Fusion may not be the energy source that powers the stars afterall.

[Michael Mozina]

Recent findings of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

[Astroman]

Neutron repel....How? They have no charge. Here we go again.

[Astroman]

On second thought, don't answer that.

Please.

[OXO]

Well................

James

[Ant]

is this arxiv.org a platform for peer review of new theories, or a site for anyone to post anything that takes thier fancy.

Is this professor that posted this article really a professor, does he have any qualifications that should make me read that article with interest or has he bought a PHD from a dodgy UNI and is he talking Rubbish.

Astroman, you clearly disagree with it - and I'm not saying that either of you are right oir wrong. But a few years ago they thought that the earth was the centre of the Universe and that earth was flat... and they *thought* that they have proof for this...

So all I'm asking is, is this worth reading as a possible bonafide theory that *could* be proved right in a few years?

Ant

[Astroman]

Within the framework of the internet, it is possible to "self-publish" anything you like.  I glanced at the "paper" linked, and see the first line says, "Submitted to the Hirschegg workshop '06: Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure", but it does not say it was accepted or considered or refereed or anything.  Amateurs can submit papers anywhere.  The AAVSO, of which I'm a member, accept papers all the time and publish them in their journal for all to see.  None of this means a hoot, but you get to see your, "name in lights", as it were.

I'd say, go ahead and read it if you like.  Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out, as the saying goes.

Some things to consider when reading new theories-

1) Does it solve any problems with the current theory?

2) Does it do this in a way that doesn't violate any other physical laws or accepted theories?

3) Is it repeatable and independantly varifiable?

In most cases, the simpler explanation is the best. If a theory depends on an interpretation, not an experiment, it's probably not valid.

[Michael Mozina]

is this arxiv.org a platform for peer review of new theories, or a site for anyone to post anything that takes thier fancy.

Is this professor that posted this article really a professor, does he have any qualifications that should make me read that article with interest or has he bought a PHD from a dodgy UNI and is he talking Rubbish.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html

He's a real professor with real student, some of whom are named in the paper. He's not "talking Rubbish", he has been studying solar chemistry for over 35 years.

Astroman, you clearly disagree with it - and I'm not saying that either of you are right oir wrong. But a few years ago they thought that the earth was the centre of the Universe and that earth was flat... and they *thought* that they have proof for this...

And that is exactly what people will think of the gas model in a few decades. It will seem hard to believe that people once believed the sun was a giant ball of gas.

So all I'm asking is, is this worth reading as a possible bonafide theory that *could* be proved right in a few years?

Yes. In fact I believe that the STEREO satellite system will "prove" that the transitional regions is BELOW, not ABOVE the photosphere. Then again, there is already heliosiesmology data that does support the satellite images and the nuclear chemistry. This is all about evidence and observation. While that gas model is a well understood "theory", it has never been PROVEN that this theory has anything to do with "reality". The satellite images on my website all come from NASA, Standford, Lockheed Martin, or Big Bear Observatory. I did not create any of them. That is direct "observation" of what is going on on the sun. For that matter, so is the heliosiesmology evidence. We see "structure" in the transition layer that sticks around for days and weeks and changes shape and size with the solar cycles.

Every new idea and discovery is ridiculed at first. There are always those who believe that the "old way" is the "right way", and steadfastly refuse to consider any alternatives.

[Astroman]

Magnetetic features on the Sun remain intact for weeks at a time, or change on the time scale of hours, depending on the activity level of the Sun at the time. It IN NO WAY suggests to any current serious astrophyicisist that those features are solid. Don't start this again.

[Michael Mozina]

Within the framework of the internet, it is possible to "self-publish" anything you like. I glanced at the "paper" linked, and see the first line says, "Submitted to the Hirschegg workshop '06: Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure", but it does not say it was accepted or considered or refereed or anything.

It's amazing what you can do when you spend about four decades studing nuclear chemistry and become respected in your field. They even invited Dr. Manuel to TEACH at this seminar!

Amateurs can submit papers anywhere. The AAVSO, of which I'm a member, accept papers all the time and publish them in their journal for all to see. None of this means a hoot, but you get to see your, "name in lights", as it were.

So what is the point in publishing things in science journals?

If Dr. Manuel had published only one paper in his lifetime, that might be a meaningful argument, but he has been published many times, in many publications. You are welcome to point out the error in any or all of his papers since they are available for peer review. Can you actually do that, yes or no?

I'd say, go ahead and read it if you like. Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out, as the saying goes.

