Let me try again:Michael Mozina wrote:Yes.Nereid wrote: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?
It's highly unlikely that we're observing surface "shadows" that are primarily due to shadows cast from vertical relief differences. More likely we're observing the difference in lighting between the active surface areas on the windward side of the plasma flow patterns, and the less active areas on the leeward side. We're able to observe reflection differences on the surface patterns due to *horizontal* and vertical arrangments on the surface.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?
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi
The CME event blows quite a bit of "dust" into the solar atmosphere. The movement patterns of these particles allow us to view the general direction of the plasma flow relative to the surface features. It's generally blowing from the bottom right toward the upper left. The sides of the structures on the surfaces that face the differentially rotating plasma wind, tend to generate more coronal loop discharges near the surface and therefore these structures "light up" more that the surfaces that face away from the plasma flow.
a) what is the source of "illumination" (of anything, in these images)?
b) what is the "dust"?
c) what gives rise to the darker and lighter areas (in the images)?
Hmm, it seems that you didn't answer the question ("is the Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium"); perhaps you don't understand the term?I will certainly grant you that a solid surface (iron) sun is a "minority" viewpoint, but we have in fact published at least part of our work in the Journal of Fusion Energy. According to the Spinger link, the Journal of Fusion energy is aimed at the "Engineering and Physics and Astronomy" market. They seemed to believe that our material was suitable for their publication and it's essentially astronomy related material.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.
Great!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.
Well Nereid, I've already answered a number of such questions for you. I'd now prefer to discuss the actual satellite evidence that led me to my conclusions if you don't mind.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.
As long as this discussion isn't going to turn into another "Inquisition routine", with the intent of virtually executing all heretical belief, then I'm more than happy to discuss these ideas here.For avoidance of doubt, there is no requirement that you (or any other registered member) answer these questions.
....
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.
I suppose I'll have to settle for the physics forum then.
Agreed. I'll post my points about inflaton fields and BB theory in the other thread.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).
I'm so very glad you asked.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'?
I beleive that this image shows us the outlines of the solid surface features on the sun. The CME event kicks out particles that allow us to compare the relative movements of the plasma in the solar atmosphere with the lack of movement going on at the surface itself. Some of the "ejecta" (for lack of a better word) from the CME event, rises into the atmosphere, and falls back again to the surface. Along the bottom right side of this image, we can also see a typical example of the surface "erosion" that is caused by the electrical activity within the coronal loops.
It's .5 arcseconds per pixel image, meaning each pixel represents about 350Km. You can find some of the particulars of this image here: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'?)?
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
No, I did not. I would prefer that we now focus our attention on the actual evidence that led to my beliefs, not issues that are less well understood.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?
That's a bit like asking: "What is the pressure from the rock in the arch on the air underneath a Roman arch?" You're asking questions that require a great deal of knowledge about the interior of the sun, whereas I would prefer to focus our attention on the *exterior* of the sun, since that is the part that I can actually observe in satellite images, and that is the data that led me to conclude that the sun has a solid surface.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'?
OK, in the MM idea, what evidence is there that the Sun is NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium?