Solid Surface Model of the Sun?

klasm
klasm
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 5,580
RAC: 0

Pleae note that the main guy

Pleae note that the main guy behind the mentioned arxiv-paper has not published any of his research in reviewed journals. All his papers on the arxiv are contribution to conferences, most of them not even accepted contributions. This is generally a good warning sign.

After a quick look in some of his papers on the arxiv I would say that they are mostly nonsense.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Pleae note that the

Message 15048 in response to message 15047

Quote:
Pleae note that the main guy behind the mentioned arxiv-paper has not published any of his research in reviewed journals. All his papers on the arxiv are contribution to conferences, most of them not even accepted contributions. This is generally a good warning sign.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/resume/resume.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html

You'll find he's also published in the Journal of Fusion energy, the Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, etc. He's respected in the nuclear chemical field, even if SOME of his more recent papers were also published at conferences. This is now his forth or fifth decade of publishing by the way.

Quote:
After a quick look in some of his papers on the arxiv I would say that they are mostly nonsense.

Could you be a little more scientifically precise? What exactly is 'nonsense' and why?

klasm
klasm
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 5,580
RAC: 0

Just a nontechnical reply

Just a nontechnical reply before going to bed, I'll return tomorrow. I have no criticism against his early work, I'm sure he's a perfectly good nuclear chemist. However being good, even very good, in one field does not mean that you are equally good when you leave that field. You will find that even some of the people who have won the Nobel prize for their work in one area have managed to get themselves completely lost later on when they have moved on to other subjects.

The fact that his papers on this particular subject are not published is a genuine source for concern, even for someone who has not read them. Even very controversial research will get published IF the author can make a good case for it.
Refused authors often claim that they are unjustly refused, that's a human thing to feel after all, but typically that is not the case and the papers are refused due to genuine flaws.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Just a nontechnical

Message 15050 in response to message 15049

Quote:

Just a nontechnical reply before going to bed, I'll return tomorrow. I have no criticism against his early work, I'm sure he's a perfectly good nuclear chemist. However being good, even very good, in one field does not mean that you are equally good when you leave that field. You will find that even some of the people who have won the Nobel prize for their work in one area have managed to get themselves completely lost later on when they have moved on to other subjects.

The fact that his papers on this particular subject are not published is a genuine source for concern, even for someone who has not read them. Even very controversial research will get published IF the author can make a good case for it.
Refused authors often claim that they are unjustly refused, that's a human thing to feel after all, but typically that is not the case and the papers are refused due to genuine flaws.

You seem to be confused IMO. Dr. Manuel's work has been published in a number of different science publications over the years. His papers have not been systematically "refused" as you seem to aledge. In fact he's been picked up by the media as well, including CNN and Space Daily, etc. There is nothing second rate about his work, and there is nothing second rate about our last paper. There is evidence from three different fields of science now that confirms that the sun has a stratified surface that causes mass separation of the various plasmas in the atmosphere of the sun. Recent heliosiesmology findings confirm the presense of a stratified layer just under the visible photosphere just as we "see" in satellite images, and observe in nuclear chemical analysis of comets and lunar samples.

If you sincerely believe there is an error to be found in this latest paper, or the information I have provided on my website, please point it out in scientifically precise way, and I will try to address it.

The website can be found at:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

klasm
klasm
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 5,580
RAC: 0

Another brief reply before

Another brief reply before going to work.
You missunderstood what I refered to. I' sure most of Manuel's work is perfectly fine nucelar chemistry. A quick llok at his CV shows that he has plety of publications, end ther are other ways to get and there are other ways to ge an indepdently prouced list too. However the bulk of his publictions has nothing to do with theories about a iron core sun. What I was saing was that the recent papers on that particular subject have only been submited a conference paper and not to journals. This is often something that happens when authors do not get their works accepted by journals.

