The surface of the Sun

[Jamie]

Some cool images and loads of info on the Sun.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

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

[OXO]

:shock: Great Stuff JAMIE

James :sunny:

[FLO]

Good find Jamie

[Jamie]

I must admit that you got me surfing with your sunspot post.

Cheers Steve.

[Astroman]

The website linked above is a perfect example of "pseudoscience" and should only be used for entertainment, not scientific insight. The author proposes a solid model for the Sun, quoting "analysis" of data from many sources and misinterpreting them to fit his ideas. I personally went around and around with this individual, trying to persuade him to view his selected images and data in a scientifically valid way. He simply made things up to explain away my objections to his interpretations.

I was not alone in refuting his models. Several well known solar physicists tried as well. Many with the NSO, NOAO and ALPO Solar section.

The physics of the Sun are very well understood at present, due to correct analysis of the data available, and the fact we've been studying this closest star for centuries. Don't be fooled by this askew interpretation.

[lunator]

I came across this site a couple of months ago.

It's an interesting take on the Sun.

I discussed it with a couple of friends at the astro-meeting.

I thought it was an interesting read but had my doubts that any material could be a solid on the Sun due to the pressure & temperature.

Rgds

Ian

[Michael Mozina]

The website linked above is a perfect example of "pseudoscience" and should only be used for entertainment, not scientific insight.

What is "psuedoscience" is suggesting my interpretation of these images is "psuedoscience" without even taking a shot at trying to explain even the first few images on my website using gas model *THEORY*.

The author proposes a solid model for the Sun, quoting "analysis" of data from many sources and misinterpreting them to fit his ideas.

How so? What are those structures in those running difference images?

I personally went around and around with this individual, trying to persuade him to view his selected images and data in a scientifically valid way. He simply made things up to explain away my objections to his interpretations.

So essentially everyone who disagrees with you personally practices "psuedoscience"?

I was not alone in refuting his models. Several well known solar physicists tried as well. Many with the NSO, NOAO and ALPO Solar section.

I am not alone in promoting my model either. So?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

What no one has to done to date is take a page of my website and explain the observations on that page using gas model theory. Why is it that no one seems able to do that? Can you?

The physics of the Sun are very well understood at present, due to correct analysis of the data available, and the fact we've been studying this closest star for centuries. Don't be fooled by this askew interpretation.

Actually the gas model *THEORY* is well understood, but it has never been established that this THEORY actually applies in reality. When you can explain the structures in the first running difference image from Lockheed, and explain why these structures rotate uniformly over a period of weeks, then you have the right to suggest you have offered a real alternative to the interpretation I have offered.

[Michael Mozina]

I came across this site a couple of months ago.

It's an interesting take on the Sun.

I discussed it with a couple of friends at the astro-meeting.

I thought it was an interesting read but had my doubts that any material could be a solid on the Sun due to the pressure & temperature.

Rgds

Ian

You might note that during sunspot activity, they typically do measure temperatures in the 3800K range, and this would be cool enough for solids to form. This phenomenon of cooler plasmas upwelling from beneath, suggests that there could be a cooler region underneath the photosphere. I believe that is the case, and solids can and have formed on the sun. That is why we see "structure" in SOHO and TRACE running difference images, and these "structures" rotate uniformly from pole to equator.

FYI, there is also recent Heilosciesmic evidence to support a "stratified layer" centered at .99R, or in other words, there is a double stratified layer just under the photosphere.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

[lunator]

I came across this site a couple of months ago.

It's an interesting take on the Sun.

I discussed it with a couple of friends at the astro-meeting.

I thought it was an interesting read but had my doubts that any material could be a solid on the Sun due to the pressure & temperature.

Rgds

Ian

You might note that during sunspot activity, they typically do measure temperatures in the 3800K range, and this would be cool enough for solids to form. This phenomenon of cooler plasmas upwelling from beneath, suggests that there could be a cooler region underneath the photosphere. I believe that is the case, and solids can and have formed on the sun. That is why we see "structure" in SOHO and TRACE running difference images, and these "structures" rotate uniformly from pole to equator.

