A couple of other points:

It is utterly ILLOGICAL to think that our sun doesn't contain the same sort of heavier elements as it's planets. To suggest suns are made differently than everything else is pure spectulation, and rather unlikely as well.

Secondly, if you don't think it's neon that's glowing, what's causing the light to shimmer on the layer of the photosphere everywhere but in the sunspots? What's different about the sunspots, and why are they so dark?

How is it even logical to believe the sun wouldn't have the same materials as comets and planets?

We know the mass of the sun by applying Newton's Laws of motion. From there, the average density can be calculated as PatKelley mentioned above. The average density must remain the same, whether it is the "gas" model or not. However, if the sun had a solid surface the interior density would have to be even lower than normally assumed.

Well, sure, there is some neon. From:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm

it is about 0.0076% of the total seen.

Hydrogen.......92.1%
Helium...........7.8%
Oxygen..........0.061%
Carbon..........0.030%
Nitrogen.........0.0084%
Neon..............0.0076%
Iron...............0.0037%
Silicon............0.0031%
Magnesium.....0.0024%
Sulfur............0.0015%
All others.......0.0015%

Of course it has heavier elements. And as with gas giants, hydrogen predominates. See percentages above.

The sun glows because of the blackbody temperature at the surface. Sunspots glow too at a somewhat lower temperature. They are darker but they are far from dark. The interaction of the solar magnetic fields slows convection to the surface so the area in a sunspot is somewhat cooler than elsewhere.

Here's one reference:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../magnetic.html

Why is this on a website and not a Peer reviewed Journal?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

No, it's based on the mass calculated for the sun divided by the volume. It is not based on the "GAS" model; it is a simple ratio. Based on this simple ratio, the density of the sun (1.4 g/cm^3) is too low to be silicon (2.33 g/cm^3) much less "ferrite" (Iron, Ferrosilicon - 6.984 g/cm^3), so for the sun's surface to be composed of ferrite, it would seem that there has to be a compensatory area of lower density beneath this layer which implies a hollow sun. Assuming, of course, your model for the surface is correct.

Yet you established it as the primary agent of luminescence at the sun's photosphere, hence one would expect a neon spectra for the sun, not a black-body bell curve. This conjecture appears to be unsupported by evidence.

Now it's calcium ferrite - but wasn't that supposed to be cooled by the Neon? How does it maintain its temperature over the span of a year, much less the thousands of years we have human records of it shining, nevermind the question of what fossil plants could have been getting their energy from.

Then so be it. You can't however determine density until you understand thicknesses of various layers.

You seem to have a VERY simplistic, in fact OVERLY simplistic idea about what these numbers represent. They only show us the RELATIVE distribution of HEAT, which will be OVERLY reprsented in the UPPER (LIGHTER) elements. That is *NOT* a valid way to measure COMPOSITION. I suggest you check out the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel for a SERIOUS attempt to measure compositon based on nuclear physics.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

Like I said, you can't apply an overly simplistic model to nuclear physics where heat is distributed through several different layers and expect to get a serious answer. Dr. Manual's work will validate the fact that the sun is NOT made of mostly hydrogen.

Huh? They are VERY dark to the naked eye. They have other types of photons flowing through them of course, but in that region, the visible light simply disapears, and we can see highly defined "sides" to this "layer" of "penumbral filaments". What the deal with the BLACK hole in just these specific locations, and along the sides of the penumbral filament layer?

Even if it were "cooler", it should not be SO cold that NOTHING shines from that spot, but shines right around the edges like that.

My explanation was MUCH simpler, and I'll just stick to the Occum's razor concept when we have competing idea.

I've noticed none of you have addressed that running difference movie I put together.

I still haven't heard a logical explantation as to why the earth and venus and mars are full of heavy materials, but somehow the sun is imunne. That doesn't make much sense of you ask me.

I submitted my PDF file for peer review on 6/20/05 at The Astrophical Journal:

http://mss.uchicago.edu/ApJ/

I'm still waiting for it to be assigned an "editor". From what I see at with other papers, it's not uncommon for this process to drag out for several weeks.

I figured I get an early start on the process.

You can calculate the mass of the sun, but unless and until you know thicknesses of layers, you can't really calculate the density of the center of the sun.

No, we wouldn't EXPECT that at all, considering the hydrogen and helium layers are spitting out vast amounts of heat and emissions of their own. I'd expect to find SOME neon, but I'd expect it to be "blurred" by all the other things that are involved as well.

We find that iron and neon and silicon are present in almost all supernova remnants, and galaxy collisions, but I digress.

The "surface" is likely a calcium ferrite ALLOY with all sorts of other metals as well. It's not ONE element. The calcium layer sits on top of that alloy. The silicon sits on that layer and absorbs most of the heat from the calcium layer. The neon layer sits on top of the silicon and cools the whole thing, passing the heat through "convection" forces we see at the top of the neon layer (penumbral filaments).

