It means he got stuck in his argument.

I think you are again jumping to conclusions until we understand the implication of "universal acceration" as it relates to the density of the sun. I can't make such assesments from the observational evidence I have obtained to this point in time, and I make no such statement of faith.

It DOES matter, as does the SOURCE of the acceleration of our universe. Until we understand the implications of an iron sun and the source of acceleration, it's WAY premature to make such a statement IMO.

No, actually I'd expect a spike in the oxygen/neon range, and/or the helium/hydrogen/neon ranges. It depends on how all these layer interact. I'm still learning as as I go. I'm checking into that idea now, but it will take a while.

Then why does Chandra record a LAYER of iron in the Cassiopiea A remnants? (you'll find an example on my evidence page)

That is ONE possibility of course, but then we also must allow for the possibility that the iron has ALWAYS been present, and hydrogen is merely a by-product of the electrical activity between that calcium and metal layers of the sun. According to Hubble, Iron and silicon and neon have been present in our universe as far back in time as we can currently see. Care to explain that in terms of a gas model? Why is there so much iron in only 1 Billion years if everything began as an explosive singularity?

How do we know the BB was an "explosive singularity" in the first place as opposed to say a galaxy like collision between intersecting universes, where some matter interacts and some does not?

Why does Chandra find so much ferrite rotating around black holes?

There are SO MANY assumptions that cannot be simply taken for granted as they are today. We must ask some important questions based on this satellite imagery and the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. There is no reason not to explore this stuff unless we are just too myopic to notice the evidence we see to suggest that the sun has a ferrite layer. I'm not closed minded. Are you?

There are two possibilities and two likely influences. The first likely possibility is that the CORE of the sun does indeed produce fusion reactions which release free posititrons and electrons. The other possiblity is based upon magneto affects of having a solid ferrite surface rotating within a universal magnetic field. They math BOTH be power sources for all I know.

I mean that the gas model didn't crumble the first time the predictions didn't match the evidence. The test were changed to test for other options and other possibilities. Whether these specific changes applied accurately to this question and whether such changes eliminate other models remains to be seen. That's what I mean.

I've already presented evidence that hydrogen and helium dominate. In any event, you are the one making the claim. What is your evidence that the sun contains large percentages of "ferrite," silicon, and neon?

You may have an alternate explanation, but if you do understand the subject, you should know how it fits. Please explain it in your own words. It has been pretty well spelled out in other entries and links in this thread anyway.

Why should they exceed "outer" temps?

Please explain why all the provided references that demonstrate that these "inner areas" do exactly this are wrong, or retract this assertion.

So in addition to your solid sun proposal, are you also proposing an alternate gravity "theory"? What is this proposal exactly and what evidence do you have for it? Do you agree that mainstream theory does not allow for a solid sun?

So in addition you are also proposing a novel form of long term energy generation? What are the details of this proposal and what is your evidence?

By the way, do you have relatives in Australia? You remind me of someone ...

As far as raw spectral data, nobody claimed otherwise. As far as INTERPRETING that data, I cited Dr. Oliver Manuel's work to demonstrate that a SIMPLISTIC notion of trying to assertain the makeup of the sun based strictly on photon count was not scientifically tenable.

The work of Dr. Oliver Manuel, the SERTS data, the satelllite evidence and the general rediculaceness of trying to suggest that comets which are iron rich are not the primary building blocks of suns. What data do you have that PROVES that no ferrite layer exists again?

A very SIMPLISTIC concept is "spelled out" in these links, but no correlation between these SIMPLISTIC ideas and observed evidence has been established. Please explain the BLACK areas of the video and photo I presented and THEN we can discuss whether the notion of black body radiation applies to the sun as it relates to the visible photosphere.

[quote]Why should they exceed "outer" temps?[quote]

Gravity. Where is the nuclear fussion happening again? Isn't that "hot"?

I just posted a sunspot photo and a video of a sunspot. What more would you like? Do you observe the black part being a distinctly different color than the white part, yes or no? Do you see the flare on the layer of the phenumbral filaments, yes or no? Explain this FLARE to me using "black body" explanations again. Explain that BLACK part again using black body explanations and include the fusion part going on in the core. Where is the light from all that heat as it relates to that sunspot?

I'm only going to tackle one problem at a time, but I've seen somone post the math that shows a that gravity can be shown to be a function of acceleration. When I find that work again, I'll post a link on my website. Until then, let's stick with the evidence I've already presented.

