This is simply wrong. You stipulate you need a resonance cavity to get sound waves to pass through the Sun, and that is simply wrong. Sound waves will happily travel through a gas, even a relatively thin one (take a look at any supernova remnant filament for proof of that).

Your basis for this argument is incorrect. Helioseismology starts with the Sun being a gas, and shows that this can be used to "see" the far side of the Sun. You don't need a solid for sound waves to travel. You don't even need resonance of any kind. Just a medium that can conduct sound waves.

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

First of all, that was not what you said before. You expected an abundance of iron and so on, and that isn't there. Now you shift the attention to what you read into the article about other things.
Furthermore, this article clearly talks about the unusual stuff that has been found, not the expected things. If they had noticed that Jupiter was not mostly hydrogen, it would have been the first point made. As nothing unexpected with regards to the hydrogen content of the planet was found, nothing is noted. Or do you suggest that Jupiter is mainly made of sulfur?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

This is my first post, so forgive my naivate and any glaring errors. ops: I am a social scientist with a passing interest in many of the things on this message board, though I do not claim to offer any actual expertise on this subject beyond what I remember from high school physics and what I have learned through occasional readings.

I do dabble quite frequently into philosophy of science, however, and that is why I have found this topic so intriguing to scan through. Michael -- I commend you for taking time to explore so complex a topic outside of your usual profession. I read your manuscript, and was impressed, if not by the content, then by the conviction and time you have spent on it. That being said, there are some fundamental problems related to scientific progression that, if I knew nothing else, would lead me to question your work.

1) Science constantly progresses. All of our work builds on the work of others (true for natural and social sciences). This is why so much time is spent reviewing the work of others, examining what holes need to be filled, and then attempting to fill them. I am not as familiar with works published in astronomy, but I would assume that most published work begins with some review of existing work, holes in that work, and where your work fits in. The problem with your manuscript is that it seems to skip from Galileo to you. To be taken more seriously, your manuscript needs to make as strong a case as possible for the argument you are critiquing, and then explain why yours is better. Starting with Galileo in your piece immediately gives the appearance of starting with a straw man. You need to begin with a critique of the most current work, preferably work that uses evidence from SOHO, TRACE, etc. and show why that work is flawed.

2) Take seriously the critiques of others. In response to the argument that we know the density and mass of the sun, you keep responding that a) we need to know exact composition of the layers; and b) something about the effects of electromagnetism and a ferrite surface having unknown effects. If your model is superior, however, you should be able to calculate with relative ease the amount of each of the component elements in the sun and then postulate the thickness of the layers. If, on the other hand, you are positing that we cannot understand the forces acting on the sun, establish concrete, testable hypotheses of what you would expect those forces to be and ways we can test them.

While I am dubious about your argument, again, I am not criticizing you for doing something new. With my limited knowledge, the conventional view seems more compelling. For me to take your argument more seriously (in your manuscript) would require a great deal more effort of placing your work in the context of the most recent work. From the replies on the board, it seems that current work actually explains most observed phenomena of the sun. Make the strongest argument for your opponent, and then explain why you are better.

But then again, I'm only a social scientist.

Welcome to the board, skepticfrog!

Excellent post! =D>

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Thank you for the welcome!

Michael -- a point I meant to add is that it often takes years from the start of a project to publication, even of an article. Beyond your own collection and analysis of data, most academic work goes through several rounds of scathing critiques. These critiques are designed so that once you reach the publication phase, you have answered the most obvious questions. Once published, you get the really difficult ones! :wink:

I must reply in kind, and say that it is an excellent and succinct summary of the situation, skepticfrog, and welcome to the board.

I'm just curious why my own outre theories don't generate nearly this response.

Good. Then you shouldn't have any problem asking him about the questions we discussed.

This attitude honestly mystifies me. You say you have spent a great deal of time on your proposal. You have been asked, repeatedly, some questions about your proposal, not Dr. Manual's. If you think Dr. Manual can help you and he is willing to work with you, then by all means discuss it with him and bring back the results. You are asking me to do research for you.

If anyone else considers this a "cop out" please speak up. And Michael, the questions are still on the table.

Yes, nicely said.