Some things to consider when reading new theories-

1) Does it solve any problems with the current theory?

Why does that matter? No 'theory' is automatically "right" by default. The obvious problem in the gas model theory is that it offers no detailed explanation for the structures seen in running difference images from the TRACE and SOHO satellites. It includes no comprehensive explanation for the double sided "transitional layer" seen at .99R through heliosiesmology. It can't adequately explain the cause of CME's. It can't adequately explain what drives coronal loops, or solar moss or a host of other phenomenon.

2) Does it do this in a way that doesn't violate any other physical laws or accepted theories?

New theories should not violate any *laws* of physics, but "theories" are not beyond being falsified, and cannot be used to arbitrate "truth" from falsehood. The gas model "theory" can be falsified and cannot be used to determine "truth" the way a "law" can be used to determine "truth". That is what separates laws from theories.

3) Is it repeatable and independantly varifiable?

The running difference images are completely repeatable and verifiable, expecially since the images on my websites come from both Lockheed Martin AND NASA. The heliosiesmology data comes from Stanford. I have duplicated the running difference images as well, but I prefer to use the ones from NASA and LOCKHEED so no one can accuse me of manipulating the images.

In most cases, the simpler explanation is the best. If a theory depends on an interpretation, not an experiment, it's probably not valid.

Birkelands work was experimental and his lab results very much mirror the behaviors we see on the solar surface. The chemistry is all verifyable as well. The "interpretation" of images is backed by both EXPERIMENTAL evidence and direct observation. When have you even seen an working and self sustaining fusion model of a sun in a lab?

The thing that separates science from religion is that science is based on observation and old theories give way to new understandings over time. These satellite observations are some of the purest forms of observation that we have access to at the moment. I agree with you that the simplest answer is likely the right one. The structures we see in the images sure LOOK solid. They produce electrical arcs like a solid. They hold structure over days like a solid. They rotate uniformly like a solid surface. It sure has the ability to be "heard" in heliosiesmology like a solid.

Now this "could" be explained some other way, but I have certainly never heard a "simpler" answer than just accepting that it's solid layer.

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetetic features on the Sun remain intact for weeks at a time, or change on the time scale of hours, depending on the activity level of the Sun at the time. It IN NO WAY suggests to any current serious astrophyicisist that those features are solid. Don't start this again.

What holds all these magnetic fields in place at all these acute and obtuse angles over an entire LAYER of the sun? Why is this same sort of "structure" imaged via heliosiesmology at such a shallow depth below the surface of the photosphere? Why do all the elements show evidence of mass separation? What is that stratification all about?

It's really easy to "blow off" things with "slogans". It takes a lot more to demonstrate you point with direct observation. Show me a lab experiment where plasma holds such structure over a whole "surface area" of a sphere.

[Astroman]

You're talking to yourself.  You've chosen to disregard any and all arguments I make. 

[FLO]

Steady now chaps; be nice and show each other due respect.   

I mean, is this the way two scientists passionate in their beliefs normally debate theories?

Steve

[OXO]

I am getting fed up with the Jibes that are being aimed at each other come on chaps Act accordingly or take your argument elsewere!

James

[Jamie]

Steady now chaps; be nice and show each other due respect.

I mean, is this the way two scientists passionate in their beliefs normally debate theories?

Steve

I'm in 100% agreement with you Steve/James.

This is no place for petty arguments.

I for one am getting bored with the "you don't know what you are talking about"

answer to someone's theories.

Also the level of disrespect that you two "professionals" show one another is shocking to say the least.

How is anyone to believe either of you if half way through your statement/argument

you start getting petty and personal with one another.

[Michael Mozina]

You're talking to yourself. You've chosen to disregard any and all arguments I make.

I am simply discussing ideas like two scientists that disagree about a topic. I am not satisfied with your "one liner" (magnetic fields) in absense of a complete explanation. If you could explain what holds all this "structure" together over an entire surface of a sphere over a period of days, and what causes it to rotate uniformly, I might be inclined to consider such an explanation. As it is, IMO you've not really provided a "satisfactory" answer. You certainly have not provided a "simpler" answer than the one I provided. These are 3 dimensional structures, that change differently at the top of the layer than it does at the bottom of this layer according to recently heliosiesmology findings.

What is the CAUSE of these magnetic fields in a 3D "layer", and where is this layer located in your opinion? Where are such magnetic fields coming from if Lockheed is correct that this layer exists in the chromosphere/corona region? Why don't we "see" this "structure" with our eyes, and how could an outer layer rotate uniformly, while an inner layer like the photosphere rotate non uniformly?