Novel form of energy generation? I'm afraid I don't follow. The first suggestion was the "accepted" idea of how the sun works. The second suggestion is based on the idea that a solid ferrite layer that has a moving inner magnetic core, will likely experience magneto affects during this movement of the magnetic field past the surface features. It's not that "novel" frankly, and it's a well understood part of science. You can find a magneto in your car and in your lawn mower. It's not that novel an idea anymore.

No.

It's a nice pic. It would have been even nicer had you credited the Big Bear Solar Observatory for it either here or on your website. The photo can be seen on the BBSO page here, most of the way down the page of thumbnails, taken June 14th, 1989.

[edited to fix link]
Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

So, to summarize, I understand you to be saying your model may be correct because our understanding of the relation of mass to gravitational acceleration may be misunderstood, which is another way of saying a gram might not be a gram.

This is quite far fetched, possibly more so than your conjecture of a solid surfaced sun.

Pending definition of the proper understanding of mass (in your hypothesis) and gravitation, actually an entire redefinition of GR and QM, I don't currently feel that further discussion will be fruitful.

When you have redefined in full the GR and QM understanding of the universe I will continue my critique.

Boy, you want it all don't you. Actually we can "see" inside the sun by observing acoustical propagation through it. Check out SOHO's images of the opposite side of the sun as an example of this capability. All of these measurements point to a high density hydrogen composition for the sun.

In any case, if you want me to take you seriously you'll have to show how a solid sun that has no fusion reactions emits neutrinos. However I suspect you won't so we'll continue to not impress each other and further discussion is pointless. On the other hand, your not taking me seriously is not something that concerns me much.

You misunderstand. There's no "assumption" involved. These experiments can determine the direction that the observed neutrinos are coming from and therefore confirm that they do, in fact, come from the sun. No leap of faith involved. Just good solid scientific procedure. The best events actually occur at night. Then the earth acts as a shield and we actually observe the neutrinos that penetrate the entire earth on their way from the sun.

No double standard involved here. I, and other scientists, would reject you model as an option because it is wrong in so many ways that the mainstream solar model is not. You admit that it may not account for any neutrino production. You also predict that neon is the predominant producer of light. This is clearly in conflict with observation. Although some neon is present, the bulk of the solar spectrum is due to hydrogen and helium as other posters have pointed out. Also you can't account for the temperature of sunspots.

The mainstream solar model, although it originally did not predict the observed nu-e flux, did correctly match most of the observations. In light of the neutrino "problem" there were two possible paths, both of which were considered by scientists back in the 60's

1) The solar model is wrong. This option was rejected since there was so much that it did explain well (luminence, etc).

2) There's something about neutrinos we don't understand. It turned out that this was the case. At the time of the original measurements, the nu-tau was undiscovered. Also the concept of mixing was not as well established. Since then we've learned more about neutrinos, and have resolved the problem.

I'm not an astronomer or plasma physicist (I'm a particle physicist hence my focus on the neutrino side) so I'll defer some of these to others. In the meantime there are some astronomy and plasma physics texts I could recommend. As to prominences (what you call arcs), they are electrical. They are plasma discharges funneled through the sun's magnetic field. No need to invoke exotic models. As to the ultimate cause of the sunspot cycle, this remains an outstanding problem. However it's no reason to toss out the baby and start from scratch.

You're right, we have not idea what new theories may produce. However I seriously doubt that we'll find a solid sun. Pauli's quote applies here.

No theory involved here. These are MEASUREMENTS (as you would put it.) SNO measured the total neutrino flux from the sun and found that it matched what the standard solar model predicted. They didn't force anything. I strongly suggest you do some reading on how REAL science is done before you continue to cast aspersions on scientists whose work you fail to understand.

Many explanations have been provided. You choose to ignore them. When faced with a measurment your theory cannot match (SNO neutrino measurements), you try to claim it's flawed, despite the evidence to the contrary. Typical ATM behavior here. Quick to find the dust motes in the eye of mainstream models while ignoring the telephone pole stuck in one's own eye.

__________________
"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

Er, thanks for the link, but do any of you care to explain it?

No. This is called a "strawman". What I said is that according to nuclear chemistry and the laws of physics and 6 different satellites, the sun has a solid calcium ferrite surface that emits hydrogen. I believe it would be premature of me to simply "guess" at the interior of the sun since I simply DON'T KNOW at this point.

Do you see the difference between my explanation and YOUR strawman?

What is "far fetched" is to believe that calcium ferrite floats on helium. THAT is fetched. Nothing I have suggested is "far fetched" in comparison to THAT whopper of a concept.

Because you say so, or because you checked it out already? Here I hand you the basis of a unified field theory on a silver platter and you turn your nose at it without a second thought? Gee, I'm beginning to think this website is appropriately named afterall. There sure is a lot Bad Astronomy practiced around here.

