I truely appreciate your professionalism. Your attitude was a welcome breath of fresh air. I thought your comments were both very insightful, and right on the money. I very much appreciate your time and effort and the fact to you took the idea seriously enough to critique the work properly. My hat is off to you. Thanks again for your efforts. I really appreciated it.

Sincerely,

Michael Mozina
Mt. Shasta, CA

What's important now is thet you take these comments (and all the others from the locked thread) and think about them and their implications for your 'theory'

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Will do. I'll certainly use the feedback to improve the manuscript.

Well, this thread had a sort of pristine nature to it as long as it remained as an OP and nothing else.

But now that captain swoop has changed that, then it behooves me to ask,

Mike, will you take the information that has been provided you in the locked thread and use it to correct the errors in your manuscript?

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

Absolutely! My intent in coming here in the first place was to find out how these ideas would hold up to serious scientific scrutiny and to find out how I could strengthen the manuscript. I believe the ideas held up beautifully under scrutiny, but it's clear that the manuscript could use some work and some clerification based on W.F. Tomba's insightful comments. I personally wouldn't call them "errors", just "shortcommings" and things that could use clerification and additional documentation.

FYI, I've already changed several things on my website based on these conversations (like using fision rather than fusion as the energy source) and I have changed some of the wording to try to eliminate as much confusion as possible based on the feedback I have received to date.

As pointed out by the Bad Astronomer and others, your manuscript and supporting arguments contain many errors. Not "shortcomings", but plain errors. Are you going to correct these?

Please drop the euphemisms and provide a straight answer.

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

There are no "errors" to correct, and I already gave you a straight answer.

No errors to correct.

Except the whole concept about a solid iron sun.

Dancer naming, allemande left, circle left/circle right, round we go and do si do!

As the Bad Astronomer wrote when he locked the other thread,

Looks like this one is headed in that direction too, if not already there.

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

I just wanted to thank W.F. Tomba for his time and efforts and his professionalism. I have no desire to restart this whole discussion all over again, and I'm sure Phil would prefer we not go there.

No, actually Phil said

You seem not to have read and heeded what was written by dgruss23.

In addition you have not answered the BA's question re the Sun rotating as a solid body, along with many other questions put to you.

Your manuscript and supporting arguments contain errors, but you not only haven't corrected them, you haven't even acknowledged them. You can euphemize, generalize, and wriggle all you want, but the people here not only have a lot of good, substantial knowledge, but excellent memories as well.

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

No, I read it. I'm just not going to roll over and play dead the way you'd like me to, and you guys don't even play by your own posted rules. You didn't limit your attacks to the ideas being presented as this thread suggests is "proper" proceedure. Instead you repeatedly attacked the individual.

Yes I did!. I noted the rotation of the solar system itself around a fixed point every 22 years. The centrifigal force of this movement in the Z axis offsets our RELATIVE sense of gravity and therefor it also affects the releative density measurements as well. The ACTUAL density of the sun is much greater than is believed because of these centrifigal forces that have not been accounted for in 2D models.

That explaination is actually quite an elegant answer and I'm happy to have finally answered that objection since I thought it was one of the few actual objections raised that had merit and the only thing brought up that actually concerned me.

If you had actually demonstrated any "errors", I'd be happy to acknowledge them. That never happened. W.F. Tomba did in fact point out quite a few shortcomings and a lack of documentation on my part that I certainly will address in my next revision. I'm grateful for his professional feedback. My appreciation for his *professional* feedback was the ONLY reason I started this thread, not to restart the discussion. I've gotten the feedback I was after, and there is no point in going in circles for another several days with a group that can't even follow its own posted rules.

I thought the BA locked this thread...oh, I see...

Never mind...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Not having read the thread in great detail, I wonder if you could point out these instances for me. This is a very serious allegation that in my experience rarely occurs here.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Page 14

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...4802db9214e52f

This just one of several such personal attacks.

Well, to me that's a criticism of your scientific knowledge, not an ad hominem. Criticism of your knowledge is justified in a debate about that knowledge.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

The term "crackpot" is just fine by you eh?