There are so many unanswered questions with gas model theories as it relates to satellite images, it is hard to know where to begin the discussion. You could start with that running difference image from Lockheed Martin and explain it in some detail. What is that structure and how does it form into a LAYER like that? What is it made of? What is the light source? What is the "peeling" affect we see along the right side during that movie? What is the drift affect we see as "dust" moves from right to left? Why does the light pattern shift, even while the structures remain consistent? These questions must also be addressed in any comprehensive explanation. A one line answer isn't going to suffice here.

These are just a few rudimentary questions about rudimentary satellite images. The one liner response "magnetic fields", simply fails to explain anything in sufficient detail. It's certainly not "simpler" answer than accepting the obvious possibility that the structure we see is a solid surface sitting under the visible photosphere. We even have measurements of 3800K plasmas flowing from underneath the photosphere during sunspot activity. Solids can form at such temperatures.

There is a huge difference between theory and observation. The model I subscribe to is based upon direct observation. I can therefore explain many if not most of the nuances of these images and how they affect the interpretions I put forth. That is vastly different than throwing out a phrase "magnetic fields" without explaining any of the more important details of the images in question. Where is the "layer" seen in running difference images located in your opinion, relative to the surface of the photosophere, and relative to the surface of the chromosphere?

[Michael Mozina]

Steady now chaps; be nice and show each other due respect.

I mean, is this the way two scientists passionate in their beliefs normally debate theories?

Steve

I'm in 100% agreement with you Steve/James.

This is no place for petty arguments.

I for one am getting bored with the "you don't know what you are talking about"

answer to someone's theories.

Also the level of disrespect that you two "professionals" show one another is shocking to say the least.

How is anyone to believe either of you if half way through your statement/argument

you start getting petty and personal with one another.

I am specifically trying to keep this discussion focused on the issues and not the personalities. I am not trying to personalize this discussion in any way, but rather I would prefer we focus on the details of various images, or the papers I have been involved in. That is one area that I do feel confortable presenting my case from a scientific perspective. I also get tired of the "you don't know what you are talking about" attitude. It's one thing to offer a "better" scientific explanation, it's another issue entirely to attack the individual. I will do my part to focus on the data, the images and the science.

[Astroman]

I'd like to point out that the discussions of the physics involved here are fairly well known and have been accepted by the scientific community for decades.  If anyone is curious, there are many, many good entry level books on the current model of the Sun.  I'd highly recommend you read any of them, understand the principals contained in them, and then compare them to the radical change of philosophy being proposed here.  One of the most basic scientific principals is the new theory MUST do a better job of explaining the processes in question than the old theory.  If it does not, it most probably is wrong.  The physics at the center of the Sun are complex and are not easily understood or listed in "bullet points".  Simply saying, "You have not proved me wrong" does not make someone right.  Let's try to take some of your points and see waht we get.  I don't have time for this, but I'll give it a shot.

If you could explain what holds all this "structure" together over an entire surface of a sphere over a period of days, and what causes it to rotate uniformly, I might be inclined to consider such an explanation.

At the core of the Sun is a fusion reactor roughly 80,000 miles in diameter.  It is driven by the pressure of  780,000 miles of mostly hydrogen above it.  This pressure generates enourmous amounts of heat.  When heated to the temperature at the core, fusion begins.  (I'm not about to describe nuclear fusion for you.  If you're curious, you can look at my talk posted elsewhere.  I think there's a quick description of the H-H reaction and the carbon chain reactions there.)  The reactions heat the layers above by bombardment.  This is the next layer, called the radiative zone and extends another 250,000 miles.  This layer in turn heats the layer above above, called the convective zone.  This heat transfer is just like porridge on the stove, only less dense.  Each layer is rotating at a rate suitable for its mass and density, and different from the layer above and below.  The interfaces between layers are turbulent and are the causes for most intersting things in solar physics.  Because of the differences in density between layers, a huge electric dynamo is created between the core and the radiative layer.  An enormous electric field exists there and with it, an even bigger magnetic field.  Since all main layers of the Sun rotate at different speeds, the field lines of magnetism get caught up in the polarized plasma in the convective zone and are pulled ever more out of alignment with the magnetic poles at the rotational poles of the Sun.  This causes them to twist up in huge bundles and eventually they begin to poke through the surface.  Where they break the surface, they create sunspots because the hotter plasma is deflected to the sides.  It is these magnetic structures, anchored in the heart of the Sun, that persist for weeks, even months.  The protruding field lines can retract or extend, depending on the veracity of the line itself.  Sometimes, they snap violently and propel huge amounts of plasma into space at supersonic speeds, and sometimes they propel high energy particles at relativistic speeds.  (These particles are responsible for the Corona Borealis and Australis, but that's another argument, I'm sure.)  The