It maintains an even temp because it puts out the same amount of energy ever day, and the neon keeps it cool every day. I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of that question as it relates to this model.

The average density has been determined. Are you saying there is a thin solid layer over a gaseous interior?

Probably because you destroyed your retina. Seriously, this is basic astronomy. You can't look at the sun with the naked eye for more than an instant without damaging the eye and you certainly can't identify sunspots that way. You have to use a filter or other method to reduce the intensity of the light. Sunspots only appear dark through a filter because they are relatively darker than the rest of the surface. From:

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

Different types of photons? What are you talking about? And, of course, the visible light does not disapear in a sunspot.

Uh, right. A solid surface and different photons. Oh, and black hole sunspots - which clearly doesn't match reality. Much simpler.

And as said previously, the sun does have these elements, but the percentages are different because it didn't form the same way.

Anyway, I would suggest you read some basic astronomy books. It is clear that you have some fundamental misunderstandings on this subject.

That was pretty revealing re sunspot "darkness". If memory serves the apparent magnitude of a typical sunspot is about -14.5 to -15. A sunspot, if moved 180° from the Sun, would be the brightest object in the night sky.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I have NO idea what's beneath the surface. I can only tell you it has a solid surface. The only thing I can note from SERTS data is that during "active" phases the sun emits more sulfur and nickel.

It was your beloved Galileo, the father of the gas model, who went blind staring at the sun, not me. I'm not foolish enough to stare directly at the sun. I use a computer monitor to study the sun. Do you always make such rash and irrational assumptions about people you don't even know?

What makes it go black in the center of the sunspot as it relates to visible light? Why would a 1000K difference result in a completely BLACK (visible light) sunspot? What's "radiating" visible light? Specifically what molecules are involved? What makes it reform a shiny layer again? Why do we see "sides" along the penumbral filaments?

The wavelength of the photon will determine whether we can "see" it. Why can't we SEE a sunspot but see the whole shiny surface?

Have you ever looked at sunspot?

What are you talking about? Photons come in ALL wavelengths. Who said anything about a black hole? I said visible light is not emitting from the center of the sunspot. I asked you why that might be. Rather than addressing it, you created a set of strawman arguments that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with anything I've said.

How do you *KNOW* it didn't form the same way?

Pure argument by ridicule utterly devoid of scientific merit. Please read about photons and wavelenghts of photons before you stick your foot in your mouth again. It's clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Where might I find your references as it relates to VISIBLE light coming from the center of sunspots?

Mr. Mozina. I have found your website today, read a bit through it, and actually came looking around to see if there was a thread about it. Afterall, I found it myself on a google ad on Bad Astronomy. I am not a scientist and therefore I will not advance myself to try to dismantle your sayings.

But. I have a question: nowhere on your website you state what scientific degrees and studies you possess. Perhaps I have missed it. Still, could you please state your studies and experience to us?

__________________
-Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all of its students.-

How is that relevant?

You left out the statement I was commenting on, so I added it back in. This was a small joke. The word "Seriously" was a hint. The point being that it is very dangerous to look at the sun with the naked eye as you first suggested. This is not a good way to look for sunspots. I'm glad to see you conceded the point.

In order: It doesn't. It isn't. The same gas as everywhere else on the sun. See the list in this post. The sunspot/magnetic storm collapses (see sunspot references for details). The structure of the sunspot is based on the interaction of the solar magnetic field.

While the peak emission wavelength changes with the lower temperature, it is well within the visual range. As to your question: Go out on a moonless night. How many stars do you see? Now do the same on a moonlit night. How many stars? Now go out in daylight. Repeat the process. Did the stars go out or is it simply that you can't see them?

Yes, with appropriate equipment. However, simple visual examination isn't a useful method for determining the amount of light coming from a sunspot so I don't see your point.

I was referring to the following paragraph. I've taken the liberty of emphasizing points of interest:

Does that clear things up? Incidentally, wavelength doesn't a change photon's "type." A photon is still a photon.

I answered you directly. To repeat: You're incorrect. Visible light is emitted at the center of the sunspot. This has been very well established and carefully measured. See my previous posts and the links I provided for details.

Numerous reasons - relative availability of elements in space, examination of the sun and stars, examination of planets, examination of stellar nurseries, models of the effect of different masses on formation, models of the effect of a star on planetary formation, etc. And there is the simple observational fact that the sun CANNOT have the same relative percentage of elements as the earth.


Some might consider that ironic. From your statements and questions about sunspots (among other things) it seemed reasonable to conclude that you are not familiar with a number of facets of mainstream astronomy. If you want your alternative hypothesis to be taken seriously, you should learn something about what you are arguing against. Your insistence that sunspots are "black" is a perfect example of the problem.

[minor word edits added]