Not weird enough, and if you want maximum impact, you really need to do something about your debating style.

Van Rijn, I think you're absolutely right. I know this is not a formal peer-review process, but I think the same principle applies: it's the author's responsibility to provide supporting data, not the reviewer's. Manuscripts come back to me all the time with requests for additional references or data. It has never occurred to me to tell the reviewers to go and get them themselves.

I haven't contributed to this thread until now, but I've been following it and have learned a lot while doing so. I'd like to thank everyone who helped with the teaching.

I think when you go back and make your observations you'll observe that even plasmas organize themselves by atomic weight in a gravitation field.

I agree with you that sound will travel through about anything other than empty space. I wasn't trying to imply the sun is solid, simply that the iron layer provides the resonance cavity that makes helioseismology work in the first place. Here's what I mean:

That "large density drop" they are refering to is the layer of iron. That's why it rings like a bell being struck by sand. Its an iron bell experiencing electrical activity at the surface.

The wave do resonate and bounce off the "large density drop" they refer to. That is a layer of iron. That's all I'm suggesting. I agree with you that sound can travel though about anything other than empty space, but the resonance cavity does exist and has been documented as has the density change between the stuff that is OUTSIDE and the stuff that is INSIDE. We have to ask WHY there is a large density increase and what causes this abrupt change in density.

What do you mean it's not there? There certainly is iron and silicon present in these spectral studies. It happens to be consistent with comet material and it happens to be consistent with my theory oeverall. I have no doubt that Jupiter has an abundance of these elements as well. If you saw huge plumes of hydrogen and hydrogen we the primary thing being blown out by the impact, THEN you might have a case. The lack of helium and hydrogen pokes huges holes in the gas model assumption that has been applied to Jupiter.

What other things?

No, I doubt it's made of sulfur, but I'd bet money that sulfur was from volcanic activity that came from puncturing a solid surface that probably consists of iron covered in silicon. The fact it left a gaping visible DARK crater on Jupiter, pretty much precludes Jupiter from being mostly helium and hydrogen with a little heavy metal at the core. That meteor hit something a LOT harder than helium.

This isn't really a "debate" post (though Michael may dispute it ) - I just wanted to post a link I found that looks like a very nice site. It has many graphical representations of the abundance of elements in the sun, broken down in various ways: webelements.

Well, there are a few things we need to address in that paragraph. While some areas of science are gradual and build on older materials, some science just doesn't work that way. For instance, up until 10 years ago, we simply had not way to visibly verify or falsify Galileo's basic assumption that nothing solid could or did exist beneath the visible photosphere. We could make predictions. We could use THEORY to speculate and come up with SOME data, but until these satellites went to space, there wasn't a serious way to falsify or validate this assumption. It also happens to be a VERY critical assumption that forms the very foundation of the gas model. If that assumption is false, then everything that is based on that assumption is also false.

Your comment COULD be construed as an appeal to authority fallacy in that you are suggesting that because there is a gap between Galileo's observations and mine, that mine are somehow less valide than his. This is not so. I have better telescopes to work with. I have better a much better understanding of electricity. I understand the properties of neon and I know the difference between plasma and gas and have the benifit of 400 years of science.

In this particular instance, my work was unique. In other words I did rely on other people's work or other people manuscripts, or other people's observations. I worked alone, and I made these observations and built this model based on these observations.

It just so happens however that my work is fully supported by the field of nuclear chemistry as well. I didn't expect to find such validation frankly but I have.

If you are trying to suggest that my work is not valid only because it didn't begin with a bunch of assumptions and a bunch of other baggage, I must respectfully disagree. I think it is in fact because I did NOT try to make things fit into a preconcieved set of ideas that I was able to make these discoveries in the first place. I say "discoveries" here loosely, since I wasn't the first person to discover the sun was mostly made of iron, Dr. Manuel figure that out forty years ago. I just happen to be the first person to discover that the sun has an iron layer via OBSERVATION alone using images from six different satellites.

Sometimes science changes overnight because of new discoveries. If you don't allow for that possibility, you do science and yourself a great disservice IMO.