structure" you refer to is NOT constant over the entire sphere.  The images you use for reference are "Difference Images", which means they take one image, then another and another, and SUBTRACT the earlier image frome the later image and see what's left.  Anything STATIONARY is lost, while anything that has moved between frames is easily seen.  What you see is the MOVEMENT of coronal discharge, NOT solid structure.

These are 3 dimensional structures, that change differently at the top of the layer than it does at the bottom of this layer according to recently heliosiesmology findings.

Of course they change differently from top to bottom.  It's because the whole thing is FLUID.  While plasma behaves differently than both solid and liquid, it is more similar to fluid than solid.  The rotation of the magnetic field below, and the "jumbled" nature of the protruding field lines is the cause.

What is the CAUSE of these magnetic fields in a 3D "layer", and where is this layer located in your opinion?

It is not a solid layer, as you suspect.  It is the transitional regions I mentioned above.  Turbulence in boundary layers is also well understood.  I won't get into fluid mechanics either.  Differences in density and slight differences in composition are generating the electrical fields and you can check out Faraday's work for that explanation.

Where are such magnetic fields coming from if Lockheed is correct that this layer exists in the chromosphere/corona region?

Ibid.  That's the whole idea behind TRACE-TRANSITION REGION and Coronal Explorer is its name.  The whole purpose of SOHO and TRACE is to try to figure out why the corona is so much hotter than the surface, (and by "surface" I mean chromosphere, just below the photosphere, which is what we "see".)  They are literally aimed and tuned to detect phenomena at or above the photosphere.

Why don't we "see" this "structure" with our eyes, and how could an outer layer rotate uniformly, while an inner layer like the photosphere rotate non uniformly?

We don't see this structure because it's only visible in ultraviolet wavelengths.  That's the 171 Angstrom filter you keep mentioning.  It represents a temperature of ~1.2million K.  We can't see stuff that hot.  Not only that, but most of the energy leaving the Sun is in the infrared, which is ALSO invisible.  The rest of the specific lines of ionized elements are drowned out by the white light energy and have to be split with a spectroscope to view in any meaningful way.  The second part of this question, I've explained.  I doubt the solid Sun theory can.  Different densities of gas/plasma.  The outer layer is NOT rotating uniformly.  Any regular viewing of SOHO images shows this, as well as countless H-alpha movies, Calcium J or K movies you'd care to look at.

There are so many unanswered questions with gas model theories as it relates to satellite images, it is hard to know where to begin the discussion.

There's the problem.  You make this claim, yet no one I've heard of has ANY "unanswered questions" about the Sun as a whole.  The questions come at the transitions.  This is mainly because the math is a major bear.  Once again, if you care to investigate fluid dynamics, feel free.  I'll admit, it's beyond me at this scale.  Add pressure and magnetism effects, and you're on your own.

You could start with that running difference image from Lockheed Martin and explain it in some detail. What is that structure and how does it form into a LAYER like that? What is it made of? What is the light source? What is the "peeling" affect we see along the right side during that movie? What is the drift affect we see as "dust" moves from right to left? Why does the light pattern shift, even while the structures remain consistent? These questions must also be addressed in any comprehensive explanation. A one line answer isn't going to suffice here.

I've already done this, here and in our PM's, Mike.  You've chosen NOT TO ACCEPT IT!  Saying the movies are from Lockheed, SOHO or NASA just isn't an argument.  The "structures" you see are the differences between what happened in the first frame to the second frame.  The reason they make these films and process them this way is to increase the signal to noise of the image.  They exhaggerate the vertical scale digitally to enhance these differences for analysis.

These are just a few rudimentary questions about rudimentary satellite images. The one liner response "magnetic fields", simply fails to explain anything in sufficient detail. It's certainly not "simpler" answer than accepting the obvious possibility that the structure we see is a solid surface sitting under the visible photosphere.

If they're so "rudimentary", why do you, almighty, need me, a simpleton, to explain them?  I've told you what they are, you can look them up in any scientific paper that deals with SOHO-(search the ADP site for SOHO and see what you get.)  Plus, it certainly is simpler than a solid iron layer that somehow changes from rotation to rotation, as you suggest.

