It's always good to seek permission. And I'm pretty, reasonably sure you don't pay taxes to Japan too, do you?

Go here.
If you look at the center photo at the top of the page, the picture was taken with a Calcium-K filter. As they point out in the third paragraph, this filter allows light from the visible spectrum, but reduces the glare from unfiltered light. I guess sunspots must give off visible light then.

As has been explained before, the light doesn't "end", it's just harder to see.

What you see may not be what you get. Observation is a fine thing, but humans have a long history of trying to see patterns where there aren't any (like faces in clouds). It's also difficult to discern raised areas from depressed ones in a 3D object photographed head on. I've seen high altitude photos where you'd be hard-pressed to determine if a feature was a canyon or a mountain range--some of the early Mars photos come to mind.

You might Google on "Wilson Effect", at least that's what's coming to mind for the change in width of a penumbra. I'm pooped and need to take a nap or get grumpy. Again, you're using words like "depth"--is it deeper or is it higher? :wink:

Well, that's how science works. Someone presents a model that best fits the evidence and can be used to make predictions. As new info becomes available, the existing model gets tweaked or tossed. But, there's going to have to be some pretty good hard evidence to do either.

Because that's what it is by definition (at least, according to the OED, since ca. 1788). You might as well ask why do dogs have noses? Because that's what we call the wet, rubbery bit on the front of their faces. Again, please do take a look at some of the sites folks have given you. Having a language in common makes communication a whole lot easier.

[remainder put off until after I snooze]

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

First of all, I am NOT suggesting we should expect to see any change in the sun's "mass" relative to earth. I do not however fully understand it overall mass since it is in motion and being accelerated at the same time. I'm not sure how this factors into the equation just yet. I respect your question, but "I don't know" is going to have to do for the time being.

How do you explain solar moss again?

By your own analogy, either the sun is solid iron, or all of the iron should have sunk to the center.
[quote]

I can't answer that from my observations. I can only tell you it has a surface. I cannot tell you what is underneath the magma that flow up from this surface.

I never suggested that the relative gravity of the sun as it relates to earth was wrong. I simply don't understand how to compute density until I understand relative thicknesses of layers and undertand the properties of universal acceleration as it relates to this model.

We only know it's "mass" relative to the mass of the earth.

I did not "push aside" the concept of black body radiation. I simply said it didn't apply to sunspots, or the cause of sunspots. See that distinction?

Now you are playing with strawmen I see.

We understand the pull of the sun as it relates to the mass of the earth or SOHO wouldn't fly at all. I never suggested otherwise. I don't dispute the phenomenon of black body radiation, or our understanding of the idea. I simply dont' think it applies to the notion of sunspots as you seem to think. Not a single one of you has explained the umbra, the clear deliniation between penumbra and umbra, or explained the flare in the top of the penumbral filament layer. Until you do, it's premature to suggest these things are caused by "black body radiation" as you suggest. If you can explain to me how black body radiation explains these observed phenomenon, then we can talk. Until you do, you are ALEDGING something that has NOT been demonstrated through observation.

In this post:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=495513#495513

I linked here:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970609f.html

That is how we know the mass of the sun. Given the mass and volume, we can determine the density. And that does not allow for a large percentage of a dense element like iron.

Not recently. I've tried to give credit where credit is due on my website. I'm certainly not trying to take credit for any of the photos I have used on the webite or this forum. I'll try to reference the source from now on just to make you happy. Are we ok now with this issue?


That's fine, but that does not explain the flare in the penumbral filament layer or explain the difference between the penumbra and the umbra.

If black body radiation was responsible for light, then we SHOULD see smooth lines of increasing brightness from the core all the way to the top of the penumbral layer. We don't see anything like that. Instead we see a VERY clear deliniation between the penumbra and umbra parts of the photosphere. My model explains this. Your model does not. My model explains the flare in the penumbral filament layer. Your model does not. My model explains the convection processes of neon we see in the penumbral filaments. Your model does not. See a pattern emerging here?

Come now. There is a VERY clear deliniation between the umbra and penumbra. We see light, then dark at very clearly defined levels of this sunspot along every single side of the sunspot. There is no side that behaves radically differently from any other side as it relates to thickness. Your answer is WAY too simplistic and does not explain the flare, the thickness of the penumbral filaments or any of these things.

