Starship Asterisk*

Michael Mozina wrote:

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?

Yes.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

I suppose I'll have to settle for the physics forum then.

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).

Agreed. I'll post my points about inflaton fields and BB theory in the other thread.

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'm so very glad you asked.

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.

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'?)?

It's .5 arcseconds per pixel image, meaning each pixel represents about 350Km. You can find some of the particulars of this image here:

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html

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?

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.

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'?

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.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:In which of these is the 'Sun has a solid iron/ferrite surface' idea published?

None. That is a strawman of your own creation evidently. None of us have ever claimed that the sun has a solid iron surface.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:

Michael Mozina wrote: The "onion skin" reference is quite telling. Those were the exact words that Oliver used to describe the mass separation of plasmas on the sun when we first talked on the phone about a year and half ago. It's quite amusing to me now that that NASA would use those exact same words to describe the process at work on Cassiopeia A.

This mass separation process is one of the easiest things to understand, and it's fully congruent with what happens in plasma here on earth. Plasma will mass separate right down to the isotope in the presence of strong gravitational and magnetic fields.

And you can show this similarity quantitatively?

If we're going to speak in quantitative terms then we must begin with observational evidence of mass separated plasma layers, and look quantitatively at the longevity of all "structures" seen in various satellite images. Each plasma layer can be described quantitatively in terms of the longevity of it's various structures, and in terms of length of time we observe between the geometric relationships within the images.

As that first image demonstrates, the photosphere is very "fluidlike" in it's movements. The structures in the photosphere tend to come and go in about 8 minute intervals. The tops of the penumbral filaments "convect" heat. The seem to "boil" quite rapidly. Alexander Kosovichev from Standford has also released this image of a wave that passes over and through the fluidlike photosphere. As we can see the surface of the photosphere is very fluidlike, and it moves much like a liquid. Nothing is particularly "stationary".

As in that same Kosovichev video demonstrates however, there are "structures" that can be observed under the wave that do not move in the same manner as the structures in the photosphere. The longevity of the "structures" seen under the wave are anything like the 8 minute intervals we see in the surface of the photosphere itself. If we are going to talk quantitatively, we will have to speak in terms of longevity of structures, particularly these types of images that can be seen in the iron ion filters.

Michael Mozina wrote:[snip]

Hmm, it seems that you didn't answer the question ("is the Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium"); perhaps you don't understand the term?

I'm not sure which part you're talking about. There is the external atmosphere, like the neon photosphere that are generally in hydrostatic equilibrium, but these plasmas are also influenced by electromagnetic forces. There are plasmas under the crust that are probably the same way. Which part are you referring to, the outside atmosphere, the crust itself, or the material under the surface?

OK, in the MM idea, what evidence is there that the Sun is NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium?

Well, any coronal loop will clearly demonstrate that not *all* the plasma in the solar atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium at exactly the same time.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:

Michael Mozina wrote: None. That is a strawman of your own creation evidently. None of us have ever claimed that the sun has a solid iron surface.

"This visible neon plasma layer, as well as a thicker, deeper plasma layer of silicon, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun."

Hmm, I wonder where that quote comes from?

Oh, you mean the lines where I point out that more than just "solid iron" in involved in the "crust" of the sun?

I just need to be sure you and I are very clear about the makeup of the crust since your earlier comments seem to suggest that I was claiming that the sun's crust was made of "solid iron". I did not propose any such thing.

Michael Mozina wrote:Could you explain to me Nereid if you would consider this structure to be in hydrostatic equilibrium? If not, what influences are at work, and how would we go about ruling out such forces at it relates to the formation of our sun?

Michael Mozina wrote:

harry wrote:Hello All

Michael it is quite interesting with a smile.

The more we go on a limb and seek a better explanation about the workings of the sun the better we get in explaining the stages of formation of stars and the ongoing universe.

FYI, our Physics of Atomic Nuclei paper has now been "officially" published. Our work has now been published in the Journal of Fusion energy as well as the Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya Fizika). You'll note that Dr. Manuel's work has now been published in the following publications:

1. Science
2. Nature
3. Proceedings of the 11th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference
4. Geochemical Journal (Japan)
5. Meteoritics
6. Comments on Astrophysics
7. The Journal of Fusion Energy
8. The Journal of Radioanalytical & Nuclear Chemistry
9. Physics of Atomic Nuclei
10. Yadernaya Fizika (Russian)
11. The American Institute of Physics (AIP) Proceedings volume #822, pp. 206-225 (2006)
12. The Institute of Physics (IOP) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Beyond Standard Model Physics, pp. 307-316 (2003)
13. European Space Agency (ESA)
SP-500, pp. 787-790 (2002)
SP-517, pp. 345-348 (2003)

Nereid wrote:The link in this post crashed my browser.
Can you please check it, Michael?

dcmcp wrote:

Nereid wrote:The link in this post crashed my browser.
Can you please check it, Michael?

I'm not Michael, but the link is working fine for me

03:45 GMT 16 Nov 2006

IE 6 SP1
Win NT 4 SP6

Accessing link from Melbourne, Australa.
(You will need an acrobat plug-in installed.)

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:

dcmcp wrote:I'm not Michael, but the link is working fine for me

03:45 GMT 16 Nov 2006

IE 6 SP1
Win NT 4 SP6

Accessing link from Melbourne, Australa.
(You will need an acrobat plug-in installed.)

I was using Firefox ... I've noticed that it sometimes crashes trying to open PDF files ... (is it a PDF file?)

It is a PDF file. You may want to try opening it in Explorer instead Firefox, but I use Firefox myself and it opens just fine for me. XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.

harry wrote:Hello Michael

What do you think of:

Looks like the Electric Universe is making progress.
Tomorrow's issue of Nature will contain the following
letter!

Nature 444, 343-346 (16 November 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05323; Received 8 August 2006; Accepted 6 October 2006

Hydrodynamic turbulence cannot transport angular
momentum effectively in astrophysical disks