Earlier you said:
What figure of speech? If you say 'the visible light simply disappears', how am I supposed to interpret that otherwise? "They are very dark to the naked eye" is exactly how I described your position. Saying that this statement (which was already a response to be certain that I interpreted you in the correct way) is only a figure of speech is a very lame cop-out. Of course I latched onto it because I could make a point with it, but you had every chance to explain what you rreally meant with it.

I resent for this reason your statements in reply to seohtu

It was not a figure of speech, it was a mistake you made over and over again. But it seems that simply admitting this is too much for you, so you try to claim that other people use distracting debating techniques instead.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

You are supposed to keep reading where I talked about that other kinds of photons present. The light *IN THAT LAYER* disappears. There are other layers, and other photons, many of which fall within the visible spectrum. We had a whole discussion about it. We talked about percentages. I asked percentages. Why are you leaving that aspect of what I said out of what you hear?

It is dark to the naked eye in that region. That was the only way that Galileo could tell that sunsposts EXISTED. Some folks went off into literal translations and ignored the other layers, the other photons, the relative percentages, etc.

What I resent is someone taking a single sentence or two and trying to build a federaral case over a non issue while ignoring page after page of important observations and focusing on what amounts to a triviality. That is how I see it.

If I had not had a whole discussion about the fact that other photons were involved and there were relative percentages to consider, I'd understand your concern. As it is, you guys handwave away a lifetime of nuclear chemical reasearch and get caught up in a triviality over a single sentence you don't like. That seems trivial from my perspective, and utterly irrelevant. I know what I meant, and others here know what I meant. If you want to think I was wrong about something, you go right ahead, but how about taking just one page of my website and explaining it with a gas model, or show me the EXACT nature of Dr. Manuel's error instead of harping on a single sentence I wrote two weeks ago taken totally out of context IMO.

Is it dark to the naked eye, or are many photons of other layers in the visible spectrum coming through? Now you are making me really confused.
And it is hardly the only thing challenged in your theory, is it?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

First of all, there is nothing wrong with me changing my mind or my model based on what I learn in these discussions. Ultimately you expect that of me. The least you could do when I move an inch is notice that I am willing to listen to rational argument.

That being said, I did in fact change my model from a fusion core to a fission core based on some very astute and uncomfortable questions about fusion and how it would relate to my model.

On this particular issue (light from the neon layer), my views have not changed. I will accept my part for any confusion I caused you Fram, but honestly, I wasn't unclear in my own mind about what I was trying to convey, even if a few of my sentences were very sloppy or confusing to you personally. I will fully accept responsibilty for bad verbage on my part, or for a misleading sentence or two, but I have always been clear that photon emissions happen from every layer, not just the neon layer and different elements will hit the visible spectrum, with or without neon. Again, I will accept responsibility here for my part in any confusion, but I have not change my opinions internally, nor have I made any changes to my website based on anything related to that topic.

I did however make several changes to my website as it relates to fusion vs. fisson core, but this had more to do with my ability to defend various models, and my willingness to consider valid arguement. There is nothing wrong with changing my mind, and I am in fact counting on your to change yours. I certainly will not judge you harshly for doing so, and you should not judge me for making changes to my model based on solid scientific discourse and rational thought on the part of others. The fact I can change my mind shows I keep my mind open and I am willling to be rational and scientific in my approach to life. I'd rather learn than try to defend my ego.

Wait a minute Van. How about explaining your ideas HERE? You just suggested this is a "surface" and it is located below the surface of the chromosphere and I agree with you on these two points. Where is that surface in relationship to the surface of the photosphere? This is a crucial question Van. You have yet to establish that this layer is plasma, so why must this subject remain taboo in this forum? I'll provide you with some serious scrutiny. If you can extablish the location of the surface, and demonstrate it is made of plasma, then you can move it to the other forum. So far that has yet to be established. I await your further clerifications and explanations.

Then you will surely have no difficultly locating that surface in relationship to the surface of the photosphere and giving us a ballpark temperature for that surface?

These issues are unrelated to this topic or the particular image we are discussing. Let us keep our conversation focused and take things one step at a time. Once you explain the relationship of this surface to the surface of the photosphere, we'll move the next series of questions, starting with it's temperature and its structure and the relationship between the two.

Actually that would be evidence that they are probably at least PARTLY solid.

Waves of energy flowing through liquid matter.

No because you can watch it move around during those days. Notice the difference in the relative movement in this "surface" compared to the "surface" of the earth and you'll see that is the same relationship between the surface of the photopshere and the surface of the sun.

It's all in the details Van. We see movement in the photosphere and it moves a lot like your hurricane image over a few days. If we're looking at surface crust of the earth from space, it will move as well, but in a completely different way. It rotates uniformly unlike these clouds. Even so, the photosophere moves differentially, but the running difference surface does not. That is the whole reason I put together the movie I put together so you could see the difference in rotational behavior between the photosphere and the surface of the sun.