FYI, there is also recent Heilosciesmic evidence to support a "stratified layer" centered at .99R, or in other words, there is a double stratified layer just under the photosphere.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Michael

Welcome to stargazerslounge.

Thanks for your reply. I do not know enough about the Sun to have a view either way.

Although one quote that I thought was quite accurate about the Sun was written by John Gribben in a book call 'the strangest star'

Humans first thought the Sun was 'perfect' when we found imperfections we thought of the Sun as stable and unchanging and when it was found to be changable then we thought it was regular and it is now know to be changable and variable. This says more about Humans in general than the Sun in particular.

I have booked marked your site and am interested in how your thoughts develop.

Regards

Ian

[Jamie]

Firstly i would just like to say hello Michael welcome to Stargazers Lounge i sure hope we hear from you

again don't let the last couple of post put you off being a regular visitor here.

I don't fully understand everything there is about the sun but your interpretation as well as others

will help a little to me making my own determinations.

Astroman - I can't really agree nor disagree with you or Michael on the subject of the sun as

i don't know enough about it to enter into any type of conversation on the subject.

What i can say though is that i will make up my OWN mind and use my own interpretation

of information to help me understand topics such as the sun.

[Michael Mozina]

Firstly i would just like to say hello Michael welcome to Stargazers Lounge i sure hope we hear from you

again don't let the last couple of post put you off being a regular visitor here.

Oh, not at all. I'm not particularly thin skinnned, and I fully recognize it's a controvercial idea.

I don't fully understand everything there is about the sun but your interpretation as well as others

will help a little to me making my own determinations.

Astroman - I can't really agree nor disagree with you or Michael on the subject of the sun as

i don't know enough about it to enter into any type of conversation on the subject.

What i can say though is that i will make up my OWN mind and use my own interpretation

of information to help me understand topics such as the sun.

That is all I could hope for actually. Keep in mind that people like Dr. Oliver Manuel have been promoting the theory of a predominantly iron sun for many years now, based on nuclear chemical analysis of meteorites and lunar soils. I just happened to have stumbled on to satellite images last April that led me to the same conclusion. As the conversation continues, you might ask for gas model theoriests to step up to the plate and offer valid alternative explainations for these NASA and Lockheed images so you can compare ideas. I think you'll find such gas model explanations are few and far between.

[Astroman]

At this time, I simply am too busy to answer all your charges yet again. Your model ignores many well understood characteristics of a gas/plasma body. I will in the hopefully not too distant future make the time to answer you. In the mean time, since you allege a to refute all known astrophysics with your solid surface Sun, please explain what "running difference" is, as it is the basis for your argument. The first couple images on your site look like simple subtractions between two consecutive frames of images from TRACE and then SOHO. Differences between frames do not show the features to last for weeks, as you suggest. Your misinterpretation requires better explanations, according to basic scientific method in order to overturn current, provable theory. I'll get back to you, don't you worry.

The website linked above is a perfect example of "pseudoscience" and should only be used for entertainment, not scientific insight.

What is "psuedoscience" is suggesting my interpretation of these images is "psuedoscience" without even taking a shot at trying to explain even the first few images on my website using gas model *THEORY*.

The author proposes a solid model for the Sun, quoting "analysis" of data from many sources and misinterpreting them to fit his ideas.

How so? What are those structures in those running difference images?

I personally went around and around with this individual, trying to persuade him to view his selected images and data in a scientifically valid way. He simply made things up to explain away my objections to his interpretations.

So essentially everyone who disagrees with you personally practices "psuedoscience"?

I was not alone in refuting his models. Several well known solar physicists tried as well. Many with the NSO, NOAO and ALPO Solar section.

I am not alone in promoting my model either. So?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

What no one has to done to date is take a page of my website and explain the observations on that page using gas model theory. Why is it that no one seems able to do that? Can you?

The physics of the Sun are very well understood at present, due to correct analysis of the data available, and the fact we've been studying this closest star for centuries. Don't be fooled by this askew interpretation.