If his criticism had been valid, I'd understand your point, but since both fission and fusion processes release lots of positrons, electrons, protons, nuetrons, etc, I fail to see the point of such a blatent personal attack. The fact you defend this behavior says volumes about this place.

Again, I will take umbrage, as my tack of argument did not attack the individual, but the idea of material surviving as a solid well above its temperature of vaporization at 1 atm... not even factoring in the less than 1% of 1 atm of pressure at the photosphere, which makes it less likely still.

Density has been established, and the method to do so has been explained multiple times, but regardless a solid surface is untenable because of the temperature and pressure.

Again, temperature, pressure. Untenable.

Errors were noted in the terminology, stated understanding of gas and plasma physics, estimation of mass and volume, estimation of density, stated understanding of temperatures of fusion and vaporization, density profiles from sound wave propagation, and variable rotation speeds of different latitudes, but that's only from memory.

Whoops. Didn't see "crackpot." Yes, that is unjustified, but the following criticism seems valid, if harsh. The comments about the physics class also border on incorrect for this forum as well.

Edited to add the last sentence and this notice.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Since that poster was new and didn't understand the rules, I don't think that's a valid example. Another poster brought up that it was probably an unwarranted attack and the originator apologized. Perhaps you have another?
Here is where Llyr apologized.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=501164#501164

Edit to fix typos and add URL.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

No it is not...that was certainly "over the line".

There's just one small problem with that argument, though...

That statement was made on page 14, you have been claiming "personal attacks" pretty much since page one. And you have characterized this whole board in that manner when that is obviously not true.

Care to try again?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Actually, I'd agree that Llyr was over the line there, though to be fair, he even said so right up front, and did apologize later. Since he was new to the board, I think we can take that as getting accustomed to the place. However, most of the folk posting on that thread did indeed limit themselves to criticism of the ideas, very few of which were adequately addressed, in my opinion.

Personally, I'd be interested to see W.F. Tomba's response to Michael's thanks in this new thread.

No, you're right. I misread part of Llyr's comment, so it seemed less harsh to me the first time through. For example, I missed "crackpot" entirely. #-o

I did correct myself, though.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Actually Pat, you're right, you've been quite fair.

First of all we do not know the temperature at the bottom of the silicon layer, nor we we know the atmospheric pressure conditions at the bottom of the silicon plama layer in these gravitational fields. We do not know how well that layer conducts heat relative to air. To suggest then that the temperature is too high to sustain solid ferrite stuctures is purely a "guess" on your part, not scientific fact. The fact we SEE these "structures" proves you are wrong in fact.

Density has been established using only two dimensions, not three. In other words the current density measurements and gravitational measurements are based on RELATIVE rotation around a THIRD dimension that has NOT been considered. Because the whole solar system is spinning in the Z axis, the density of the sun and jupiter and any other planets will "seem" less because of the centrifugal forces of movement in the Z axis. This prblem is easily solveable using the theory of relativity that I was repeatedly accused of not adhering to. It turns out that it's YOU GUYS that don't put much faith in relativity, not me.

If you actually KNEW any of these things with any precision, your arguement would have merit. Since you do not have such measurements, your assertions are merely assertions.

You seem to confuse ALEGATION with proof. You folks ALEDGED many things. You failed to PROVE any of these things scientifically in any way, shape or form.

The only "real" issue raised that I was not prepared for that I felt was a valid criticism was the notion of the measured density of the sun and the fact that gravitational forces have been well documented and have proven to be quite accurate. That issue certainly DID concern me and it warranted a rational explanation. I've provided one now, one I'm very comfrotable with, one that incorprorate the theory of relativity as well. The rest of these alegations are ALEGATIONS only, not scientific fact. The speed of rotation in these running difference images is UNIFORM, pole to equator. There is no variable rotation in the farrite layer, though UPPER layers surely do display that behavior.

I appreciate that very much actually. Thanks.

Temperature from black body curves says one thing. That thing that it says is well corroborated by measured behavior here on earth, and predicted and verified through calculation. To violate that, physics would have to drastically change between earth and the sun, which would alter significantly the behavior of each.