We even have measurements of 3800K plasmas flowing from underneath the photosphere during sunspot activity. Solids can form at such temperatures.

These are called, "Light bridges" in the sunspot community.  They are areas where the magnetic field splits apart over the spot, revealing the hotter plasma beneath.  And your explanation is "cracks" in the iron surface?  Which is simpler?

There is a huge difference between theory and observation. The model I subscribe to is based upon direct observation. I can therefore explain many if not most of the nuances of these images and how they affect the interpretions I put forth. That is vastly different than throwing out a phrase "magnetic fields" without explaining any of the more important details of the images in question. Where is the "layer" seen in running difference images located in your opinion, relative to the surface of the photosophere, and relative to the surface of the chromosphere?

You said that before.  An I answered it, again.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll leave you all to look at the current model on your own.  I'll post some reference books later, as I'm at work and not in my office.  There's a bunch of really good, basic ones and a few good very technical ones.

SOHO

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov

Big Bear Solar Observatory –www.bbso.njit.edu/

National Solar Observatory –helios.tuc.noao.edu/

[Astroman]

I am specifically trying to keep this discussion focused on the issues and not the personalities. I am not trying to personalize this discussion in any way, but rather I would prefer we focus on the details of various images, or the papers I have been involved in. That is one area that I do feel confortable presenting my case from a scientific perspective. I also get tired of the "you don't know what you are talking about" attitude. It's one thing to offer a "better" scientific explanation, it's another issue entirely to attack the individual. I will do my part to focus on the data, the images and the science.

You've called me "clueless", "incompetent", "unqualified". Hardly objective.

I've responded to your images and details and you've rejected them.

The "better explanation" is up to you to overthrow with a "superior" theory, not the other way around. That's how science works.

[FLO]

At the core of the Sun is a fusion reactor roughly 80,000 miles in diameter.  It is driven by the pressure of  780,000 miles of mostly hydrogen above it.  This pressure generates enourmous amounts of heat.  When heated to the temperature at the core, fusion begins.  (I'm not about to describe nuclear fusion for you.  If you're curious, you can look at my talk posted elsewhere.  I think there's a quick description of the H-H reaction and the carbon chain reactions there.)  The reactions heat the layers above by bombardment.  This is the next layer, called the radiative zone and extends another 250,000 miles.  This layer in turn heats the layer above above, called the convective zone.  This heat transfer is just like porridge on the stove, only less dense.  Each layer is rotating at a rate suitable for its mass and density, and different from the layer above and below.  The interfaces between layers are turbulent and are the causes for most intersting things in solar physics.  Because of the differences in density between layers, a huge electric dynamo is created between the core and the radiative layer.  An enormous electric field exists there and with it, an even bigger magnetic field.  Since all main layers of the Sun rotate at different speeds, the field lines of magnetism get caught up in the polarized plasma in the convective zone and are pulled ever more out of alignment with the magnetic poles at the rotational poles of the Sun.  This causes them to twist up in huge bundles and eventually they begin to poke through the surface.  Where they break the surface, they create sunspots because the hotter plasma is deflected to the sides.  It is these magnetic structures, anchored in the heart of the Sun, that persist for weeks, even months.  The protruding field lines can retract or extend, depending on the veracity of the line itself.  Sometimes, they snap violently and propel huge amounts of plasma into space at supersonic speeds, and sometimes they propel high energy particles at relativistic speeds.  (These particles are responsible for the Corona Borealis and Australis, but that's another argument, I'm sure.)  The

structure" you refer to is NOT constant over the entire sphere.  The images you use for reference are "Difference Images", which means they take one image, then another and another, and SUBTRACT the earlier image frome the later image and see what's left.  Anything STATIONARY is lost, while anything that has moved between frames is easily seen.  What you see is the MOVEMENT of coronal discharge, NOT solid structure.

Hey!  I understood some of that :idea1:

Thanks Astroman,

Steve

[Astroman]

Here is a note from Dr. Jay Pasachoff about the subject at hand.  He has written dozens of books on astronomy, including several books on the Sun, specifically one called "The Solar Corona" that I found amazing!  I didn't get all the math, but the principals were great.  He is currently the Director of the William's College Hopkins Observatory.  He includes a reference or two on his books.  Enjoy.

Thanks for your note.  It is often hard to deal with such  individuals, and it may just be impossible to convince him.  I am not  familiar with the idea of a solid layer; isn't it just too hot inside  the sun for there to be a solid layer?