I have changed my mind... after having reviewed Dr. Manuels work, i find my self generally agreeing with his proposals.. I.E.. IRON SUN.

yet i would make some modifications, yet only slightly.

and then, indeed, our calculated values for the sun, mUst be in question.

as we can based on gravity, say that the sun must weigh so much, relative to the earth.. and moon, etc... and we can make general estimates..

but the problem, obviously lays in the lap of the fact that we are not dealing with a gas..
we are dealing with a plasma.. and doing so.. all bets are off using gas laws..

so.. in deed, the question as to density becomes very important, since the working fluid, as such is then, as a plasma, IS more like a perfect non-hydrolic fluid, in that it may yield to allmost endless pressure, and compression, as to closeness, and yet, due to atomic forces of repulsion springs back, as by seperating the masses..
and this would play a ying/yang game at different levels within the sun.

most clearly defined, in my mind, is that areas on the surface of the sun, may act in ways, which are perhaps not, reminicent of a solid but of some fleshy, jello type mix, which holds together as a solid, but only weakly..
and yet on the surface, it holds together.. like condensing froth on the surface of a cup of coffee, and or the plates on our earth.. like ice floating on a sea of molten plasma...

i cannot begin to believe we could properly determine the density of the sun, at any of its layers.. unless we can find a way to probe it.
-MT

I didn't mean to imply that you haven't changed your mind or learned anything(it's a refreshing change from many other ATM'ers here that you actually do), and I don't think this is a logical interpretation of my post. You said that instead of ficusing on one point, I should look at the larger picture (not a quote, just paraphrasing), and I replied that I thought that the larger picture was challenged often enough in these threads.
I still don't see what you mean with your sunspot statements, but as we have gone over it long enough, I'll drop it (I may of course ask other things about it if for some reason it comes back in the discussion). I'll probably be back with other objections, but it may take a while...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Welcome to the light side of the force Luke!

IMO we cannot really determine the inside of the sun at this point in time. We can see what is going on from the crust on up. I would focus on these issues for the time being when possible, but as you see in the density of the sun thread, there are valid ways of dealing with long term density considerations. The key here IMO is getting folks to agree on a light source and location of the surface as Van is attempting to do right now. When the gas model crowd can agree on the light source and location of this surface, then we can really have a debate about the iron sun concept vs. a gas model approach. I'm having a hard time just getting gas model agreement on a single image. It will take a long time to get all the density and neutrino count measurements calculations together, since these things require we have a functional model that we all agree on.

IMO your next step is to look at the heat signatures of the images, recognize them as electrical arcs and work from there. The rest falls into place in these images once you have that revelation. If you checkout the observations page of my website I updated it recently to include some errors in Lockheed's website and two images that visually place this surface in relationship to the photopshere and chromosphere.

Thanks Fram. Like I said, I take responsibility here for any confusion on my part. I'm ready to move on to other things as well now.

One more thing Mosheh...

If you believe this layer to be plasma, you must first establish a temperature range for the layer as Van must do. You also have to explain how these structures exist as long as they do and rotate as they do.

IMO the surface is very electrically active and can and does change radically from one rotation to the next, expecially during it's more active phases. I think Dr. Manuel is more comfortable with the term "rigid surface" since it neither implies solid nor plasma, but IMO solids behave very consistently with the images we see, and something holds these structures in place for days. How do you explain that behavior in a plasma? A plasma option however does remain viable, so long as you can explain the structures and the flow of electricity through these structures in plasma. I believe you will find that this will be much harder to explain with a plasma than you realize.

I again refer you to

Big Bang or Big Slam?

and

Big Bang or Big Slam?

If you want a better temperature value or range, check back on the references I provided you in the old BABB discussion. If you can't be bothered to read my posts, I see no reason to keep repeating myself.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I don't expect to explain anything really..

but the idea seems sound.. generally... as such fits right into my plans... hehehe.
no but seriously.... hehehe... they do.. i can use it all.

Micheal.. one question... as i fail to see it.

does your.. IRON SUN, have a core...? and if so what is it?

and what about neutron stars, and or dwarf masses left behind.?

do you follow the fusion logic at the point?
or do you follow the nuetron star/dwarf mass beginning?

and if so.. dwarf i mean... where then did the dwarfs come from?
-MT

You did not offer me a possition for this "surface" relative to the surface of the photosophere Van. I offered you heliosiesmology evidence that suggests it sits 4800km below the surface of the photosphere. Where are you suggesting this 'surface' sits in relationship to the surface of the photosophere? How do you know it's not at a depth of 4800km?

My model is based on a fission core, while Dr. Manuel's is based upon at neutron star core. I think either position is defenseable, but I find it easier to defend a fission core at it requires nothing special. I like simple. His theory does offer it's own benefits however and I am not attached to my core to be honest. I can really only see from the surface on up. I can't really look inside just yet, but heliosiesmology does offer a great deal of promise.

I have no idea what happens to such things. I've heard theories of quark stars from Harvard that intrigue me as a possible way to explain black holes, but in plasma cosmology, you don't really need one.

I'm a fission guy at the moment, but like I said, I'm not attached to it. It is a "theory" rather than an "observation" on my part.

I'd rather stick to solar topics, since these kinds of topics seem so far "out there' to me at the moment. I'd rather focus on one thing at a time. I don't dispute however that Dr. Manuel's model is a valid alternative. I'm not sure how to tell you how to even choose between them. You'll have to make up your own mind about the core.

I am watching this discussion degenerate, partly because people are talking past each other, and partly because of the lack of understanding I see of some pretty basic physics especially on the part of Michael.

I am going to try a different approach. So far, Michael has offered a number of images which he has attempted to interprete, combined with a adding in of parts and pieces of a number of highly disputed theories. In most of the cases cited by Michael, the theory backstopping the idea has almost always been from a subject that has been dealt with by actual physicists--those people who actually make their daily living doing physics.

So I am going to approach this in the same way as Michael has been, only I will be arguing the mainstream side.

Ok Michael, here are some questions for you.

The incidence of neutrino emmision from the proton-proton reaction has been mathematically estimated for about 50 years. To detect neutrinoes a number of experiments were performed, which resulted in the overthrow of the (then) standard model of particle physics. Since that time, a mathematical meathod was devised to detect neitrino mass, assuming it had any, as follows: