Dear UT Readers,

Here are pictures and movies that Michael Mozina has made of the Sun's surface from SOHO and TRACE Running Difference Images?

Mr. Mozina concludes there that the Sun has a rigid, iron-rich structure below its "liquid-like" photosphere.

What do you think of these conclusions?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

I haven't done enough physics to have any real hypothesis. Is it possible that there is some boundary where the pressure is great enough, but temperature still low enough that Hydrogen can form into a highly viscous, if not crytallic or solid structure?

__________________
~ cogito cogito ergo cogito sum ~

Nothing in life is good nor bad; thinking makes it so.

Too little is known about structures of plasmas under high pressures.

I doubt if H+ ions or He ions would arrange themselves into a rigid structure at solar pressures.

However, ionized forms of heavier elements might.

With kind regards,

Oliver

This belongs in alternative theories, and so I am moving it there.
It may be that these people have more data to back up their statements than what appears on this web page, but it doesn't look to me like they are basing their argument on anything more than the idea that these lines move consistant with the magnetic field of the Sun, rather than the rotation speed of the photosphere. This does not require a rigid rotator.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

This belongs in alternative theories, and so I am moving it there.
It may be that these people have more data to back up their statements than what appears on this web page, but it doesn't look to me like they are basing their argument on anything more than the idea that these lines move consistant with the magnetic field of the Sun, rather than the rotation speed of the photosphere. This does not require a rigid rotator. [/b][/quote]
Hi, Anton.

I think it is wrong to move experimental observations to alternative theories.

With kind regards,

Oliver

First, it is not the observation, but the interpretation that got it here.

Second, i *will* bring your concern up with the other moderators, and if enough of them are sympathetic to you concern here, we'll move this thread back to "Other Stories". Working against you on this is the fact that the URL points to your personal website, and that the conclusions drawn from eleven days woth of SOHO images are an extreme alternative to some of the ideas you were expressing about your idea of what the Sun is made of.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi, Anton.

1. I posted the link because of observations, not theories.

2. Thanks for agreeing to get input from other moderators.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Hi, Anton.

The link in my original posting mistakenly included my own web page.

That error has been corrected.

Will you please put this back in Other Stories?

Thanks,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

After some discussion with Fraser and the other Mods we believe that this story belongs here not there.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

This is the image seen in Iron lines, mostly Fe (IX) and Fe (X). These Iron lines seem to pass through the Sun's outer layer (photosphere and chromosphere) of Hydrogen and Helium.

It is unlikely that a highly viscous, crystalline or solid structure of Hydrogen made the image.

The 3-D structure of this iron-rich sphere is more permanent than the fluid-like structure seen in the photosphere and chromosphere.

From studying a series of such images (SEE BELOW), you can see why Mozina concludes that a CONSISTENT set of surface features in these images MOVE from left to right as the sun rotates.

The features move UNIFORMLY across the surface. Unlike the photosphere, these features do not move at different rates near the equator than than they move at the poles. Because of this consistency, this "structure" cannot be the photosphere or the chromosphere.

Here is the image of the rigid, iron-rich structure 12 hours after the first image.



Here is the image of the rigid, iron-rich structure 24 hours after the first image.



Here is the image of the rigid, iron-rich structure 36 hours after the first image.



Here is the image of the rigid, iron-rich structure 60 hours after the first image.



With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Hello Dr. Manual. I think you are doing a bit of grasping of straws here.

While the story concluded that the Sun's surface is rigid, and came from an earlier story that the Sun's surface MAY be solid; it did not say that it is indeed solid, and it certainly did NOT say it was composed of iron. Fe lines in a spectrium does not conclude that the surface or the Sun as a whole is composed of iron. It simply says it contains iron.

Anton was correct in moving this thread here. As long as it was discussing simple observations, it was fine where it was, but when you started drawing conclusions, and especially since we know where those conclusions will lead, the subject matter changed, just as the nature of replies changed.

