Have a look at this page and you can see how to derive it yourself.

I did a little more research on this and apparently the focal point would be quite a bit closer for neutrinos. The issue is that the sun is essentially transparent to neutrinos so the paths of the neutrinos going through the sun as well as the ones going near it have to be considered. Here is an abstract. This doesn't affect the issue at hand (the earth is still far too close to be at the focus), but it is interesting.

The key point here is the confusion of "focus" with "deflection." Yes, the sun will deflect both photons and neutrinos, but the earth is far too close to the sun to be at the gravitational focus for either. But, the earth doesn't need to be at the focus to measure light deflection. This would be far more difficult to measure with neutrinos.

Show me a calculation that factors in the suns 22 year rotation cycle.

Actually you did NOT provide me the equations I asked for since I specifically asked you to start with the lensing of the galaxy and work your way in. I'm still underwhelmed by an arguement that continues to try to sell the idea that a particle WITH mass is somehow LESS bent than one WITHOUT mass. That is counter intuitive and illogical. The more mass, the more deflection. The less mass, the less deflection. If the particle is traveling less that C, then it has LESS momentum than the photon, and MORE mass as well and will be lensed SOONER, not later.

I've studied these ideas for nearly three decades. That is why I came up with an answer I now feel adequately explains these seemingly "light" sun. It's all based on RELATIVE movements and observation.

I'm still skeptical by the way. I've not had time to look at the equations yet today. I suspect they are FUDGED in some way to avoid dividing by zero.

Show me the suns rotational cycle figured into these density measurments if you think I'm wrong.

You said that twice now. I'll be honest, I think photons have mass which is why they are bent in gravitational fields, but that's a whole different topic. Your notions that you can figure out the density of the sun based on a massless particle ignores the divide by zero problem you will inevitably have to deal with sooner or later. Like I said, I'm sure there is a parlor trick in your math somewhere that simply skips that step altogether.

[qoute]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.[/quote]

You used the same argument three times. I don't think you can measure the mass of something without knowing the mass of the thing you are measuring it with.

If you are going to deny the validity of my answer I suggest you study the density issue and show me where any of these measurements include the sun's rotation or the accereration of the universe itself. THEN and ONLY THEN can you lecture me about the theory of relativity as it relates to this issue.

Show me the "differential rotation" in the videos I presented. Then we'll talk.

I still don't see how this has anything to do with the universe rotating once every 22 years, unless you are claiming a heliocentric model of the universe. (Not to be confused with a heliocentric model of the solar system.)
I have already said that you appear to be confusing lensing with deflection. The statement that you would need to be out beyond Pluto (as I said in my post, you need to be 550 AU from the sun) in order to be at the focal point of the gravitational lens formed by the Sun. At closer ranges, however, you will see a deflection in the path of light from stars, as it passes near to the Sun. (That's one reason why astronomers like total eclipses, as it allows them to observe starts that appear close to the edge of the Sun.) This will also be true for neutrinos, but with current technology any deflection of the neutrinos is unobservable because current neutrino detectors do not possess sufficient sensitivity and angular resolution. (I mentioned this in my earlier post.)

In summary, both neutrinos and photons will be deflected in (to an extremely good approximation) the same way. You just can't demonstrate the effect with neutrinos due to the limitations of current technology.

This also means that you still haven't justified your original accusation.
And I can find no evidence to suggest that anyone here was claiming any different to that.
See above. You are confusing the formation of a gravitational lens (and the location of its focus) with the underlying phenomena of the gravitational deflection of light (or neutrinos). My statement above, is true for both photons and neutrinos. You do not see gravitational lensing due to the Sun of either of these at the earth. You would have to go out beyond Pluto.

Whether its easier or harder is of no consequence the argument. I particle with less momentum and more mass is going to be bent MORE, ont less than a particle with MORE momentum and presumably NO mass at all. Now keep in mind I do think there is a solution here that works in your favor, but so far I've not heard it, and I'm not about to offer it.

BZZT. wrong answer. The He line at 304 Angstrom represents a temperature of 60,000 K. Again I refer you to the SOHO scientists who presumably know what they're talking about.

To say nothing of the arrogance that treats all of the scientists of the last century or so (with the exception of Manuel, of course) as purveyors of a hidebound orthodoxy who don't recognize what's before their eyes. (I refer the reader to Mike's comments on the scientists at LockMart and at SOHO).

Electricity as such is not a heat source. It needs to pass through a material and dissapate energy through resistance. Electric currents in the corona are one possible mechanism for heating it. Others that could also contribute are convection transfer from the sun itself and radiant heat transfer as the corona absorbs photons emitted by the sun. As the temperature of the coronal material goes up, different levels of ionization occur. The different lines seen by SOHO come from these different ionizations. The 284 Angstrom line represents iron that has been ionized 14 times (that is fourteen of the 26 electrons removed) that takes a lot of energy, such as that available at a temperature of 2 MK.

__________________
"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

I keep getting the feeling that you are not really reading the posts that you are replying to. If you were, then you would surely have realised that Tensor, and everybody else, is saying that the neutrinos would be focussed closer to the Sun, i.e. they would be bent more.

Take a deep breath, and try reading these posts again.

I guess I'm having a hard time with the logic of this one. As you said, the surface features are "real" and the deflection of the shock wave off these "surfaces" show they are significantly more DENSE than any of the materials in the show wave going through the photosphere. Whatever it HITS is made of more dense material than the material that is carrying the shock wave, othewise these interaction patterns would never have occured.

But we are talking about a shockwave that occured over minutes not days, and ran into something HARDER than the material carrying the shock wave. Moreover the patterns of these interactions exactly matches the patterns of the running difference images, demonstrating the ability of the running difference image to accurately reveal the "ferrite" layers structures.

That is a reasonable point except in this case the comperable comparison would be watching Dennis 'hit' solid features from space. The fact that features can "look" solid without "being" solid is a fair statement, but the fact we see the interactions of these much more solid surfaces with the shockwave itself demonstrates that it *IS* solid or we would not see these kinds of interaction patterns at all.

The fact SOHO images this layer AS as layer demonstrates it exists. Lockheed Martin and NASA admit it exists and have even created an ordering system that shows this "layer". The purpose of that image was to show the relative positioning of this layer in relationship to other layers. The cool blue zone indicates this material is "cool", whereas the yellow arcs seen by Yohkoh further up, show these arcs passing into a warmer region, suggesting that it first passes THROUGH the photosphere and INTO the chromosphere and corona. I suppose I need to explain my point better.

[quote]pp. 20-22
In these pages the author attempts to make his model account for the other elements in the SERTS data, focusing especially on neon and silicon. He postulates two layers of plasma between the solid layer and the visible photosphere: a neon layer on top, and a silicon layer below it. He identifies the neon as the source of the Sun's visible light, and also argues that it acts as a coolant to keep the solid layer cool. In support of this, he says that neon is an extremely efficient refrigerant, and that "[l]iquid neon is used as a cryogenic refrigerant." But liquid neon and neon plasma are not the same thing, just as solid iron and iron plasma are not the same. I could be mistaken, but I have never heard of neon plasma being used as a refrigerant. I also suspect that the usefulness of neon liquid as a refrigerant has something to do with the extremely low boiling point of neon--- i.e., liquid neon is extremely cold. At any rate, when the author says that "neon adds a major cooling element to the model, something we desperately need if we are ever to explain solid ferrite on the sun," he has not shown that neon plasma is capable of filling this role. What's worse, as on pp. 13-14, the author makes no attempt to show that this "major cooling element," even supposing it works, would make any part of the Sun cool enough to support a solid. For a second time, he has raised a major problem with his model and not solved it.[/qoute]

The convection patterns of the penumbral filaments show that it does convect heat, and does function much like it does as a gas. Again however, I gues I should work on that aspect of the presentation.

The umbra is not lit underneath the neon layer. That suggest a DIFFERENT material, and the only material not yet accounted for in my model is silicon. I just so happens this is exactly the right kind of material to explain the insulation aspects of the arcs. I though I was quite clear aobut it, but I'll take another look.

It just is, or at least it's "invisible" to visible light.

In a sense they are, no matter which model you are looking at.

Because we have other evidence to demonstrate a surface and that suggests a surface explanation is both acceptable and "better" than a pure guess. It *COULD* be a lot of things, but the evidence suggests there is a crack in the surface and heat rising into the penumbral filament layer in roughly the same pattern as the surface cracks below.

Perhaps, but they were 26 separate and very testable predictions related to this model.

The are all "directly testable" were we to have the right gear. I'm assuming that sooner or later they all WILL be directly tested in fact.

That is a misleading statement IMO, since I've yet to hear a "just as well" explantion for solar moss, or 11 year cycles or solar flares for that matter. I certainly have seen a "better" gas model explanation for the sunquake video. I think the term "just as well" is quite misleading.

Yes, it should be easy enough to directly test that one.

Well, gas model predictions never suggested a LAYER of iron until we found one. The gas model predicted a CORE of iron only. Now we see a whole layer of it instead. If we say a pea sized core of iron in the middle, I'd understand your objection, but since we see uniform movement, sunquakes and structures underneath the visible photoshere during tsunamis, I fail to see the point of moving on with the gas model. The whole thing is predicated on the notion that everyting started out as an explosive BB and Hubble has already undermined this theory substancially. I do intend to add the info from Hubble, Chandra and Spitezer in the updated manuscript BTW.

The solar moss explanation of the gas model is particularly weak, and I've yet to see the gas model predict a solar flare. In the sunquake video, you could actually see the crack before it split and created the solar flare. A solid surface model has more predictive abilities.

I included it because it was an observed phenomenon the model explains.