The temperature measured from a sunspot is above that of the vaporization temperature of iron. Not the heat of fusion (the melting point) but the heat of vaporization (the boilng point). Meaning that iron is at least a vapor, if not a plasma. To record the emission lines requires dissociated iron ions as one would find in a hot plasma. The measurements that indicate iron are of that hot iron plasma, indicating that it is not solid iron. The fact that they are emission lines and not absorption lines additionally confirms the iron as ionized gas, releasing photons as electrons drop to lower energy states. This is the same reason fire glows.

The physics used to determine the temperature of a body are similar to those that govern what peak color of light will be emitted by a heated filament in either a light bulb or a stove top. This is different from a neon sign, in which a gas is ionized and recombines with electrons emitting photons of specific frequencies, releasing specific emission spectra. The artificial filtering you see in the images of the sun is substantially reduced from the true brightness (intensity) and color, often seen through a single frequency or a few combined frequencies designed to bring out details, hence one rarely sees a "true color" image of the sun.


If the above were held true, the sun would have a more oblate shape, as would all of the other planets in the solar system. A faster rotation rate would stretch out any body until it no longer resembled a sphere but a disk, which is partly true for the sun as it is. The sun is not a perfect sphere, but an oblate spheroid, although not of the nature you descirbe, and yet this still does not interfere with calculating its density and volume, as formulae for oblate spheroid volumes exist as well.

The position taken is one of calculation based on theory of black body radiation emission spectra, based on quantum mechanics. It is because energy is released in quanta that one can state assertions about temperature that have, in practice, low margins of error. The temperature of the sun varies; however, to vary enough to allow for the claim of a solid ferrite surface, quantum mechanics would have to not apply to the sun.

The claims about lacking scientific fact and proven assertions is dubious at best. Our understanding comes from nigh on a century of research about emission, black body spectra, quantum mechanics, and even before that on trigonometry and Newtonian orbital mechanics (close to four centuries). While this may seem as an appeal to authority, it is instead an example of the amount of research and counter-claims that have built up, resulting in our current understanding of simple temperature, and temperature is only one objection to the presented theory. Hence the above statement.

While I cannot claim to have visited the sun (mostly because I am not an irradiated mass of indiscriminate charcoal), I can assert that I've done enough physics in the laboratory in my youth to know that claims about black bodies can be tested, have been tested, and have so far (to my knowledge) borne out with results close to prediction.

Go back and read the first page RAF. In fact, reread the thread. You'll see I've been accused on MANY occasions of not knowing what I was talking about as it relates to black body radiation, plasma physics, particles released in nuclear reactions, the bending of neutrinos in a gravitational fields, etc. All of these things turned out to be completely FALSE and all of these things were meant to "smear the messenger" by inuendo rather than deal with the factual data I presented and spent months preparing. If you read the first page, you'll see that the ridicule routine started LONG before I even got here. The moment I started to participate in the discussion, the focus was on "how many degrees do you have?" rather than anything related to the content of my website or the materials and ideas I presented.

What factual data?? All you've given us is your personal interpretations of satellite images. Being told that those interpretations don't "jive" with observational evidence is not an "attack" against you no matter how much you want that argument to "stick".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Well, thank you for the kind words. I was interested in the content of the previous (now apparently locked) thread, but by the time I came to it, it had already become a raging maelstrom of circular debate, which I wasn't eager to be sucked into. For me, that kind of thing gets tiresome pretty fast. So I decided to write a relatively thorough and focused critique of your theory as expressed in the paper and leave it at that. I am not a professional scientist or an expert in any scientific field, but I hope my comments were useful to you and others involved in the debate.

The "black body" curve you are talking about is related to the heat distribution between the various layers. The concept of black body curves has little or nothing to do with the issue. My model would certainly predict just such curves. The heat measurements you are referring to relate to the temperature at the top of the photosphere, not underneath the photosphere. We know from the study of sunspots that these areas DO contain materials that are LOWER in temperature than the temperatures we "typically" see at the top of the photosphere, so my "model" predicts such behavior and such temps very well. Now it's realy a question of HOW low do these temps go, what is the actual density of the silicon might actually be, and whether a calcium ferrite material could hold together in such temperature ranges. I can SEE the ferrite layer with my own eyes so I know it exists. I therefore would have to conclude that calcium ferrite alloys can and do form under these temperature ranges and conditions.