You are certainly welcome to point out my my books about the sun.   Besides the solar corona one, they include

www.williams.edu/astronomy/neareststar

www.williams.edu/astronomy/sun.

John Leibacher at the GONG project, would know about  detailed helioseismological references.  But my advice is to spend  your time on things more worthwhile (like observing) than on  convincing the unconvinceable.   (Emphasis mine.)

Best wishes,

Jay Pasachoff

[Astroman]

"Nearest Star" was the last one I read. It includes up to the minute, (2003) images and descriptions. It was fabulous!

[Michael Mozina]

You've called me "clueless", "incompetent", "unqualified". Hardly objective.

You won't find any such comments in this thread Astroman. I have been careful to keep this conversation completely "professional".

I've responded to your images and details and you've rejected them.

The "better explanation" is up to you to overthrow with a "superior" theory, not the other way around. That's how science works.

Actually, I'll explain in some detail why I "question" some of the "answers" you just gave.

[Astroman]

You won't find any such comments in this thread Astroman. I have been careful to keep this conversation completely "professional".

But you did so, nonetheless.

Actually, I'll explain in some detail why I "question" some of the "answers" you just gave.

Please don't. Let them read your paper and see from that.

[Michael Mozina]

Simply saying, "You have not proved me wrong" does not make someone right. Let's try to take some of your points and see waht we get. I don't have time for this, but I'll give it a shot.

I am not asking you to prove me wrong. More accurately I am asking to you explain a single image/movie made by Lockheed Martin in great detail using gas model theory, and to explain the stratification information seen in heliosiesmology data using gas model theory. Potentially these could be two independent "transitional regions", or potentially this is the SAME transitional region. In both cases I am asking you to explain (an) observed transition region(s) using gas model theory. I am not asking you to "prove me wrong". I am asking you to offer me a scientifically "better" explanation. By that I mean the answer has to be attentative to detail and compelling for scientific reasons. There is no need for me to "overthrow" anyone or anything. Each theory can and should be judged based on how well it can 'explain' real solar observations.

At the core of the Sun is a fusion reactor roughly 80,000 miles in diameter.

You should have prefaced this by saying "According to gas model theory......"

What specific piece(s) of evidence do you believe "proves" that there is A) a fusion reactor at the core of our sun, and that it is roughly 80,000 miles in diameter?

It is driven by the pressure of 780,000 miles of mostly hydrogen above it.

Again, what "proof" do you have that it is mostly hydrogen?

This pressure generates enourmous amounts of heat. When heated to the temperature at the core, fusion begins. (I'm not about to describe nuclear fusion for you. If you're curious, you can look at my talk posted elsewhere. I think there's a quick description of the H-H reaction and the carbon chain reactions there.) The reactions heat the layers above by bombardment. This is the next layer, called the radiative zone and extends another 250,000 miles. This layer in turn heats the layer above above, called the convective zone.

So assuming the sun actually works this way, which of these ZONES are we seeing in the stratified layer at .99R in heliosiesmology? Which of these ZONES are we seeing in running difference images?

This heat transfer is just like porridge on the stove, only less dense. Each layer is rotating at a rate suitable for its mass and density, and different from the layer above and below. The interfaces between layers are turbulent and are the causes for most intersting things in solar physics. Because of the differences in density between layers, a huge electric dynamo is created between the core and the radiative layer. An enormous electric field exists there and with it, an even bigger magnetic field. Since all main layers of the Sun rotate at different speeds, the field lines of magnetism get caught up in the polarized plasma in the convective zone and are pulled ever more out of alignment with the magnetic poles at the rotational poles of the Sun. This causes them to twist up in huge bundles and eventually they begin to poke through the surface.

OK. Let's start with the transitional region at .99R since this information comes right from Stanford and is current information as well. Exactly which region are you suggesting that this represents? Why is this layer centered at .99R rather than a greater depth?

Where they break the surface, they create sunspots because the hotter plasma is deflected to the sides. It is these magnetic structures, anchored in the heart of the Sun, that persist for weeks, even months. The protruding field lines can retract or extend, depending on the veracity of the line itself.

What "carries" these "field lines" so far into the atmosphere, and how do you know it is not electricity?

Sometimes, they snap violently and propel huge amounts of plasma into space at supersonic speeds, and sometimes they propel high energy particles at relativistic speeds. (These particles are responsible for the Corona Borealis and Australis, but that's another argument, I'm sure.)

What causes them to "snap violently", and again, how do you rule out electricity as a cause of such behavior?