But wait a moment. We should be able to predict SOMETHING about these sunspots with your model. If it's black body radiation, what is different about the penumbral filaments than the umbra below? You can't just leave that part unaddressed and expect to to accept that answer. If this were slowly increasing light from below, I would not expect to see the umbra underneath of th penumbral filaments. I see black under the shiny layer in these photos. That has to be explained. So does the flare in the penumbral filament layer. Neither of these observations jives with your black body explanation.

In this case however, the difference between the penumbra and umbra is so great the named these two things separetely. What makes them different and behave differently?

I'll read up on the affect, but I fail to see why my explantion isn't superiour to yours since I can explain the umbra AND the flare pattern perfectly. So far, you've yet to do either of these things with your model.

No, this is not the way science is supposed to work at all. There is supposed to be some sense of scientific netrality and open mindedness, especially as it relates to untested theories. The predictions of the gas model are crumbling right and left every single day. Hubble has located iron and neon and silicon as far back in time as we can see. That is in direct opposition to the gas model predictions. The sun's composition has been determined by nuclear chemistical analysis of lunar soils and comets to be made primarily of iron. That is in direct oppostion to gas model preditions. Those sunquakes on my website are in direct opposition to gas model predictions. That uniformly rotating fferrite layer is in direct opposition to gas model predictions. The gas model can't even explain the arcs we see or the carrier of these magnetic fields within the arc. The gas model is virtually dead at this point and hardly anyone has noticed how few predictions match expectations and how many predictions have already been falsified, starting with the idea the iron didn't form for BILLIONS of years after the BB.

The lack of competition is a very serious problem in astronomy if you ask me. There is far too much alegiance to a model that came for a few observations from a $200 dollar telescope, 400 years ago. The model I have constructed is based on satellite imagery from 6 different multi-million dollar satellites. I don't care how smart Galileo might have been, he didn't have access to this kind of technology, and we haven't had evidence to falisfy or corroborate his prediction that nothing solid exists beneath the visible photosphere until the last decade.

I think you and the majority of the scientific community are trying desparately to prop up a failed model only because it's considered "safe".

I lothe that attitude. If you can't explain it in your own words, quit pretending to know something I don't. I dont' believe you know anything more about this than I do. In fact I think you know a lot less. The fact you act as though these are not even relevant questions suggests to me that you don't have an open mind as it relates to this topic. These are "vital" observations, not something you can just ignore because you can't explain it.

I must admit that I'm focusing a little bit on the individuals here, but that because before questioning your theory I have doubts that the methods you've used to develop it are scientific. That's why I wanted to know what is your field since you've mentioned that you have 20 years of scientific activity in it.


I didn't find any reference that SOHO has onboard a ferrite ion filter; could you post here one please? Of course is important in order to know what I'm seeing in the picture that you provided; it is a single wavelength? If so which wavelength and how narrow is the filter bandpass for this specific wavelength? If not what are the others wavelength to be seen in the image?


I don't know how someone with the proper background could differentiate between two apparently similar phenomena simply because I don't have the necessary background.


First of all you've failed to read properly my post: I've said that the sun's environment is radically different than our's, not that your ideas are or are not radical. And of course I maintain my statement: our "common sense" based on what we're considering to be normal in the gravity, temperature and pression in which we're living is not recomended to be applied for phenomena taking place on a much large spatial and temporal scale.


I'm questioning your methods, not your moral integrity. :wink:


I've read again the article; I didn't find any reference to ferrite in it. 8)


Of course I'll adress someone else material if it is relevant to the discussion. After all you did adressed dr. Manuel's papers, why shouldn't I point to a mathematical demonstration which proves that the kind of ferrite layer you've described could not exist ?

Solar Moss Observation


Abstract of Publication by Berger, Fletcher and De Pontieu on "Solar Moss"

__________________
Free speech is no problem
It's listening that costs

We are definitely not going to convince one another. Of course, mainstream science seems to take my position, like in this basic explanation of the convection zone, and the temperature at the bottom and at the top. I know you'll not agree with the model of the sun used there, but the mechanism of convection as described there corresponds with my idea, not yours.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

As I have quoted above, You have mentioned Galileo a number of times now. The implication of those posts is that we learned about the Sun exclusively from Galileo...and that we haven't learned "anything" in the last 400 years...oh...except for the "last decade".

There was scientific advancement in those intervening 400 years, so why do you keep coming back to Galileo??

Because it helps his argument to pretend that the 400 years didn't happen?

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

Come on, Michael...is it really necessary for you to post in this manner??

