Michael Mozina wrote:Nereid wrote:Thanks for the reply Michael.
What about the other question? The one about the surface gravity at this 'solid surface'?
Next easy question: what is an indicative height for the features of this 'solid surface'? A kind of general idea of the vertical relief.
According to the heliosiesmology paper I cited for you earlier, the top side of the surface changes by an average of about 10km on the top of the surface. That may not all be due to changes only in the actual surface features, but rather a change in thickness of the crust and the surface layout. Just to be on the safe side, I'd be inclined to split that number in half as it relates to surface elevations and suggest that nothing is probably much taller than about 5km.
While I'm at it, I'm sure you have this somewhere already, what is an indicative temperature of this 'surface'?
About 1200-1400 Kelvin.
Thanks.
If an image of the Sun, taken from the Earth (or at a distance of approx 1 au) has a resolution of 1" (one arcsecond), that corresponds to approx 700 km 'on the Sun' - do you agree?
What sort of 'lighting' (illumination) would be needed to produce a resolvable 'shadow'*, on the Sun, of a feature that has a vertical relief of ~10 km?
*by an instrument, with a 1" resolution, at a distance of ~1 au.
And just to lay it out a little more clearly - these questions are very, very simple, and form part of a 'sensibility check' that should have been done a long time ago (if you are serious about this idea being scientific). In other words (IOW), you should have had them lying around in your notebooks; and if not, it should have been the work of but an hour to pull them all together.
Well, these have in fact been fairly "sensible" questions IMO as well, though I can't say the same for your light propogation through plasma question from the other forum. I have taken at least an hour away from my family time now, futzing with spread sheets, and uploading them to my website simply to satisify your personal curiosity about whether or not I can do math. In a "typical" conversation, if someone has an actual "problem" with an idea I have presented, they typically provide the math they feel is a relevant rather than fishing for numbers randomly and expecting me to provide them on demand.
It seems that what I wrote has been misunderstood; allow me to clarify.
This is a scientific forum.
The 'Sun has a solid (ferrite/iron) surface' idea is a radical departure from standard models of the Sun. This radical idea has not yet been published in peer-reviewed (astronomy) journals.
Under normal circumstances, presentation and discussion of any such radical idea would be out of scope, here in Night Sky Live.
However, as it has already been discussed, and as there is a reorganisation under way, we can continue the discussion. One condition of continuing is for you, or any other supporter of this idea, to answer very simple, very basic questions about it. If you choose not to, then that's OK.
For avoidance of doubt, there is no requirement that you (or any other registered member) answer these questions.
Since you expect me to do work on your behalf, and provide "sensibility checks" as it relates to these ideas,
I have no such expectation, in terms of what you should (or should not) post here. Per my clarification above, it's your choice.
The expectation I do have is that these sensibility checks have been done, and that they would be very easy to write up. Further, if you are enthusiastic about your radical idea, I expect that you would take every opportunity to explain it, to answer questions on it, etc.
But, to repeat, whether you choose to avail yourself of this opportunity to explain your idea, or not, is entirely up to you.
let's also talk about "sensibility checks" then as it relates to standard theories. How about a sensibility check on the density of inflaton fields in BB theory as well? What other scalar field do you know of in nature that remains at a constant density while the volume increases exponentially? How about we apply this "sensibility check" to the concept of mass separation of plasmas in gas model theory. What kind of "mixing" forces are going to be required to keep iron and hydrogen plasma from separating in the solar atmosphere in the middle of such strong magnetic and gravitational fields?
Some very good questions here, and no doubt there are many folk who would be very interested to answer them, either here, or
here or
here (or in several sites on the internet).
However, most of these questions are off-topic for this thread (but we do have several other threads, here in the Café, that would be relevant).
If you get a paper published, with details of your wild idea, it may be appropriate to engage in a wider discussion;
Some of our work has already been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy, and we are working to make sure that more work will be published very soon.
for now, speculative ideas, not backed by even the most basic of sensibility checks will not be permitted in this forum.
As long as your "sensibility checks" continue to remain "sensible", and you are willing to return the favor by also providing some sensibility checks for BB theory in the other thread, I'll be happy to work with you on this issue Nereid.
[snip]
We are not bargaining here Michael; there is no 'deal' to be had ...
There are dozens, nay, hundreds of internet discussion fora which allow pseudo-science to be presented and discussed. However, Discuss an APOD, and NSL, is not one of those fora.
Nobody besides you ever suggested that we discuss "psuedo" anything Nereid. Talk about unfair and unreasonable debate practices.
I would personally prefer that we discuss the real life satellite observations such as this one, that led to my theories whenever you are ready to discuss the real "science" behind my theories.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
And what is it that you think this shows Michael, in terms of a 'solid ferrite/iron surface'?
For starters, could you please give us an indication of the scale (e.g. arcseconds per pixel, or km per pixel) as well as the units of intensity (e.g. what's 'white'? what's 'black'?)?
Oh, and before I forget, did you answer this question?
What is the pressure at the bottom of the 'solid surface layer', in this idea of yours Michael? I assume it's the same as the pressure at the top of the 'average density between 1 and 1.2x' layer, but perhaps I shouldn't assume - is the Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium, all the way from the core to at least to the top of the 'solid surface layer'?