The structure" you refer to is NOT constant over the entire sphere. The images you use for reference are "Difference Images", which means they take one image, then another and another, and SUBTRACT the earlier image frome the later image and see what's left. Anything STATIONARY is lost, while anything that has moved between frames is easily seen. What you see is the MOVEMENT of coronal discharge, NOT solid structure.

This "structure" is also very visible in raw EIT data and RAW Trace images as well. If you go to my website, look at the third and forth images on that website. They are not running difference images by you can see a crater shaped structure in both images even though they were taken over 2 and half minutes apart.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

Of course they change differently from top to bottom. It's because the whole thing is FLUID. While plasma behaves differently than both solid and liquid, it is more similar to fluid than solid.

I agree that plasma behaves in a "fluid-like" way as I have explained on my website. I has not been proven however that the transitional region is a plasma. If you review the tsunami page of my website, you will see the "transitional layer" imaged in a doppler image as well. Again, the transitional region below the photosphere is seen in the shaped structure I circled in the first image, and it is imaged by a totally different technology than the raw trace or raw SOHO images. A running difference image is only ONE WAY to see "structure" in this transitional layer.

The rotation of the magnetic field below, and the "jumbled" nature of the protruding field lines is the cause.

You seem to be implying non uniform movement somewhere in this process? Where do we "see" that differential rotation in 171A or 195A satellite images?

It is not a solid layer, as you suspect. It is the transitional regions I mentioned above. Turbulence in boundary layers is also well understood. I won't get into fluid mechanics either.

"Fluid" implies movement. I see evidence of movement of the plasmas that cove the "structures" of the transitional layer, but I see no evidence of non uniform movement in the structures in the transitional region itself. Those structures rotate uniformly over days.

Differences in density and slight differences in composition are generating the electrical fields and you can check out Faraday's work for that explanation.

I'll agree that MOVEMENT between things of different density could generate electrical fields, but that movement would be visible in these running difference and doppler images. They are not. That "jagged structure" seen in the tsunami video persists throughout the 'fluid-like' wave that propagates over it. I see no indication that this structure seen in doppler images is moved by the wave in the photosphere.

Where are such magnetic fields coming from if Lockheed is correct that this layer exists in the chromosphere/corona region?

Ibid. That's the whole idea behind TRACE-TRANSITION REGION and Coronal Explorer is its name. The whole purpose of SOHO and TRACE is to try to figure out why the corona is so much hotter than the surface, (and by "surface" I mean chromosphere, just below the photosphere, which is what we "see".) They are literally aimed and tuned to detect phenomena at or above the photosphere.

I'm going to assume that you meant to say that the photosphere is below the chromosphere. In your opinion, how are these instruments "aimed and tuned" to detect what is above the photosphere, rather than what is below it? Are you basing this idea solely on the concept of heat? If so, how do you exclude the possibility of electrical activity being the heat source rather than the corona?

We don't see this structure because it's only visible in ultraviolet wavelengths. That's the 171 Angstrom filter you keep mentioning. It represents a temperature of ~1.2million K. We can't see stuff that hot. Not only that, but most of the energy leaving the Sun is in the infrared, which is ALSO invisible.

Here is the basic problem in a nutshell. If this "structures" we see in the Trace image is above rather than below the surface of the photosphere, even if the light from these iron ions was not visible, the layer that holds all the iron, and the structure we see in these images would affect that flow of that light anyway. If however this "layer" is underneath the penumbra rather on above the visible photosophere, it A) explains why we see no evidence of these "structures" in the light from the photosohere, and how this layer could rotate uniformly, even while the photosphere does not.

The rest of the specific lines of ionized elements are drowned out by the white light energy and have to be split with a spectroscope to view in any meaningful way. The second part of this question, I've explained. I doubt the solid Sun theory can.

The solid sun theory outlined in that paper and on my website can explain every detail of every satellite image, and every heliosiesmology study as well.

Different densities of gas/plasma. The outer layer is NOT rotating uniformly. Any regular viewing of SOHO images shows this, as well as countless H-alpha movies, Calcium J or K movies you'd care to look at.

Actually, SOHO does not show this layer rotating in a non uniform way at all! In fact it was the raw SOHO images (not the running difference ones by the way) that convinced me the sun has a solid surface. The running difference SOHO movies I strung together show that these structure rotate uniformly across the surface from pole to equator. While there is evidence in that TRACE running difference image of plasma flowing differentially over the 'surface', there is no indication that there is differential rotation in that segment. Where do you see differential rotation in that TRace image?