Actually the gas model *THEORY* is well understood, but it has never been established that this THEORY actually applies in reality. When you can explain the structures in the first running difference image from Lockheed, and explain why these structures rotate uniformly over a period of weeks, then you have the right to suggest you have offered a real alternative to the interpretation I have offered.

[Michael Mozina]

At this time, I simply am too busy to answer all your charges yet again. Your model ignores many well understood characteristics of a gas/plasma body.

It does not ignore anything of the sort. In fact we both seem to agree that the outer layers are made of plasma.

I will in the hopefully not too distant future make the time to answer you.

What you could start with are the first two images on my website. What is the light source? What are the structures we see? What are the structures seen in SOHO running differenc images?

In the mean time, since you allege a to refute all known astrophysics with your solid surface Sun,

First of all, not all astronomers put faith in a gas model as you suggest. Dr. Kristian Birkeland did a series of solid surface, terrella experiments in the early 1900's. Dr. Charles Bruce showed that solar phenomenon are related to electrical discharges in the 1940-1960's. Dr. Oliver Manuel has been suggesting the sun is made of iron for over three decades. I simply disagree with the majority view, but science isn't about popularity.

please explain what "running difference" is, as it is the basis for your argument. The first couple images on your site look like simple subtractions between two consecutive frames of images from TRACE and then SOHO.

You answered your own question.

Differences between frames do not show the features to last for weeks, as you suggest.

Have you even looked at the SOHO running difference movie I put together? Did you read the paper I did with Dr. Manuel? There are very clear images of the same features over many hours and days in that paper, and the movie runs for 8 days.

Your misinterpretation requires better explanations, according to basic scientific method in order to overturn current, provable theory. I'll get back to you, don't you worry.

Your allegation of "misinterpretation" rings rather hollow since you have yet to offer an alternative explanation to choose from. How do you explain the structures seen in these images, and why does heliosiesmology show a double sided layer centered at .99R? What is that transition layer, and how do you know it's not the same layer that Lockheed's TRACE satellite images? What is the light source in running difference images in your opinion, and what is all that "structure" seen in this "layer"? Where is this layer located in your opinion and why?

[Grant]

Hi guys,

I think it's clear this topic has a lot of heated opinions from all sides, as far as I can see, there is nothing clear cut so far and this debate will likely continue for a long time. One thing I do want to say, although this is a discussion forum, lets keep things polite and civil, if you guys want to have a more heated debate then please consider conducting it through private message or email.

Thanks,

Grant

[daz]

Beat me to it Grant!

One other thing I might ask - some links where others (i.e. me) might look up some of the terms used. I don't propose you define them here, it would detract from the discussion.

Thanks

[FLO]

That SL is hosting such a discussion between scientists as passionate as these two clearly are is exciting

If it stays civil, then even better

[GazOC]

That SL is hosting such a discussion between scientists as passionate as these two clearly are is exciting

If it stays civil, then even better

Indeed:thumbleft:

(I can't understand a word of it however! )

[Astroman]

Mr. Mozina,

  In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I'll take some time to read over your web page, weigh your evidence and give an informed response.  My objections so far are many and based on current scientific method and evidence.  Statements such as this from your own cover page, "This isn’t just an unsupported, completely theoretical concept like the gas model.   A solid surface model of the sun is a LOT more logical and a LOT better scientifically supported than current models of the sun.  More importantly, current gas models of the sun simply do NOT explain the video images we see through SOHO and TRACE. ", are inflamatory and baseless, but I'll take a look anyway.

  The great preponderance of scientific study of the Sun, including heliosiesmology, that has taken place over the last few centuries, has led us to the current plasma/gas model and only a few, you name only 3, disagree by proposing alternate theories and suggest the whole thing should be scrapped in favor of it.  This is not the way science works, and just for the record, is the reason I call your theory "pseudoscience", not because I disagree with it.

You give a lot of links and references.  It will take me some time to follow it, especially given my current schedule.  (A recent observing run will need to be analyzed first.)  Patience, please.