Claiming the Sun's surface is solid is a far enough reach, stating it conducts electricity becomes more far fetched but not totally out of the question. Stating conclusivly it is iron however doe's.
And stating that it must be iron because it conducts electricity is equally far fetched.

Many metals conduct electricity, and some even better then iron. Gold, silver, copper, mercury, and urinium are a few. Silver and mercury in fact conduct electricity better in their liquid state, then in solid. So conducting electricity doesn't mean a solid surface. And perhaps not even liquid. I'm not aware of anyone ever getting the elements I named into a gasious state, so who's to say that copper, gold or the others as gas won't also act in such a manner.

Hi, Planetwatcher.

You have confused my statements with those of others.

I certainly did not intend to say that the structure is solid.

On re-reading my posting, I find that I did not.

Neither did I say that it " it must be iron because it conducts electricity."

I did say that "The 3-D structure of this iron-rich sphere is more permanent than the fluid-like structure seen in the photosphere and chromosphere."

If you disagree with anything in that statement, please be specific.

Remember that this statement is based on measurements made with light coming from Iron.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Dear Oliver

I put the images in an animation sequence and that does look amazing. It is a totally different sun. Would it be possible to make such an animation with more frames in between? That would show clearly how the rotation takes place in iron light.

gerards kind regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Thanks for the message, biknewb.

I took the frames from Michael Mozina's web page. There were no others between them.

However, Mozina also has some amazing animation sequence movies HERE?

I hope others will start to examine all of the solar line spectra to see if there are other features that scientists working for NASA and ESA have overlooked.

I still have lots of questions about the results, but I much prefer questions to the usual "pat answers", as if we already knew all the answers before collecting the data.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

UT Forum readers who are interested may find an extensive discussion of this idea on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, here.

The site owner (Phil Plait; BA and UT are in each other's 'similar sites') locked the thread (after 15 pages!), with the following words (extract), directed at the proponent of these claims about the Sun:
"Here's the scoop. You look at images, then assume that just by looking at them you can deduce all sorts of things, including that everything we know about physics for the past century is wrong. When people point out the (incredibly copious) errors of your ideas, you simply continue to use those same arguments to make further arguments.

You say we are arrogant, when you are the one who is saying that every single scientist has missed incredibly obvious problems with every field of physics -- including chemistry, relativity, stellar dynamics, solar behavior, fusion, hydrodynamics, basic mechanics, cosmology, and now, evidently, acentrism -- and that you are the one who has figured all this out.

Did I miss anything?

I think that pretty much sums this up. I don't see a whole lot of usefulness coming from this thread at this point. No matter what people say, you are clearly just reacting to what they are saying instead of really thinking about it. You don't even consider the advice of experts, people who study this stuff for a living. And we're supposed to listen to you? Why should we?

I'll give you some credit for trying; it can't be easy to have so many people assaulting your ideas from so many directions. But in a very real sense, that's the point: your idea is assailable from all those different directions, because it's wrong in that many ways. Yet you have not been able to defend the idea against these questions, so you just build more incorrect ideas on top of others. "

The specific comment by Michael Mozina that Phil is responding to is one Mike made in an attempt to explain why the average density of the Sun (mass divided by volume) is so far below that of solid iron; here is Mike's 'defence': "I'm suggesting the whole universe spins within an electromagnetic field that is constantly accelerating these balls of iron as they spin through space."

Hi, Nereid.

Why all these negative comments about Michael Mozina?

Phil and Bad Astronomy are excellent examples of what Michael Crighton referred to as the proponents of "consensus thinking" in his lecture at Caltech on 17 January 2003:

“Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” -- Michael Crichton, The Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January 2003

In fact the average overall density tells little about the Sun's internal composition, temperature, or structure. Compentent astrophysicists have suggested a iron-rich interior to the Sun, even a black hole at its core!

"Me Too" folks may think they are seen as scientists by publicly endorsing all the mainstream ideas, but that is not the way science advances.