I think it's noteworthy there that my intent was not to PROVE the model was "better" than the gas model in the first place, it was intended to PROVE this model was just as worthy of consideration based on it's ability to PREDICT as well as it's ability to explain the observed phenomenon.

There are always likely to be multiple ways to explain various phenomenon. This model offers us a different and IMO a much EASIER and BETTER explanation of what we see. There are 26 separate predictions that are all testable and all falsifyable.

The gas model however is not very useful at explain that sunquake incident or the strutures we see underneath the shockwave or explaining the structure under the tsunami.

I *REALLY* appreciate the time you have spent on your response and don't take my causual response as any sort of brush off. I will listen to your feedback and I will improve the manuscript as per your suggestions. Thank you.

I think you're right. I just got hassled about this specific issue so much in the past it really irks me me that I was right all along and yet chastized as though I didn't know what I was talking about earlier. There is a definite pattern here of "ridicule first", ask serious questions later.

Bzzt. You didn't listen. I have no doubt that the helium layer is 60K degrees and heated by its LOCATION rather than electricity like the iron. Again, your own comments CONDEMNED the NASA model since we would simply not SEE the helium ions at all if this layer was covered by a ferrite layer as your so called "experts" claim.

Another of your famous strawmen. I was quite clear that until this specific generation we simply didn't have the technology to falisify or validate the idea that nothing solid exists beneath the visible photosphere. Its not my fault that MOST of the scientists from the last 400 years didn't have access to 21st century technology. I also made it quite clear that the SCIENTISTS that designed and flew this gear into space are my personal heroes. At worst case I am blaming NASA and some folks at LOCKHEED and a few folks at ESA for not recognizing what they are seeing.

There is no arrogance about it, it is simply observation. Your desire to paint me as the lone ranger of science ignores the fact that solid surface models were also seriously considered prior to this century. What I actually condemn is this myopic viewpoint that ONE and ONLY ONE model should be considered and ONE and ONLY one model can reasonably explain these images. I'm also growing VERY tired of the appeals to authority as though somehow you have to be "special" to see something with your own eyes and interpret it accurately. LOTS Of human beings have this capability besides just folks at NASA. Get over it.

I don't see one thing about your explaination that eliminated my model in any way. Will electricity heat iron to these temps, yes or no? What is your EXPERT opinion? Just yes or no?

No, I'm suggesting just the opposite of a heliocentric model. I'm suggesting the whole universe spins within an electromagnetic field that is constantly accelerating these balls of iron as they spin through space. I used the 22 year cycle because it suggests that the suns core stays aligned with the univeral field while the universe itself spins.

I'm going to drop this whole issue if you don't mind because it really has nothing to do with the model I have presented or anything related to this model. At this point it's a lot to do about nothin'.

My original statement is still relevant. I have no idea how many of the neutrinos that were accounted for in these experiments actually came from the sun, or were deflected into the experiment and counted as coming from the sun. This particular issue is one of the main reason I did NOT suggest a neutrino count in the first place associated with my model and also because I was still unsure about an energy source at that point (fusion vs. fission). I've pretty much made up my mind over the fusion fission issue, but the amount of energy coming from the rotation itself is still unknown. What I resented was being treated as though I didn't have a right to ask such questions or that such considerations were invalid when I first suggested them.

Like I said however, I'm REALLY done with this issue. It has nothing to do with my model.

And you're saying this doesn't have anything to do with this conversation? It has everything to do with it.

Here's the scoop. You look at images, then assume that just by looking at them you can deduce all sorts of things, including that everything we know about physics for the past century is wrong. When people point out the (incredibly copious) errors of your ideas, you simply continue to use those same arguments to make further arguments.

You say we are arrogant, when you are the one who is saying that every single scientist has missed incredibly obvious problems with every field of physics -- including chemistry, relativity, stellar dynamics, solar behavior, fusion, hydrodynamics, basic mechanics, cosmology, and now, evidently, acentrism -- and that you are the one who has figured all this out.

Did I miss anything?

I think that pretty much sums this up. I don't see a whole lot of usefulness coming from this thread at this point. No matter what people say, you are clearly just reacting to what they are saying instead of really thinking about it. You don't even consider the advice of experts, people who study this stuff for a living. And we're supposed to listen to you? Why should we?

I'll give you some credit for trying; it can't be easy to have so many people assaulting your ideas from so many directions. But in a very real sense, that's the point: your idea is assailable from all those different directions, because it's wrong in that many ways. Yet you have not been able to defend the idea against these questions, so you just build more incorrect ideas on top of others.

We have seen many threads go 20+ pages like this. It is invariably due to simple stubbornness on the part of the purveyor of the incorrect idea, because they refuse to budge on any of the issues, even the ones that are the most simply and egregiously incorrect.

I'm locking this. We're going in circles. If anyone wants to start again, they are welcome to, but I will keep my eye on that thread. Int he meantime, Michael Mozina, I strongly urge you to read this advice for posters in this forum, written by someone else who bucks the mainstream.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com