Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles!

[bigfish]

This image of FE IX/X (iron ion) emission from TRACE shows increased electrical activity
on the surfaces that face toward the cosmic wind. The cosmic wind blows through the upper plasma layers
resulting in differential rotation in the upper plasma layers, while the iron surface below rotates uniformly.​

When it comes to compelling evidence of a solid surface on the sun, seeing is believing.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi

The TRACE and SOHO programs use very sophisticated software to create what are called "running difference" images like the top image from TRACE and the chronologically ordered examples from SOHO. These images were created by NASA at the frequency of various ferrite ions, using software that essentially compares sequential snapshots, subtracting one set of images from the other, and thereby isolating only the more consistent and "stronger" features from each image. This image processing technique creates a very detailed "snapshot" of the stronger, more obvious features of the iron calcium ferrite surface of the sun that lies below the photosphere.

SOHO images the sun using a 195 angstrom filter that are sensitive to iron FE XII emissions.
The photons are emitted in the electrical arcs and reflect off surface "structures" that are consistent
over many days. These structures influence the energy release patterns in the upper plasma atmospheres.​

The sequential photos and the video speak volumes. These movies were created by "stringing together" a series of running difference images from many consecutive days.
...
As you can see from the series of snapshots, and from the movies, we can make out more than just a single random pattern emerging from just one composite image. Instead we can see a CONSISTENT set of surface features in these images that MOVE from left to right as the sun rotates. These features are completely consistent and move UNIFORMLY across the surface. In other words, they do not move at different rates near the equator than they move at the poles like the photosphere. Whatever this "structure" is, it absolutely cannot be the photosphere or the chromosphere because of it's consistency. This photographic evidence stands in direct opposition to present theories of the sun which claim that the sun is a giant ball of gas and has no solid surface below the photosphere.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/running.htm?

 

[Crispy]

Let no orthodoxy go unchallenged, here comes our brave warrior to replace our cloudy eyes with lenses of pure crystal!

crumbs this guy goes on a bit. interesting reading though

no maths. at all. hmmmmmm.

 

[kyser_soze]

Would be MORE interesting if he'd put some credentials down or there was some commentary from other helios-scientists. But yeah, very interesting reading, and one of those moments where, if his assertions are correct, that you remember why science is better than religion.

 

[WouldBe]

The photons are emitted in the electrical arcs and reflect off surface "structures" that are consistent over many days.

The red spot on Jupiter has been present for hundreds of years. I think it will take more than a few days to prove it's a physical solid structure.

 

[laptop]

This is self-parody.









Isn't it?







Time to google sun density and get a value of 1400 kg m^-3 - 5 seconds. Compare water, 1000 kg m^-3 and iron, 7874.

So initial plausibility test not looking good. And anyway, who is benefiting by claiming it's dense gas?

 

[bigfish]

Would be MORE interesting if he'd put some credentials down or there was some commentary from other helios-scientists...

Here's an interesting paper by nuclear chemist, Oliver Manuel, that might be of interest to you, entitled: THE SUN: AN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT CONTROLS EARTH'S CLIMATE.

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf

The fusion of hydrogen atoms – the same mechanism that is at the heart of a Hydrogen Bomb – is generally accepted as the energy source of our Sun. Yet, if this theory was the actual source of the Sun’s energy,

a) Why is the Sun’s emission of neutrinos only about 1/3 the amount expected from fusion reactions ?

b) Why is the ratio of Oxygen atoms to Carbon atoms only 2 at the Sun’s surface, when laboratory and theoretical calculations predict a much higher value ?

c) If fusion powers the Sun, why does it discard 50 trillion tons of Hydrogen each year as “solar wind” trash, with traces of other elements carefully sorted by atomic weight ?

d) How do deep solar magnetic fields sort elements by weight, control Earth's climate, and produce the solar wind, solar flares and gigantic solar eruptions ?

e) How are we to understand the universe when, as Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler noted in 1988, “. . . we do not even understand how our own star really works.” [1] ?

These are a few of the questions answered in two new papers [2,3]. The papers also confirm major findings of a 45-year forensic investigation of the “fingerprints” left in the atomic weights of elements in meteorites, planets, the solar photosphere, and in material ejected by the solar wind and solar flares.

The new results affirm Theodore W. Richards’ Nobel Lecture on Atomic Weights, 6 Dec 1919: "If our inconceivably ancient Universe even had any beginning, the conditions determining that beginning must even now be engraved in the atomic weights.”

Atomic weights are like solar DNA. They are the average weights of the atoms that comprise each element. Atomic weights provide a detailed fingerprint of the star that gave birth to the solar system and they tell us what is happening inside the Sun today.