How about addressing the observations?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Since this thread now relates back to the Bad Astronomy Board, you may want to read through this thread as well, since the conversations continue:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopi...9a40d7e092d68bc

I would very much appreciate a gas model explanation for this running difference image from the trace satellite.

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi

By the way, it was certainly NOT my intent to create the "tone" that happened at the Bad Astronomy board. I'm really pretty easy to get along with as long as we can have a sense of humor about this.

I realize that this is not a mainstream idea, but I think the fact that Dr. Manuel and I reached the very same conclusion using entirely different methods is very important. His observations in nuclear chemistry predicted this set of observations nearly 35 years before you saw them in this thread. I believe if one keeps an open mind that this model of the sun is at least as "viable" as any gas model that exists mainly because it's supported by direct visual observation, and was predicted by nuclear chemistry more than 3 decades ago based on totally different measurements and methods and data sets.

Welcome to Universe Today, Michael Mozina!

As this material is entirely new to readers of UT, perhaps you could give us a brief summary of your sources, your images, and your image analyses?

It would be particularly helpful if you could give this summary without reference to any models or interpretations.

In particular, please describe what a 'running difference' image is, and how you created them.

Kind Regards
Nereid

I'd also like to ask you to tell us some of the ideas that you've considered and perhaps rejected (and why) concerning possible explanations for what you are seeing here. As I've mentioned above, the images are interesting, but scream to me that this is the magnetic field causing the shapes we are seeing, not some solid body rotater.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I believed the sources are known: TRACE and SOHO satelites.
And I don't think MM mentioned that HE created "running difference" images.
He made movies out from processed images, I believe.
From the site:
"I would like to thank to Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan at NASA for patiently, and I do mean patiently, explaining these images and how they were created."

Nereid, did you read the material on the site, at all?

As OM said, the argument that "avarage density of the Sun is far below that od solid iron" is a poor argument against the thesis "The surface of the Sun is solid iron"
Also, I can't see the reason why would magnetic field cause persistent features when looking through Fe filter??
I have problems with other statements of Mr. Molina thou.
For instance:
If a star doesn't have Neon envelope it explodes as Supernovae??

I hope we can keep the discussion focused on observations.

There is already an over-abundance of speculation in the field of solar physics.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

The rigidty has been explored by a more up-to-date model presented right here

It appears that internal plasma works as a conveyor belt, dragging sunspots into their equatorial journeys. The June 2005 issue of Astronomy magazine had a good article on this model and it is getting a lot of support..We need to remember that the only reason we see any spectral lines is because transitions are taking place.

Thanks, blueshift, for the link.

Internal rigidity may help explain many features of the sun, e.g., why solar magnetic fields return to their original position after a 22-year solar cycle.

You are right about seeing atomic transformations.

Michael Mozina is focusing on light coming from Fe (IX) [Iron ions with a +8 charge] and Fe (X) [Iron ions witha +9 charge].

It is fascinating that light from this source reveals a rigid sub-structure that rotates uniformily from the equator to the poles, unlike material in the fluid outer layers of the sun.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Hi Svemir.

Michael's idea has been discussed at considerable length in BadAstronomy, and on at least one other internet forum before that too.

If we are to discuss it here, and not create a dozen page thread (or more) with much heat and little light, I would like to 'run' this discussion in a measured way.

A very good place to start is with the observations. As it is Michael who has apparently put hundreds of hours into analysis of images, I would like him to present to us all the basics of what the images are, where they come from, and so on. I'm sure he will include a full set of references to the original source(s), and will also be happy to answer questions on what analyses he performed, and why.

As to the average density of the Sun, let's stick to discussing the images for now, shall we? When we're done with understanding what's being presented, then we may move on to interpretion (if you'd rather not wait, gentle reader, please visit the BA site, and read through the threads there for a flavour of what interpretations Michael made, and how they square with other observations of the Sun, the Earth, etc).

