Strawman! Oceans of the earth have nothing to do with this!
Seriously, the oceans are the hottest at the side they are warmed, i.e the top (I'm making abstraction of underwater volcanoes of course). The silicon layer would be heated from the bottom to the top and cooled from the top to the bottom, and thus should be hot at the bottom and cooler at the top, not the other way around.

Warm air climbs, but if you put your heating in the floor and your cooling in the roof, the roof will be cooler than the floor.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Um, care to explain to me now how this explains the umbra layer and lit part of the penubmral filaments? It's a nice math proof and all, but you've not demonstrated HOW it applies to sunspots. How does that explain the flared pattern in the penubmral filaments? How does that explain the lack of light coming from the umbra?

Where has anyone used a personal insult?

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

Could you be more precise about the kind of computer science you're involved in, please?

Then could you tell me what kind of filters and what kind of postprocessing have been used to take the image and the film you've posted here previously?


Well, the kind of background that teach an engineer the difference between "it looks like an electric arc" and "it is an electric arc". :wink:
More generally speaking, it is not a good ideea to extrapolate your daily experience here on Earth to a scale and an environment so radically different.


No, I did not read his work. Actually I did not read your whole webpage. Don't forget that the peoples that are posting here are not doing it because they're experts in astronomy but mostly because they want to share and learn with the others. In fact I think that your expectations are highly unrealistic: after all you've spent years searching and analizing and now do you ask us to fully understand your model by just reading once your webpage?
I'm not trying to debunk your whole theory, mostly because I have not the necessary knowledge, but I still can point to its weaknesses based of my limited knowledge on the subject. And as you may see nobody here has claimed to be an expert in the field, therefore each one has adressed some specific issues that fit in his field of interest and/or knowledge.

By the way, in the dr. Manuel's article you've linked here I didn't find any reference to a ferrite or neon layer. 8)

That's exactly what I was talking about: Maksutov didn't adressed the sunspot or penumbra problem, but instead he had show why the ideea of a solid ferrite crust (which is very important in your theory) is not pertinent. He's not explaining the sunspots, but is proving that the kind of layer you're talking about couldn't exist. :wink:


Edited to add: and PLEASE stop shouting at us! :-$

Oh Mike, don't be disingenuous. You've been nitpicking at their results since I made my first post in this thread. First you ask how they know the flux comes from the sun. I reply that they know the direction. Then you claim that perhaps they're seeing neutrinos that pass through the sun. And then in your last post you go on to make this statement.

Read the papers. They describe their procedure in some detail. Basically the non-solar neutrino flux is constant, isotropic, and fairly small in comparison to the solar flux. The background is observed and measured at the same time that the solar neutrinos are. The background can then be subtracted out when doing the analysis. In any case, when the main source of events is always coming from the direction of the sun, it's fairly obvious that the sun is that source.

OK, I'll drop the rhetoric and stick to the science. You state that your model predicts the existence of free electrons from fusion at the core. This fusion should also produce neutrinos. What flux does your model predict? Does this prediction correspond to the observed neutrino flux from the sun? If it does not match the flux observed by the SNO, Kamland, and other experiments it is in conflict with observation and is in need of modification or rejection. It's as simple as that. It's no good trying to discredit the SNO observation (which is what you've been doing by nitpicking at their procedure). They, and other experiments, have demonstrated that the neutrinos they observe come from the sun to the satisfaction of other physicists around the world. The value they measure for the total solar neutrino flux is in agreement with the prediction of the standard solar model. Your model, if it is to be considered a viable alternative, must do the same.