Here are the main conclusions to our study, with numbered references to web sites:

I. THE SUN IS A GIANT PLASMA "DIFFUSER" or "sorter of ionized atoms (elements and isotopes) by weight". This explains why lightweight elements - Hydrogen and Helium - cover the Sun's surface while the interior of the Sun is made of elements that are common in meteorites, Earth, and in other rocky planets close to the Sun [2, 3].

a. In 1983 Manuel and UMR graduate student, Golden Hwaung, reported that a total of 22 different types of atoms in the solar wind had been sorted by weight [4]. Those atoms weighed from 3 to 136 times the weight of Hydrogen, the lightest element. When the abundances of elements at the Sun’s surface were corrected for this sorting, the interior of the Sun was found to consist almost entirely of seven, even-numbered elements – Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel, Sulfur, Magnesium and Calcium.

{Three tests of this hypothesis were proposed in 1983 (See [4], p. 13). They are the basis for the ill-fated Genesis Mission using collector foils to capture elements from the solar wind, for numerous solar neutrino detectors including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, and for mass-spectrometer measurements on the Galileo Probe of Jupiter.}

b. In 2002 Professor Stig Friberg (Clarkson University) and Manuel noted at the SOHO Helio-Seismology conference that 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites is made of these same elements. Dr. "Sam" Samaranayake, UMR Associate Professor of Statistics, helped them show [5] that the likelihood of this spectacular agreement being a meaningless coincidence is less than one in 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Abstract: http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
Full paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf

 

[Fruitloop]

And anyway, who is benefiting by claiming it's dense gas?

Oooh, let me guess.....

 

[samk]

You are of course forgetting it is hollow, and perfect for lizards inside

 

[Crispy]

Time to google sun density and get a value of 1400 kg m^-3 - 5 seconds. Compare water, 1000 kg m^-3 and iron, 7874.

So initial plausibility test not looking good. And anyway, who is benefiting by claiming it's dense gas?

That's that then. Unless it's hollow. In which case what keeps such a humongous spinning hollow sphere intact without collapsing under its own gravity?

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Atomic weights are like solar DNA. They are the average weights of the atoms that comprise each element. Atomic weights provide a detailed fingerprint of the star that gave birth to the solar system and they tell us what is happening inside the Sun today.

...

b. In 2002 Professor Stig Friberg (Clarkson University) and Manuel noted at the SOHO Helio-Seismology conference that 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites is made of these same elements.

elements found in wider solar system also found in sun shocker

 

[slaar]

Do you understand the first thing about plasmas and gases? Or indeed fusion? It doesn't seem so from this thread.

Let me guess a rough train of logic:

(1) Conventional theories about the sun are wrong.
(2) This new theory is correct.
(3) Therefore global warming is a conspiracy.

Hot? Cold?

 

[Fruitloop]

Hotter than the surface of the sun, mate.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Is it just me or can you see the face of Elvis in that second picture?

 

[slaar]

Incidentally, part (a) of your marvellous list of questions has already been solved, back in 2001 in fact.

 

[free spirit]

don't have time to even think about looking into this, but them pictures are cool as fuck IMO

 

[kyser_soze]

b. In 2002 Professor Stig Friberg (Clarkson University) and Manuel noted at the SOHO Helio-Seismology conference that 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites is made of these same elements. Dr. "Sam" Samaranayake, UMR Associate Professor of Statistics, helped them show [5] that the likelihood of this spectacular agreement being a meaningless coincidence is less than one in 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Wait a second...
A. how do you calculate the chances of a 'meaningless coicidence' t start with
B. I was under the clearly mistaken impression that pretty much all non-solar particles in the universe were in fact the products of those stars' births (e.g in the early universe most of the high periodic table didn't exist until the 2nd and 3rd generations of star formation) so Dr 'Sam' was really just stating the bleeding obvious.

And yeah, who does gain from a non-solid Sol? Or is this Bigfish being a contrarian for the sake of it because obviously all current knowledge is wrong...

 

[bigfish]

Could the Sun Have a Solid Surface?

Is it just me or can you see the face of Elvis in that second picture?

NASA's SOHO satellite and the Trace satellite program have both imaged this transition layer of the sun that sits beneath the photosphere. These 21st century satellites and technologies now enable us to peer behind the outer plasma layers of the chromosphere and photosphere and allow us to study the rocky, calcium ferrite transitional layer with incredible precision.

The gas model sun was founded by Galileo, observed the sun through a relatively primitive telescope and noticed that sunspots did not rotate uniformly across the surface of the photosphere. He also observed that this visible “surface” rotated at different speeds near the equator than it did near the poles.

From his study of sunspots and their uneven movement, Galileo surmised that he must be looking at some type of gas. He was correct in that assessment, although today we know that the photosphere is a form of hot ionized plasma.

Unfortunately, Galileo also "assumed" that no other solid layers existed, or could exist beneath the visible layer of the photosphere. That was a critical mistake. It was a bit like looking at a world covered in water, and having no ability to see beneath the water and simply assuming that the whole world is made of water.

The running difference imaging technique used by both NASA and Lockheed Martin have revealed to us for the first time that the sun is not simply a ball of hydrogen gas in space; it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere that can be seen in all of the images.