For the avoidance of doubt, as this topic has already generated a huge number of posts in other fora, I will be particularly vigilant in keeping us focussed in this one.

Actually, that flow from the equator to the poles and back again is called a meridional flow of plasma in the convection zone. Beneath that is the tacholine, the layer at the base of the convection zone where the Sun's rotation becomes more uniform. Gas flowing in this region experiences shear..This region is just 2% of the Sun's radius..very thin. It is now thought to be the site of the solar dynamo where the Sun generates its magnetic field..

She claims that the Sun spins LIKE a solid beneath the tacholine and like a fluid above but is still a gas that has a density 8 times greater than gold at the core.

While rising and falling pockets of gas move energy through the convection zone, the radiative zone transfers energy by radiation where energetic gamma rays from th core are reradiated..

There is no mention of an iron core.

I think you missed a part of my point from my earlier post. You placed several pics up that showed little change over several different times and concluded that only a solid surface could produce such a result. She showed pics that are several DECADES apart and realizes that this is not evidence of a solid body since gases do exhibit repeated shapes that are almost like copied photos in accordance with GR predictions.

I do not want to get involved in a "heated" discussion of this topic, but I did want to explain a bit about the images and videos on my website so there is no confusion about these images.

I personally did not create the running difference images. I did 'copy" the individual running difference images from the raw eit video using quicktime and Microsoft Movie Maker to literally copy and past the these images that were all created by NASA into a movie. That is my "sole" as in one and only accomplishment as it relates to images. All other video comes directly from SOHO's raw EIT archives or comes from Lockheed Martin. Each frame of the running difference movie is composed of snapshots that NASA created, not me. The only thing I did was string them together in movie form. I no way did I do any processing of these images. It is very important that everyone understand I did not process these images personally, NASA did that. I just put them together by copying and pasting them into Microsoft Movie maker.

My involvement began one evening when I ran across the raw eit (grey) video on Soho's archive site. These are typically 10 to 13 megabytes in size on a "normal" day. As I watched these videos I could make out

[Edited by Nereid: Michael's interpretations deleted]

As I downloaded literally gigabytes of these video, I eventually stumbled into "running difference" images contained in these raw images files from SOHO. What immeditately caught my attention about them,

[Edited by Nereid: Michael's interpretations deleted]

so I started asking question about the processing method and more about the filtering system of the 195 filter on board SOHO. That particular filter sees photons from iron ions.

[Edited by Nereid: Michael's interpretations deleted]

During the time I watched these raw EIT videos, I came across the sunquake video you see on my website, and you can see (better from the video) a clear "crack" in upper left side of the layer that SOHO images in these videos. I also found the tsunami video and

[Edited by Nereid: Michael's interpretations deleted]

[Michael: I am very interested in ensuring that we have a good, non-heated discussion of your ideas here in UT. To do that I am requesting, again, that we discuss the OBSERVATIONS first. When we're done with those, we'll move on to your interpretations and the other aspects of your idea.]

That was a VERY interesting article. Thanks. There are many ways to interpret such data however, and it's important to realize that the ferrite (iron) surface is in a constant state of electrical erosion and experience constant electrical activity. The surface literally "melts" in the electrical arc we see and the surface can change rather dynamically in just a single rotation cycle, especially during the "active" times.

These active times are caused by the sun's magnetic axis rotating to a position that is nearly at right angles to it's spin axis. The images you see in that link reflect the affect on the surface of this this rotation cycle. During the active phases, areas just north and south of the equator are experience opposite electromanetic alignements bacause of the inner alignment of the magnetic field and the areas just north and south of the equator tend to become charged and "interact" more frequently. When the magnetic pole rotates back toward the rotational spin axis, the sun enters a quiet phase. These quiet, and active phases can clearly be seen in her work, but we need to be careful how we attempt to interpret this data.