What I'm quite certain about however is that calcium ferrite will NOT remain stable at 20-60K degrees as NASA claims.

But these measurements are occuring in ACTIVE areas. To know that the temp isn't low enough to form ferrite, you need to know the temp at the BASE of this layer, not the top during an active phase. Again, you are ALEDGING something that is not known.

I have visual evidence it's solid rather than a vapor.
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Publi...171_000828.avi

That doesn't look much like a vapor or a plasma. I can see vapors coming off the surface, but I also see a surface.

These iron ions are ionized by the electrical arcs and the flow of electrons through the iron surface.

Once ionized from the surface, these particles become ionized plasma that is heated by the electrical arc. The heat from the electricity releases photons that we can "see" with SOHO and TRACE.

I do not dispute that. Once the ions peel away from the surface, they are a form of plasma.

Yes, but nobody even identified ALL of the materials that supposedly would give us a black body curve that matches the sun's output at the temps in question. The best answer I got was "hydrogen, helium, and OTHER materials". In fact I've not seen a study presented that shows that such a curve, that includes visible light, CAN be produced WITHOUT neon. Where is the study that supports this idea? I know things glow when they get hot, but this is not evidence that this actually what's happening or what's actually releasing the visible light we see from the sun. The fact something CAN produce light is not evidence the sun works that way. My way produces light and black body curves too.

And likewise the neon emissions are going to be mixed with photons from many other sources that will interact with this output and make it appear as a "black body" set of radiation since the neon is but one of the many layers involved in the photo emissions.

Density has been established 2D only, and the temperature and pressure are UNKNOWN at this time.

That's a GUESS on your part. The movement doesn't seem all that "fast" to me since we're talking a 22 year rotation cycle. I fail to see what that would cause a great deal of "stretching".

Didn't you just prove my case? We deal with relative movements all the time. Unless this movement was VERY fast, it would not have the kinds of affects you are suggesting, at least not to the point of creating hugely different looks to these structures.

You are basing your ideas on a THEORY, not observation. That is the difference between us in fact. I am basing my beliefs on OBSERVATION, not on any preconcieved theory. Again however, this particularly "theory" doesn't tell us much OBSERVATIONALLY and this theory isn't "evidence" that my model is wrong.

That is a red herring. I never said anything of the sort. QM applies to everything as far as I know, but black body radiation does not. It MIGHT apply and it MIGHT not. How can you eliminate my explanation, or prove your explanation is right, whereas mine is wrong?

Your "century of research about emissions" seems to completely ignore the laws of physics as it relates to valence shells and energy states of atoms, etc. Instead the presumed solar composition is based on an OVERSIMPLIFICATION of counting photons and claiming this count=sun composition. That isn't logical. My model is based on 4 decades of nuclear chemical analysis of lunar soils and comets and based on images ffrom 6 different 21st century satellites, 3 of which were specifically designed to study the sun. Aside from this whole thing being an appeal to authority, you have not established that you "authorities" are "better" than mine.

I fail to see the point of these statements since my model depends on these things working properly as well.

The above statement is in fact a blatent appeal to authority and you have not established that your "authority" knows nuclear chemistry better than MY authority. You have still not explained the observations I have made using you THEORIES.

That got a chuckle out of me by the way.

I have never disputed that black bodies can radiate energy. That was never in question. What I questioned is whether or not they apply to the concept of visible light and sunspots. I've yet to see what "chemicals" you think presumably "radiate" in this fashion, nor have I heard an explantion with black body radiation to explain the flare pattern in the sunspot. Until these things are done, this is THEORY, and even if you can demonstrate it's "possible" to explain the light and sunspot in this way, you have not demonstrated it actually works that way.

Be specific now for a moment. Specifically WHAT chemical mixture creates black body affects and sunspot affects like we see on the sun? Where is the experiment that demonstrates this?