__________________
"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

It seems that one of the difficulties is imagining how something that is hot (a sunspot) can appear black. There is an example on Earth that I have personal experience with. It is called an optical pyrometer. It is a way of measuring the temperature of a body, such as the inside of a furnace. You have a device like a small telescope with an electrical wire / filament inside of it (like a lightbulb filament). You look at the object you want to measure and see the filament superimposed over it. You will see a red or orange background (if the furnace is hot) with a dark wire. You put current through the filament to heat it up. You adjust the current till the color of the filament matches the body and compare your calibration of current to temperature and read off the temperature. When the filament is cooler than background (but still hot) it appears black or dark.
There is a very nice slideshow explanation here, scroll down to the slideshow link.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Why in the world does that even matter? Geez! This place is simply amazing. I'm a self employed computer programmer. You can read about my software at http://www.etwebsite.com. I wrote a full accounting and management package for a vertical market (child care). Does a over a decade of sucessful self employment as a software developer suffice, or would you like a note from my mother too? I don't mean to sound rude, but this whole line of arguement is rediculace. If you have a beef with the observations and evidence I have presented, please put it on the table. Otherwise, leave me out of this discussion.

The focus on the individual here is scientifcally unacceptable. I've asked for a scientific refute of the materials I have presented, not a personal critique. What's with the focus on ME as an individal rather then on the MATERIALS I have gathered and presented? This is pseudo-science at its worst IMO. It's like a trial by inuendo and personal attack. That is not science. That is psuedoscience.

Here we go again. What does that have to do with anything? The filters that are most important to my arguement are the ferrite ion filters on board TRACE and SOHO that create the running different images I have presented. Care to explain these "better" than I did?

So how does someone with the "right" background KNOW it's not an electrical arc again? Have you ever personally used an arc welder before? Do you know how to weld?

I fail to see anything "radical" about the ideas I've presented. The gas model is "radical" if you ask me. It PRESUMES that suns are not made of the same materials as everything else in the solar system. That sounds positively mystical if you ask me. It PRESUMES that the arcs we see aren't electrical in nature for some reason, but also somehow hold a magnetic field. Another mystical explanation rather than the obvious one. The gas model "presumes" there is on solid surface when we can clearly see one with ferrite ion filters onboard TRACE and SOHO.

Compared to the gas model, my model is VERY easy to understand and follow. It's worth the read. Dr. Manuel's work is a bit more "involved" but I've checked the methods, and they make sense. We have a difference of agreement about some layering aspects, but this is due to the way we arrived at our conclusions. My layering system is based on observation of the functioning sun itself. His layer system is based on observations of lunar soil and meteorites, neither of which is likely to hold neon.

What I'm noticing is that those who lack the basic skill to actually put science on the table to dispute the material I have presented seem to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on me the individual. That is NOT acceptable. There is a LOT of material to critique, and many observations to explain with a gas model, starting with the solar moss phenomenon which I have already explained with my model.

It DOES talk about ferrite and silicon. It does NOT talk about neon since this is something that typicically doesn't stick to asteroids in great volumes. Don't worry, we'll work through the layering issues later today.

I'm afraid you aren't addressing MY material, but some other material at this point. The layer I'm talking about is the one you can SEE in running difference images. I didn't offer any math to critique in any way, shape or form.

The only one being disingenuous here is you Eta. You keep sticking words in my mouth and keep building rediculace strawmen out of my statements. That is very disingenuous behavior on your part, and a terrible debate tactic. I expected something a bit more mature from this crowd.

No, it's not completely obvious that the sun isn't focusing background neutrinos in some way, and the presense of neutrinos coming from the sun would not, under any circumstance, falsify my model to begin with. What I resent is you claiming that I questioned their findings. I did not question their work. I question YOUR interpretation of their work and YOUR suggestion this work somehow falsifies my model, or validates ONLY the gas model. See that distiction now?

I don't know. I would assume it would be much the same as a gas model since I'm counting on fusion to release positrons and electrons in my model, just like the gas model is depending on fusion for it's energy source. The only thing I've added to the mix is the magneto idea. In that sense, I might expect the neutrino count to be "slightly"less, but the power generation will likely release neutrinos in either model.

How does the gas model explain solar moss? How does the gas model explain my sunquake page? How does the gas model explain the shock wave page? How does the gas model explain Hubble finding iron and silicon and neon as far back in time as we can see? Care to address any of THESE isssues?