[Michael Mozina]

Hi guys,

I think it's clear this topic has a lot of heated opinions from all sides, as far as I can see, there is nothing clear cut so far and this debate will likely continue for a long time. One thing I do want to say, although this is a discussion forum, lets keep things polite and civil, if you guys want to have a more heated debate then please consider conducting it through private message or email.

Thanks,

Grant

I wholeheartedly agree. I'll do my best to keep the conversation on topic and focused on the science.

[Michael Mozina]

Mr. Mozina,

In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I'll take some time to read over your web page, weigh your evidence and give an informed response. My objections so far are many and based on current scientific method and evidence. Statements such as this from your own cover page, "This isn’t just an unsupported, completely theoretical concept like the gas model. A solid surface model of the sun is a LOT more logical and a LOT better scientifically supported than current models of the sun. More importantly, current gas models of the sun simply do NOT explain the video images we see through SOHO and TRACE. ", are inflamatory and baseless, but I'll take a look anyway.

It was not intended to be inflammatory, but I have noticed that few if any gas model theorists are even willing to tackle the first two images on my website. To me that suggests the gas model crowd has a significant problem dealing with basic satellite imagery.

The great preponderance of scientific study of the Sun, including heliosiesmology, that has taken place over the last few centuries, has led us to the current plasma/gas model and only a few,

Actually, recent heliosiesmology does NOT support a plasma/gas model. In fact Alexander Kosovichev's most recent paper finds a double sided layer that sits right under the visible photosphere and is centered at about .99R.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

you name only 3, disagree by proposing alternate theories and suggest the whole thing should be scrapped in favor of it.

I named three that published a lot of material. When was science about popularity?

This is not the way science works, and just for the record, is the reason I call your theory "pseudoscience", not because I disagree with it.

Pseudoscience is suggesting that popularity determines what is "right" and what is "wrong". The real issue here is simple....

Can you explain the first page of images on my website using the gas model? If you can't get past the first page, and you cannot offer valid alternatives using gas model theories, then you assertion is both unfounded and unscientific. When I hear you explain the light source and structure seen in that first Lockheed 171A image on my website, then we'll have something to debate. As it is, you are using an underhanded debate tactic in absense of a valid scientific refute.

You give a lot of links and references. It will take me some time to follow it, especially given my current schedule. (A recent observing run will need to be analyzed first.) Patience, please.

Take as much time as you like. What I would be most interested in hearing you explain are the first two images on my website. You need not tackle the whole thing, just the first running difference movie from Lockheed Martin, and the first running difference image from NASA's SOHO program.

[Astroman]

It figures you couldn't wait to chide me some more.  The more you push, the longer it takes to respond to your charges.  The "problems" dealing with satellite imagery are yours, sir.  I'll get to that when I look over ALL THE "EVIDENCE", not just a cursory look.  I notice, however, you managed to "totally refute" Galileo's studies in a single paragraph and picture of an old telescope.  Quite remarkable work, considering the lack of testable, repeatable evidence.

I'd like to mention, that in the other forum this discussion was flogged, the objections dealt not so much with your "evidence", but your methods.  No one received any answers whatever on HOW you used the images, or HOW you came to your conclusions or what basis in mathematics "proved" your "theory".  None.

I do seem to remember an article you posted in New Scientist, along with Pavel Mazur about the speed of light having changed in the past, thus refuting the entire, not just parts of, but the entire cosmological model most in agreement today.  Seems there was no proof in that one, either.

Pseudoscience presents itself in the lack of reproducable results, sweeping statements and the vehemence of its defense.  If it were "popular", it still wouldn't be right.  If it's provable, it may be published.  If it's tested again and again, it may be correct.  Pseudoscientists say, "Prove my theory wrong", when real scientists give real evidence that their theories are correct.  Acceptance comes with independant confirmation.  Saying it over and over doesn't make it so.  Prove it to me, and I'll help you promote it.  (I mean that figuratively, since our personalities clash too much for a collaboration.)

Kindly wait for my careful analysis of your own claims before you ridicule me and my beliefs again, sir.