Fine. Think of gravity as a function of acceleration caused by the electromagnetic field of the universe. Continue your critique at your leisure.

Firstly, it was a gentle reminder that copyright extends to images as well as to the written word. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by the ""cracks" we see below the glowing layer of the phenumbral filaments." I see light colored lines crossing the area of the large sunspot, but those *are* filaments. Where am I supposed to be looking? As for the "flared aspect", all I see is a normal umbra inside a light, filamentary penumbra. Again, what am I supposed to be seeing? And no, this isn't meant to be snide, I'm honestly not seeing whatever it is you're looking at. If I can't see it, how can we discuss it?

Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

Of course. Why settle for less?

Actually we HEAR the sounds that pass through the sun BECAUSE of the solid calcium ferrite layer. Otherwise it wouldn't RING at all. When they talk about a large "increase in density", how is that functionally different from a calcium ferrite surface again?

I see evidence of fusion happening at the calcium ferrite layer and evidence of the production of hydrogen in BBSO images. I'll take you seriously when you start taking me seriously and start taking Dr. Oliver Manuel seriously. This is good science. The kind of stuff I'm seeing around here isn't. You folk seem down right MYOPIC in your view and REFUSE to even consider a viable alternative. How fair is that? That's about the most psuedo-scientific an attitude as I can think of. If you have a valid criticism of my model, or a BETTER explantion of the observations I have made, then put them on the table. Otherwise this "tude" is just getting old.

That's great. There is just one problem. You don't know that ALL the neutrino's of the universe come from the sun, rather than simply pass THROUGH the sun. You don't KNOW their cause. You know where they are FOCUSED and where they emit FROM, relative to earth. That's what you KNOW. The rest involves a great deal of speculation at this point.

Name ONE! You can't. You've never offered a viable alternative to ANY of the observations I have made. PERIOD! You THINK it's wrong. That's all. You have no scientific evidence to support your FAITH that it is wrong.

I ADMIT that I haven't TRIED to account for it. GEEZ! Must I do the work of a billion or so scientists just so you'll even CONSIDER the model? What kind of a rediculace double standard is that? I can explain solar moss. Can you? I can explain an 11 year activity cycle. Can you? You keep ALEDGING that something is wrong with this model but you have NOT demonstrated this *SCIENTIFICALLY*.

I can SEE that is true with my naked eyes, yes.

That is FALSE. It is in direct AGREEMENT with VISIBLE OBSERVATION!

And I have explained that as well, since heat is radiating to the outer layers and the outer layers EMIT the most photons. That is NOT in direct conflict with my model, in fact my model PREDICTS this behavior.

Yes, I can. The low temps come from the LOWER regions of the silicon layer that rises up in the heated column If you look at the the activity that goes on in the silicon layer, it often resembles a tornado, where cooler silicon is caught in the middle. All of this is in DIRECT alignment with observation.

No, it did not. The gas model predicted that heavier atoms didnt' form for BILLIONS of years. We know via Hubble that silicon and iron and neon go back in time as we can see.

We don't even KNOW for sure whether such a thing would falsify my model to begin with, nor do we KNOW that these observations ONLY support the gas model.

I've explained it pretty well, right down to the NEON responsible for the luminence.

Great. How do we know that these measurements FALSIFY my model again?

Great. Explain solar moss for me. Explain the sun's 11 year cycle. Explain the arcs. Explain the flare in the penumbral filaments. Explain ANYTHING better with the gas model than with my model for that matter!

So, from your study of plasma physics, what would you say the odds are that a calcium ferrite layer is going to float on top of a relatively thick layer of helium plasma in the gravity confiines of the sun?

What CAUSES and CARRIES the magnetic field you talk about? What is causing the EMISSIONS of photons from within the arcs themselves?

I think there was never a baby in that bathwater to begin with.

Now you simply need to explain how these meausrements disprove my model and how you know it's not the ferrite layer that doesn't cause these neutrinos to change "flavors" in the first place?

When you can show me how these measurements FALSIFY MY MODEL, then and only then can you lecture me about REAL SCIENTISTS. Until then, I claim your emperor has no clothes.

I'm perfectly willing to HEAR from you how these specific measurements conflict with my model, and how you are certain it's not the ferrite that causes these nutrinos to change flavors. Then you can climb on that soap box of yours. Until then, climb down before you hurt yourself.

I appreciate the reminder. I certainly wasn't trying to take credit for ANY of the photographic evidence I have presented.

That is YOUR opinion of course, but then why do we see light from there, and not from the right and left of it? This "black body" explanation sure sounds rather flimsy based on the FLARES of the sides and the CRAC