essense the whole thing would melt in an instance and you never see these kinds of ridges.
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Publi...171_000828.avi

A good set of posts W.F. There is another example of a long-lived atmospheric feature you could reference here: the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. It's clearly not a solid surface feature, and has persisted for centuries (if not millenia).

__________________
"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