I think that is very naive. I am a single individual, not a team of people working night and day for 400 years on this issue. I've done the best I can do and I've admitted the limits of my knowledge. That's all I've done. The fact that no gas model explaination has been offered for ANY of the images on my website doesn't make you dismiss the gas model, so why would one or two things that seem unanswered in my model cause you to reject my model?

Well, first of all, I'm learning something new about the sun virtually every day at this point. I'd love to have a way to test and see whether electromagnetic influence play a part in our calculation of the sun's density, but I can't think of a way to "test" for this just yet. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but I don't know how at the moment. Again however I can offer a variety of ways to explain how we might deal with these issues, and I'm not suggesting these issues should be ignored.

Then again, I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss one model for a lack a single answer on a single topic and apply a completely different standard to the gas model, only because its "safe".

Well, I agree with you here. Now that I know that there IS corroborating evidence from the field of nuclear chemistry, I intend to incorporate that into my manuscript along with the evidence on my website from HUBBLE, CHANDRA and SPITZER. I'm also going to collaborate with Dr. Manuel on some other publications. I'm sure you'll hear more about this subject as time goes by.

The gas model has indeed been bandaided together over the years to include "explanations" that are anything but obvious. For instance I can explain light as coming from neon, something we can see with our eyes in everyday life. The gas model group uses relatively "mystical" terms like "black body radiation" to describe light from the sun. I'd say my answer is MUCH simpler and occums razor ideas should apply here.

The 11 year cycle has NEVER adequately been explained by gas model proponents. The gas model really doesn't offer much in the way of an explanation for solar moss activity, or the sunquakes we see on the ferrite layer. It doesn't explain how iron floats on helium. It doesn't explain why we see emissions along a whole surface rather than from a pea sized core in the center of the sun. The gas model is old, and cobbled together at this point. Very little of what goes on beneath the photosphere is predicted by the gas model. Why do you think it's a "better" model than mine, other than the fact that is the politically correct model? Could you be at all specific or explain one or two pages of my website using the gas model to demonstrate how it is superior?

Then again, I'm just a programmer by trade.

Ya, I know its a political dance and involves politics galore. I'm not part of the scientific establishment however. I'm a businessman and I'm used to getting things done. I assure you it won't take years to get this material published.

I came here hoping to speed up the process a bit and get some early feedback. I'm frankly a bit stunned that not a single person on this website has talked about and explained a single observation from my website using the gas model. I frankly expected more from this group. What I'm seeing at the moment is that the biggest and most relevant unanswered question at this point relates to the density issue. I'm pretty sure that has to do with the electromagnetic influences but it warrants further research. The rest of the questions I've been able to handle with relative ease quite. I'm frankly doing a lot better than I first expected. I'm quite pleased at how things are going frankly. I'll be ready for the tough questions, don't you worry one bit about that. I do my homework before I invest money in a project.

I've pretty much been able to address everything we've discussed without a lot of help from the good doctor, but we'll certainly stay in touch. I'll probably email him about the density thing and see what he thinks. I've offered some suggestions, but perhaps he has some better ones. I will ask him about that one. Some stuff is obviously going to be his field of expertize and there is no sense in me reinventing the wheel.

You are asking me questions about nuclear chemistry. That is HIS field of expertise! Some folks condemn me because I didn't build on other people's work, but you condemn me for not doing it all by myself? Come on. That's not a reasonable attitude. In most manuscripts I would simply cite his work and leave it at that. Instead you wish me to explain 40 years work and repeat these efforts. I'm not interested in doing that. I presented SATELLITE IMAGERY, not nuclear chemistry on my website. I'll be happy to explain what I did present but I have no desire to do the work of a billion people all by myself.

It is not a cop out to refer you to an expert in the field you are specifically interested in learning about. I can answer anything you might wish to know about the images I have presented and the model I have presented, but I can't explain the nuclear chemistry side on a website, nor do I intend to so any such thing in a manuscript. Its not even reasonable to expect such a thing. No one is an expert on every field of science.

It's become painfully obvious to me that not a single one of you has tackled even a single observastion from a single page of my website using the gas model hypothesis. What should that tell me about my observations and my model?

Maybe this is a better theory than most? Maybe I don't give up as easily as some might? Who knows!