For your beloved gas model to be considered viable, you must also explain solar moss, and 11 year cycles and explain the observed phenomenon on my website. Get busy.

I think we're quibbling over uniportant issues at the moment. If you believe that black body radiation is a rational expanation for these observed phenomeon, please explain how you know it's not neon that's shining in these videos, and explain the concave flare we see in these pheonomeon, and explain the umbra part of the video. That's all I'm asking. It's one thing to simply throw out a concept. It's another thing to use this concept to explain the exact observations we record. There is a concave shape to the penumbral filaments. Why? There is a definite end to the layer of light of the penumbral filaments. Why? How does black body radation explain these phenomenon specifically and "better" than my model?

I notice that Baloo asked you nicely, even said please, yet you felt the need to "jump down their throat". And how in the heck is it a "personal attack" for Baloo to ask you a simple question?

One can tell a lot about a person's argument by the way they comport themselfs while presenting that argument.

I disagree. The hot silicon will rise to the neon layer and be cooled and then sink to the bottom again to pick up more heat from the calcium layer and continue the cycle. The heated silicon is always going to rise up against the neon to release it's heat into the neon. The cooler silicon will likely sink as soon as the heat is removed.

Cool air will sink regardless of whether it comes from the floor or the ceiling. Hot air will rise regardless of wether it comes from the floor or the ceiling.

Read the first page. Who didn't?

Yes posters here were poking fun at the website, but that was before you started posting on this board. Since then, I've seen nothing that could be construed as a "personal insult".

So, I will repeat/rephrase the "good" captain's question...

Please cite the posts where you have been personally insulted.

Nice work on the examples and explanation, Mak. I honestly don't know how it could be made much clearer. 'Course, I thought this exercise would make the point obvious:

But you know the response to that. Ah, well. We tried.

Well, forgive me if I've gotten a wee testy. I didn't start the ridicule however, you folks did that all on your own. If you dish it out, you best be able to take some as well. In Baloo's defense, I believe you are right and my reaction was probably more of an overreaction.

What I resent is this whole notion that I don't know anything about these issues and I've never thought about this stuff (like black body radiation) before. I resent that whole attitude. It's belittling and you folks know it. You've picked on me as an individual since I got here, implying I didn't know what I was talking about and acting like a piece of paper on the wall or lack thereof was the best judge of the character of a man. I resent that whole attititude and I expect you all to back off and address this "scientifically" from here on.

I've asked some very important and basic questions that have not been addressed by anyone "scientifically".

For instance:

Why is more logical to believe the sun is NOT compose of the same materials as planets?

Why does Hubble see silicon and iron and neon as far back in time as we can see?

Why do supernovas display this same "ferrite->calcium->silicon" layering system that we see on our own sun?

I've presented evidence from a half dozen different satellites and no one has addressed any of it. I'm sick of that attitude. I came here looking for a serious scientific discussion. What's its been to this point is a lot of trash talking and holier than thou attitude.

Specific questions for black body proponents:

Why is there a layer of penumbral filaments that shine? What are these made of? Why do these filaments shine visible light only in this layer, not above it, and not below it? Why is there an end to the penumbral filaments, and why is there an UMBRA that does not shine along the sides of the sunspot? What is underneath the umbra that is not shining? What is the umbra made of?

A theory was presented. Many of us continued to ask questions of, presumably, you the author. However, when answers are returned that are accusatory, glib, unresponsive, or misdirecting, it becomes an exercise in futility to explore the model further.

For instance, on the question of density, it was dismissed by the caveat that we don't know enough about inertial mass. This is not adequate to answer the question. The implications are that the theory is correct, and all other science is wrong. This is not a cautious or circumspect attitude with regards to one's own research. With regard to element abundances, the attitude is to take spectra at face value, yet ignore the solar spectra that clearly demonstrate a dearth of neon in quantity enough to account for the alleged effects, and solar spectra that demonstrate a black-body curve rather than a large neon spike. One can tell abundances of elements from spectra as well as presence. The assertions of solid surface are apparently jettisoned in favor of a liquid-silicon model to account for convection. All