Keep in mind that SOHO's 195 angstrom filter is specifically designed to see photons that are emitted from iron ions. That means that iron spans the whole surface of the sun, and it is not centered in the core. Even were this iron layer very THIN, the amount of iron necessary to cover the entire surface area of the sun is dramatically more iron than the gas model predicts.

Most of these predictions are based on spectral analysis that does not factor in energy states of valence shells within the atoms themselves nor does it consider heat distribution between the various layers of the sun.

These images suggest that Dr. Manuel's work with Lunar soils and comets was right on the money. The sun is mostly made of iron. There is also recent evidence our own solar system formed from a supernova remnant, meaning there should have been an abundance of iron to work with.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

If all the inner planets of the solar system contain heavy elements, how can the sun not have such elements itself? How can these iron ions be emitting photons from the entire surface like this? What supports this layer of iron from falling into the core?

I do not want to get involved in a "heated" discussion of this topic, but I did want to explain a bit about the images and videos on my website so there is no confusion about these images.

I personally did not create the running difference images. I did 'copy" the individual running difference images from the raw eit video using quicktime and Microsoft Movie Maker to literally copy and past the these images that were all created by NASA into a movie. That is my "sole" as in one and only accomplishment as it relates to images. All other video comes directly from SOHO's raw EIT archives or comes from Lockheed Martin. Each frame of the running difference movie is composed of snapshots that NASA created, not me. The only thing I did was string them together in movie form. I no way did I do any processing of these images. It is very important that everyone understand I did not process these images personally, NASA did that. I just put them together by copying and pasting them into Microsoft Movie maker.

My involvement began one evening when I ran across the raw eit (grey) video on Soho's archive site. These are typically 10 to 13 megabytes in size on a "normal" day. As I watched these videos I could make out a lot of detail underneath the "haze" that was rotating very uniformly. That puzzled me since I was always taught that all layers rotated differently in the polar regions than near the equator.

As I downloaded literally gigabytes of these video, I eventually stumbled into "running difference" images contained in these raw images files from SOHO. What immeditately caught my attention about them, is that the highlighted the "structures" I could see with my naked eyes in the raw eit video, right down to every single "structure" I could make out. That could not be a coincidence, so I started asking question about the processing method and more about the filtering system of the 195 filter on board SOHO. That particular filter sees photons from iron ions.

The running difference images were not the part that convinced me. The fact these iron ion emissions were not coming from the core as gas model theorists predicted, but across the entire surface of the sun itself is what got my attention to begin with, along with the uniform ratation I could make out in raw EIT videos. During the time I watched these raw EIT videos, I came across the sunquake video you see on my website, and you can see (better from the video) a clear "crack" in upper left side of the layer that SOHO images in these videos. I also found the tsunami video and could make out a rigid "structure" underneath the photosphere. It was only after I was quite certain what I was seeing was real that I went to the trouble of creating the video on my website. [/b][/quote]
Thank you Michael.

Would you mind clarifying a few things please?

1) The SOHO images you used were 'MPG movies' based on 'GIF images', and NOT FITS images (per this SOHO EIT site)?

2) Specifically, what images or data did you get from Lockheed Martin? Was any of this in FITS format?

3) The identification and interpretation of 'structures' is entirely your own?

I have edited this thread, splitting out material which is not focussed on the observations, into a new thread here. I have also locked that thread. Once we are done with a discussion on the observations, I will unlock it, so we may have a discussion on the interpretation of the observations.

As I explained earlier, my intention is to ensure we have a good discussion of this idea, and not end up with dozens of pages of heated exchanges (as has already happened in at least two other internet fora).

The posts in this thread consist of posts discussing Michael Mozina's ideas; posts on the observations which he claims are the basis of his ideas are here.

My intention is to ensure we have a good discussion of this idea, and not end up with dozens of pages of heated exchanges (as has already happened in at least two other internet fora).

I have closed this thread, and will re-open it for a general discussion, once we're done with discussion on the observations.