If someone here were to tell you that you weren't as "smart" as they were, and that you were "closed-minded", wouldn't you take that as an insult??? You've stated numerous times that you have been "personally insulted", (which I don't see), and that it derails scientific discussion, (which it does), yet you seem to have no problem doing it, yourself, to those who disagree with you.

There appears, to me, to be a push to change the subject of the discussion to "solar moss" when the initial question was in regard to "solar mass," a question which still has not been adequately addressed.

Composition is ancillary to mean density, which is simply a measure of mass divided by volume. It appeared, in initial discussion of this element, that it was deflected by claiming structure was important. True. However, this would not affect mean density: mean density would limit structure. For instance, if there were to be a 6.5 g/cm^3 shell, the interior of this shell would have to fall well below the mean 1.4 g/cm^3 density, or the shell would have to be very thin.

The other issue is temperature, which is necessary to get the black body radiation. If we relied on electrons and emission spectra of plasmas, we would indeed see a large spectral spike in the Neon ranges - which do not add up to a solar spectrum, regardless of how many "valence electrons" one might include.
Note the absorption lines in the solar spectrum correspond to helium and hydrogen, and that Neon's emission lines cannot account for a full solar spectrum, no matter how they are sliced.

Another point raised was the incompatability of sunspot temperatures and a solid "ferrite" surface.

Regarding umbral temperatures:
4800 Degrees Centigrade
2000 degrees Kelvin cooler than the surface
Wikibooks registers 3500 degrees Centigrade
4500 Centigrade
4600 degrees Centigrade
Mr. Sunspot says 4000 degrees Centigrade.
The Answers.com website quote of Wikipedia contains this quote:Answers.com on Sunspots

The only place that I can find, curiously, that is below 3500 degrees (Centigrade or Kelvin) is the openly editable current Wikipedia. The minimum from all other located sources including a former Wikipedia sunspot entry (3500 Kelvin) is still above the vaporization temperature of iron.

Sorry if I get a bit upset when your arguments carry the implicit statement that the scientists doing the solar neutrino experiments don't understand what they're doing.

More evasions. (Poor debate tactics Mike. You're setting up your own strawman here by postulating a hypothetical neutrino focusing mechanism.) What possible force focuses the neutrinos? In the absence of any obvious focusing mechanism the only scientific conclusion is that the sun is the source. Also, the fusion mechanisms that produce neutrinos in the sun are well understood. We can predict their energy spectra as well as their source. SNO and others observe neutrinos with that energy spectrum. Since the only nearby fusion source capable of generating the observed flux is the sun, and the flux is coming from the direction of the sun, the sun muct be the source. As I mentioned before, the nu flux from other stars in the galaxy is isotropic and can be subtracted as a background.

The failure of your model to predict the observed solar neutrino flux (which does exist despite your efforts to claim otherwise) is a weakness. This failure may not totally "falsify" your model, but it does cast doubt on it. The solar neutrino flux is an observable any solar model must deal with, yours included.

I guess I'll accept this as an understanding that solar neutrinos represent a gap in your model. However, this places it in a weaker position relative to the standard solar model, which gives quantitative predictions. Again without numbers your model is weaker than the standard solar model you are trying to supplant.

By the way, for those interested in the history of solar neutrino observations, the ever popular Particle Data Group has a nice summary of the measurements as well as a summary of ongoing work in neutrino mass, mixing, and flavor oscillations.

Evasions. Others are dealing with these. I'm focusing on the solar neutrino issue. And frankly, I'd be more concerned with your model's failure to predict the observed black body spectrum from the sun and its failure to predict the observed element abundances. These are significant shortfalls.

Well, to paraphrase Richard Blaine, "It's not my particularly beloved model." I'd be willing to entertain alternatives as long as they adequately explain the same phenomena the SSM does. One reason I don't care for your alternative is that it requires redoing most of what we know about physical processes including gravity and EM interactions. Most alternative models that require this amount of change are wrong.

To turn your own argument back on you, The possible failure of the SSM to explain solar cycles, moss, etc, does not falsify it. The reason I, and others here, prefer it over your model is that it explains more than yours does and matches observation better than yours does. Here's my list of things to get busy on.

1) quantitative predictions of the solar neutrino flux (and no more dissing of the SNO and other solar neutrino experiments. They are valid.)

2) explaination of how neon can be the dominant source of light when it's only observed as a trace element in the solar spectrum.

3) Explanation of how iron and other elements can exist as solids at the sun's surface when the measured temperature of the surface far exceeds their vaporization temperature.

__________________
"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