[Michael Mozina]

It figures you couldn't wait to chide me some more. The more you push, the longer it takes to respond to your charges. The "problems" dealing with satellite imagery are yours, sir. I'll get to that when I look over ALL THE "EVIDENCE", not just a cursory look. I notice, however, you managed to "totally refute" Galileo's studies in a single paragraph and picture of an old telescope. Quite remarkable work, considering the lack of testable, repeatable evidence.

The only thing I meant to "chide" intentionally was the notion that popularity determines truth. Let me point out that running difference images are completely "repeatable" and very "testable" as well. In fact heliosiesmology can also be used to "test" for the presense of a stratified layer just under the photosphere. That last sentence is simply false.

I'd like to mention, that in the other forum this discussion was flogged, the objections dealt not so much with your "evidence", but your methods. No one received any answers whatever on HOW you used the images, or HOW you came to your conclusions or what basis in mathematics "proved" your "theory". None.

I'm not sure which other forum you are refering to since I have debated this in several forums now. I came to my conclusions by watching satellite images over many years. IMO, the nuclear chemistry side of this argument is some of the strongest "evidence" to support an iron sun concept. Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with this paper from a math, chemistry, or physics point of view?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001

I do seem to remember an article you posted in New Scientist, along with Pavel Mazur about the speed of light having changed in the past, thus refuting the entire, not just parts of, but the entire cosmological model most in agreement today. Seems there was no proof in that one, either.

I think you have me confused with someone else on that topic. I did not post anything in New Scientist.

Pseudoscience presents itself in the lack of reproducable results,

You can create your own running difference images anytime you wish. You simply need sequencial images. FYI, I did not create any of these images myself. All of the running difference images were created by NASA or Lockheed. I only put together images from NASA to create the SOHO movie on my website. The Lockheed running difference movie comes from Lockheed. All of these images are reproduceable.

sweeping statements and the vehemence of its defense. If it were "popular", it still wouldn't be right. If it's provable, it may be published.

These images are "provable" and "published" as well.

If it's tested again and again, it may be correct. Pseudoscientists say, "Prove my theory wrong", when real scientists give real evidence that their theories are correct.

So I can expect you to provide real evidence that the gas model can explain those running difference movies, I won't just get a handwave from you, correct?

Acceptance comes with independant confirmation. Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Prove it to me, and I'll help you promote it. (I mean that figuratively, since our personalities clash too much for a collaboration.)

If you can show me a "better" gas model explanation for those running difference movies and images, I'll certainly consider it. I will not however be particularly impressed with a popularity sort of defense of the gas model. I'll grant you the THEORY is well established, but what is less "established" is whether the gas model THEORIES jive with real world satellite data.

Kindly wait for my careful analysis of your own claims before you ridicule me and my beliefs again, sir.

I did not really mean to ridicule you or your beliefs. What I hope to do is to encourage you to take the first few images from my website and offer me a valid scientific reason to accept your explanation over the one I have offered. If and when you can offer me scientific alternatives, I will consider your arguements to be "scientific", even if I choose to prefer my own explanation over the one you offer. Until such time as you offer a valid scientific alternative for these images using gas model theory, I fail to see any point in labeling these ideas "pseudoscience". That it the term I take exception to, and the term I think set the tempo of our discussion. I'll be happy to back off a bit, but you'll need to do the same. I've spent years analyzing solar satellite images, starting with the Yohkoh satellite program. I'm offering you what I think is the best explanation of the images that these satellites (Yohkoh, SOHO and Trace) return, based on a comprehensive analysis of many gigabytes of images from three different satellite programs.

The gas model is to date really just a "theory". It is not a law, or a proven truth. It is simply a theory that may or may not apply to the real world physics of a real sun. These images come from a real sun and certainly do apply to a real sun. If you can use gas model theory to explain these images, please do so. If not, I think it is very premature to be suggesting my explanations are "pseudoscientific".