Studies of quasars in the early universe demonstrate the presence of large quantities of iron, casting serious doubt on the gas model in recent years.

In addition, there is now growing evidence from the field of heliosiesmology that the sun possesses a significant stratification layer at a very shallow depth from the top of the photosphere.

This new data suggest that the sun in fact has a stratified iron surface, covered by a relatively thin veneer of plasma layers.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Could-the-Sun-Have-a-Solid-Surface-52143.shtml

 

[Crispy]

How do you deal with the density issue?
Unless Gravity is also misunderstood?

 

[bigfish]

Crispy: Why don't you write to the SOHO/TRACE research teams at NASA and ask them?

 

[Crispy]

1. We know the mass of the earth
2. We know the orbit of the earth
3. Therefore, we know the mass of the sun
4. We know the diameter of the sun
5. Therefore we know the density of the sun (average)

This figure agrees with a gas/plasma model of the sun.

If the sun has a solid surface, then the interior must be denser, or the surface would sink. (the mantle of the earth is much denser than the crust). If the center of the sun is denser than ferrite (iron), which is 5x as dense as our average sun density figure, then we get a figure for the total mass of the sun which is way, way out of range with the mass that we see accounting for the motion of the planets.

That is the massive(LOL!), gaping hole in this argument.

Also, I couldn't find any mention of the words 'center of the sun' on that website. Just what incredible thing is in the center of the solid sun, keeping the surface from sinking?

EDIT: Pun noticed

 

[laptop]

This is, tbf, utterly brilliant.

• Climate change is happening
• It can't have anything to do with humans, because we're {the oil industry|plain contrarian|barking}
• So it must have a cause
• Hey, what about the sun?
• But the actual sun doesn't do that
• So... the Sun can't be like it is!!1!
  [*]Hey, what if it's solid?
• Nah, the density's off - can't be that
• But it must be - so the density's wrong
  [*]I know, Newtonian dynamics must be wrong!!eleven!!!
  [*]D'ye reckon it might be quantum entanglement?
  [*]Oooh yes, then all the universe is one big consciousness <exhales>
  [*]They're not voices, you know, they're quantum-entangled messages from other dimensions.
• And if we think hard enough we can make anything happen, maan!

 

[Knotted]

I'm waiting to see how the variation of G fits into it all.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm waiting to see how the variation of G fits into it all.

Spearman's? That's a trick even bigfish can't manage.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

dp.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

• D'ye reckon it might be quantum entanglement?
• Oooh yes, then all the universe is one big consciousness <exhales>
• They're not voices, you know, they're quantum-entangled messages from other dimensions.
• And if we think hard enough we can make anything happen, maan!

 

[treefrog]

at this thread...

 

[WouldBe]

Just what incredible thing is in the center of the solid sun, keeping the surface from sinking?

Scaffolding.

 

[bigfish]

Time to google sun density and get a value of 1400 kg m^-3 - 5 seconds. Compare water, 1000 kg m^-3 and iron, 7874.

So initial plausibility test not looking good. And anyway, who is benefiting by claiming it's dense gas?

Maybe if you try being less aggressively bombastic and superficial and delve deeper than page 1 of Google you might be considerably less confused - and less of a complete arse to boot:

Many think that the Sun's density means that it must be hydrogen, but that isn't true. The average density is just the total mass divided by the total volume. The Sun's mass was not derived from density, temperature, and pressure measurements for its perceived chemical composition; like all other bodies in our Solar System, mass is determined using Kepler/Newton laws of motion.

1. Fred Hoyle published a paper in the Astrophysics Journal 1975, L127 -L131 (1975) suggesting that the Sun has a core with a high concentration of iron-group metals.

2. Donald Clayton, Michael Newman, and Raymond Talbot published a paper in the Astrophysics Journal 201, 489-493 (1975) suggesting that the Sun has a black hole at its core.

3. Peter Toth published a paper in Nature 270, 159-160 (1977) suggesting that the Sun's oscillations mean it is a pulsar.

These scientists, the reviewers, and editors all knew the average density of the Sun. They also knew that the Sun's average density does not rule out an iron-rich solar core, a central black hole, or a pulsating neutron star! To suggest that a system could form by gravitational aggregation and have the very lightest element in existence - hydrogen - settle to form the core while the heavier elements spin out towards the periphery is absurd. The Earth does not have an iron mantle with the atmosphere inside. Why? Because gravitation doesn't work like that, that's why.

Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa
ratclif (AT) iafrica.com

Why don't you drop Professor Ratcliffe a line and put him strait about the Sun's density, etc. Be sure to post up any response you might get back from him, wont you?

 

[fudgefactorfive]

so it's a core of heavier elements now, and not a surface?

and that's news?

ps. neutron stars don't pulsate, they spin

 

[Crispy]

So, what holds the solid outer 'shell' in its place? This is a fairly major thing which goes unexplained.