The surface of the Sun

[Astroman]

Here is a link to the presentation I give on the Sun.  It's a power point presentation with animations, so it's pretty big.

http://www.saguaroastro.org/content/DodderSUN/The%20Sun_files/frame.htm

It is a review of the current model of the Sun and its astrophysics.  No math.

[GazOC]

Can't get it to work Astroman, it just comes up with two blank panels

[Grant]

It only seems to work in internet explorer Gaz...

[GazOC]

Ah....cheers Grant.

[Astroman]

It only seems to work in internet explorer Gaz...

Is it working for you, gaz?

[FLO]

Is it working for you, gaz?

Its working on mine,

Thanks Astroman

Steve

[GazOC]

It only seems to work in internet explorer Gaz...

Is it working for you, gaz?

Working now thanks Astroman, it didn't like Firefox for some reason. It opened in IE just fine.

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Actually, since you presumably have centuries worth of work from the astrophysics department of Cambridge to help you, I would think it's a pretty easy task. Surely you can tell me the light source and explain the structures of a couple of basic satellite images with all that help that Cambridge has to offer you?

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.

If you actually present a *SCIENTIFIC* explanation for the images I have offered you that is scientifically "better" than the one I have presented, I will certainly listen to it and seriously consider it. This post however contains no scientific answers of any sort. In fact you have completely sidestepped every direct questions I have asked you.

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.

No, I have not violated any laws of thermodynamics. You'll note that the chromosphere is measured to be "hotter" than the photosphere. Does this violate the law of thermodynamics?

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.

I've noticed that it is very easy for people for to make false accusations, expecially when they give no examples of what kind of "misunderstanding" they percieve. It seems very clear to me that you have have a serious misunderstanding of nuclear chemistry and heliosiesmology and you refuse to address this kind of evidence in a scientifically credible way. According to nuclear chemistry, these plasmas are *MASS SEPARATED* not only by the element, but they are mass separated by the various ions within the elements. Care to explain why you never addressed that nuclear chemical analysis I offered you?

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.

What? My observations are based on real world observations of a real world sun. I didn't "make up" what I observed, and I have nothing to do with how the sun is "arranged" as it relates plasma layers. It's still *ONE* theory, specific a solid surface theory, with a mass separated atmosphere.

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".

The real "pseudoscience" being peddled to the uniformed here is being done by you. You have offered no legitimate scientific alternative, and yet you belittle and berate one that has been offered without giving any specific examples of "misinformed" statements. That is psuedoscience. If you have a scientific alternative to offer, put it on the table so we can compare ideas. If you can't explain even the first two images on my website, the lighting source, the structures, etc, then it is you that is practicing psuedoscience, not me. I've put my ideas on the table so we can all discuss these ideas. You however have not. Why not?

A THEORY is just a THEORY. It is not a LAW. Your THEORY is not "right" by default, nor is you theory exempt from being falsified by direct observation. If you can't explain how your theory explains these images, then I have no reason to believe the gas model theory jives with reality. These are real images of a real sun. If your THEORY is indicative of "reality", it should be able to explain these images quite easily. What is the light source for these images? What is the structure seen in these images?

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

Here is another example of a logical fallacy on your part. You gave no specific example of what you believe I "lack" in knowledge, nor have you explained what you THINK I missed in spectroscopy. I did in fact use spectroscopy to determine WHICH elements are present. A fundamental understanding of spectroscopy begins with a fundamental understanding of nuclear chemistry. You never did explain what was wrong with the nuclear chemical analysis presented in that paper by Dr. Oliver Manuel. It seems to me that you should be the last person to then lecture me about spectroscopy.

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.

That simply proves to me that you are seriously uniformed as it relates to SOHO and Trace satellite images. It also demonstrates to me that you didn't even bother to ask NASA or Lockheed about these images. I got the term "running difference image" from "Dr. SOHO", specifically from Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan [shaugan@esa.nascom.nasa.gov]. Lockheed also uses that term to describe the 171A movie on my website. You are correct about the substraction aspect of how these images are created, but that processing technique is what allows us to "see" the surface.

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.

I can only assume by these responses that you have never actually sat down with FITS files and played with these images yourself. Even Stein at NASA said that this technique reveals the "stronger features" of the transition layer. Because the surface moves from one frame to the next, it is possible to see CHANGES that occur during the time between the two images. The fact you can see these "stronger features" rotate uniformly from pole to equator demonstrates that these stronger features remain in the transition layer for days, and even weeks. The STRUCTURE we see in the 171A TRACE image is caused by WHAT according to you?

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.

What I've noticed while debating these issues is that arguement by ridicule is SOP for folks that do not have the scientific background to actually deal with any of the materials presented. Based on your responses, and your lack of any effort in dealing with the heliosiesmic or chemical data I presented to you demonstrates to me that you do not have the scientific background to deal with this information, nor the scientific background necessary to actually build a cohesive rebuttal to the material presented. You're arguement by ridicule routine is nothing but a cheap debate tactic and a fallacy.

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.

I'm starting to think that you have not read my website, and that you simply lack the qualification to deal with the chemistry and the heliosiesmology in a scientifically credible way. If you actually get around to dealing with either of these issues, I'll reconsider your responses, but so far, your answers are non responsive, and non scientific.

What is that double sided layer imaged in heliosiesmology? What is wrong with the nuclear chemistry presented by Dr. Manuel? Can you actualy deal with these questions scientifically, or do you just "laugh" at everything you don't comprehend?

[Grant]

Guys,

This debate is just sinking into the depths of squabbling, I don't think either of you are going to settle this amicably, if you want to continue arguing about it feel free to do so thorugh PM's or emails but I don't think this debate is really appropriate for open forum discussion. If either of you wish to post some primers about the sun then feel free, I'd be most interested to read them but please keep this kind of arguing/squabbling off of the forums.

This thread is now locked, if you disagree with my decision feel free to pm me.

Thanks,

Grant