[Astroman]

Once again, you've got it wrong. It's not up to me to prove or disprove your theory. It's up to you. Looking at pictures, not matter how many, is not science. You need to show how the physics fail in the current model, and show why your model is better.

[Michael Mozina]

Once again, you've got it wrong. It's not up to me to prove or disprove your theory. It's up to you. Looking at pictures, not matter how many, is not science. You need to show how the physics fail in the current model, and show why your model is better.

There are so many logical fallacies in play in that paragraph it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, I already *DID* offer you the physics of nuclear chemistry and the physics of heliosiesmology to demonstrate why my model is better. It is not up to *ME* to disprove your beloved gas model either!

Looking at pictures certainly *IS* science. Science is all about observation! It is observation that tells us whether a theory applies or does not apply to reality. Observation *IS* science! It is only because we can observe that allows us to test various theories.

Now you happen to "theorize" that the gas model applies to reality, but you have yet to explain even the first two observations I have asked you to explain using your pet theory. If you cannot do that, then I have no reason to believe that the gas model applies to reality, or that the gas model is in any ways superior to any model that *CAN* explain these direct observations of the sun from two very important satellites that were specifically designed to study the sun.

[Astroman]

Now you happen to "theorize" that the gas model applies to reality, but you have yet to explain even the first two observations I have asked you to explain using your pet theory. If you cannot do that, then I have no reason to believe that the gas model applies to reality, or that the gas model is in any ways superior to any model that *CAN* explain these direct observations of the sun from two very important satellites that were specifically designed to study the sun.

That's a pretty heavy responsibility to lay on me, don't you think? The sum total of knowledge gained over centuries of work by the astrophysics department at Cambridge depends on my interpretation of your theory. Wow.

You have already made up your mind about the facts of solar physics. Now, you are just pushing your ideas as facts. I doubt very much that a visit to the Sun would change your mind.

I am reading your PDF of your theory that I got from your web site. Once I finish it, I'll read it again to make sure I get your meanings. So far though, it doesn't look good. Here's a quickie review.

1) You violate the second law of thermodynamics by saying that heat travels from the cooler layers to the hotter layers.

2) You exhibit a vast misunderstanding of electricity and magnetism.

3) You show no demonstrable understanding of plasma physics. eg. ferrite plasma, neon plasma, silicon plasma. Plasma is plasma, not associated with atoms of any particular element.

4) What started out as a theory of a single iron layer has morphed into a 6 layer cake. Iron, silicon, neon, helium, hydrogen, sulfur and calcium. Try to stick with one theory at a time.

5) You misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory". A theory doesn't become a "fact". A theory takes into account all the known facts of an event or process that, due to its nature, is unknowable from first hand experience or observation. Your theory ignores as much of the known facts as possible to make it sound plausible to the uninformed. What's that word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, "Pseudoscience".

6) You display a lack of even fundamental knowledge of spectroscopy, which you lean on heavily for your theory.

Oh, your first two images? You told me in a previous post that they are one frame subtracted from the next consecutive frame. This is commonly called "Image Subtraction", not Running Difference by every scientific organization I know of. It easily shows only the changes between frames, not the actual structures in either frame. If you image a field of stars, known to have an asteroid in it, it's a simple matter to locate the asteroid using subtraction. Start with the stars, take away all the objects that reamin motionless in the first frame and you're left with the asteroid. The same happens with the TRACE and SOHO data. Start with the Sun's image, complete with prominences, flares and moss. Remove all the stationary elements and you're left with a remarkably 2 dimensional image of everything that has moved since the first frame. So you see, you've got it backwards. Your images that are supposed to show stationary objects on the Sun are actually showing all the stuff that has moved.

It gets worse, Mike. But I haven't had time to read it all. Mostly, I can only read so much before I start to laugh.

When I'm finished with your version of science, I'll check into your references. Since the nuclear chemistry, physics and helioseismology were not carried out by you, and were not referenced in any recognizable way, (such as how a particular equation or result applies to your version), I'll have to do that research for you. If I see how or if it applies, I'll let you know.

So, if you'll kindly shut up while I'm reading, I have to get back to work.