There's the problem. You make this claim, yet no one I've heard of has ANY "unanswered questions" about the Sun as a whole. The questions come at the transitions. This is mainly because the math is a major bear. Once again, if you care to investigate fluid dynamics, feel free. I'll admit, it's beyond me at this scale. Add pressure and magnetism effects, and you're on your own.

I've seen a lot of unanswered questions here. You never explained why the light changes on these structures while the structures remain stationary. You didn't really address the fact you have a LAYER that is at least in part composed of iron that somehow doesn't block light. How is that possible? I didn't hear an explanation for that peeling we see on the right side of the image or the "dust clouds" that drift off to the left. I didn't really hear a "good" explanation as to exactly "which" transition region you are suggesting takes place at .99R because that seems extremely shallow compared to the layering you mentioned as being associated with typical gas models. Could you show me a model that places one of these zones at .99R?

I've already done this, here and in our PM's, Mike. You've chosen NOT TO ACCEPT IT! Saying the movies are from Lockheed, SOHO or NASA just isn't an argument. The "structures" you see are the differences between what happened in the first frame to the second frame. The reason they make these films and process them this way is to increase the signal to noise of the image. They exhaggerate the vertical scale digitally to enhance these differences for analysis.

You seem to be aledging that only running difference images can "see" this layer. That is not so. Again, if you review the first page of my website, or Lockheeds website where I got the images, you'll see that in the 3rd and 4th image on the first page, clear "structure" can be seen though the coronal loops can also be seen in raw images, which makes them "blur" the surface a bit compared to running difference images. If you go to the tsunami page of my website, you can also "see" structure in doppler images. If you go to the sunquake videos on my website, you can see both structure and surface fractures take place in this "transition region". It is not the running difference image process that creates the structure. That structure can be seen in raw images and doppler images as well.

If they're so "rudimentary", why do you, almighty, need me, a simpleton, to explain them?

Because Lockheed Martin cannot and will not explain them. If you don't believe me, ask them yourself.

I've told you what they are, you can look them up in any scientific paper that deals with SOHO-(search the ADP site for SOHO and see what you get.) Plus, it certainly is simpler than a solid iron layer that somehow changes from rotation to rotation, as you suggest.

There is nothing difficult to understand about surface erosion due to electrical activity. Dr. SOHO's primary motivation for suggesting that the transtional layer is located above the photosphere was because he believed that the coronal loops had to be "backlit" by the photosphere. It did not even occur to him that the coronal loops could be electrical arcs and be the source of the light in these images. I've read many papers related to SOHO and TRACE images. They do not explain these structures at all.

These are called, "Light bridges" in the sunspot community. They are areas where the magnetic field splits apart over the spot, revealing the hotter plasma beneath.

But the plasma that is flowing from underneath is a LOWER temperature than the surface of the photosophere!

And your explanation is "cracks" in the iron surface? Which is simpler?

If you actaully explained what makes it "split apart, I might be able to decide. In my case, it's not a simple as you make it sound actually. Areas of high electrical activity heat the silicon plasma which ultimately rises through the penumbra. A surface crack can also cause the silicon to be heated and to punch through the penumbra, but that is not a requirement.

I wish to thank you for investing a bit of time and some effort into your previous answers. I do appreciate it.

I would suggest that the following items remain unaddressed in your explanation of the Lockheed running difference image.

What 'holds" these magnetic fields in these 3D shapes, and causes it to form a "layer"? What is the "peeling" we see along the right side of this movie? Why does the light source change, but not the 'structure' in the layer? What is blowing the 'dust-like' particles from right to left? What actually creates the CME that is "seen" in this movie?

Some other unresolved questions from your last response. How does a presumably moving "zone" hold fixed magnetic structures? What is holding these structures in the transition region, and what don't we see it in the photosphere as well, expecially if the photosphere is beneath the corona, meaning the fields would have to pass through the photosophere? Why isn't it affected like this layer? Where is there any sign of differential rotation in that TRACE image, or in the SOHO movies I put together? What cause this "layer" to "crack"?

As I said, there are MANY unasnwered questions about satellite images, and gas model theory had a tough time with even the first few images. We haven't even touched on that Trace/Yohkoh composite image on the first page of my website which shows that layering and DEPTH of the transitional region in relationship to the corona.

[Michael Mozina]

But you did so, nonetheless.

Yes, and you called my work "psuedoscience" before I even posted here. I'm willing to forgive and forget and move on. How about you?