MarkF
MarkF
Joined: 12 Apr 05
Posts: 393
Credit: 1,516,715
RAC: 0

Michael: If you are looking

Michael:
If you are looking for specific objections I suggest you go back to the begging of this thread.
The iron core sun theory was originally popularized as a solution to the missing solar neutrino problem. It never gained wide acceptance and has lost ground with the confirmation of neutrino osscilation.
Most of the 2,850 known nuclides have half lives so short as to make their contribution to solar composition negligible. If the Sun's core was dense enough to change this conclusion then the likeliest result would be a run-away gravitational collapse or a type II supernova.
Observation suggests that normal matter aggregating around condensed object such as white dwarf star or neutron star result in stellar novas not main sequence stars. In the extreme case a white dwarf will explode as Type Ia supernova.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and neither paper come close to providing such proof.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Another brief reply

Message 15053 in response to message 15051

Quote:
Another brief reply before going to work.
You missunderstood what I refered to. I' sure most of Manuel's work is perfectly fine nucelar chemistry. A quick llok at his CV shows that he has plety of publications, end ther are other ways to get and there are other ways to ge an indepdently prouced list too. However the bulk of his publictions has nothing to do with theories about a iron core sun. What I was saing was that the recent papers on that particular subject have only been submited a conference paper and not to journals. This is often something that happens when authors do not get their works accepted by journals.

You are simply misinterpreting the notion of publishing some work "quickly" vs. presenting some work to journals which can take a bit longer. Hold on for a month or so and I suspect you'll see a variation of this material published in a journal as well.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Michael: If you are

Message 15054 in response to message 15052

Quote:
Michael:
If you are looking for specific objections I suggest you go back to the begging of this thread.
The iron core sun theory was originally popularized as a solution to the missing solar neutrino problem. It never gained wide acceptance and has lost ground with the confirmation of neutrino osscilation.

But my ideas and theories are based on satellite observation and heliosiesmic findings. The iron is what conducts electricity from the surface since these are the ions we see coming from the coronal loops. IMO, the concept of gaining or loosing ground is meaningless and uniportant. Facts are facts, and observations speak for themselves. If you can provide a scientific explanation for the Lockheed running difference movie using gas model theory, I'm certainly willing to consider it. As it is, I see no "simple" or elegant solution for these images in gas model theory.

Quote:
Most of the 2,850 known nuclides have half lives so short as to make their contribution to solar composition negligible. If the Sun's core was dense enough to change this conclusion then the likeliest result would be a run-away gravitational collapse or a type II supernova.

I'm not sure what you mean by this since technically there are two possible "cores" that could be under the surface, one based on fission, and the other based on a nuetron core.

Quote:
Observation suggests that normal matter aggregating around condensed object such as white dwarf star or neutron star result in stellar novas not main sequence stars. In the extreme case a white dwarf will explode as Type Ia supernova.

I'm not sure which observations you are suggesting demonstrate this likelihood. I'll grant you that supernovas "happen" and we can see them explode, but that may simply be the final chain of events in a long solar cycle.

Quote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and neither paper come close to providing such proof.

What exactly constitutes "proof" here? Can you explain the running difference images on the first page of my website using gas model theory? Can you explain the structures seen in the third and forth raw TRACE images on the first page of my website, or from Lockheeds website where I got them?

Heliosiesmology has recently confirmed the presense of a stratified layer that is centered at around .99R. What is that layer, and how do you know it's not the same transitional layer that Lockheed and NASA image with the TRACE and SOHO spacecraft?

MarkF
MarkF
Joined: 12 Apr 05
Posts: 393
Credit: 1,516,715
RAC: 0

Michael I don't see a

Michael
I don't see a justification for re-inventing the theory of stellar interiors. There are many observations that can not be simply explained by current theories. The facts may speak for themselves but your presentation of the facts seem to involve large leaps of interpretation without much justification. I don't know the engineering details of the picture you pin so much on, so I will not will attempt any explanation. If you wish to convince me you will need to write a much more through paper.

When I speak of solar core I mean the central portion wherein most accepted theories of say the nuclear fusion is releasing the energy that makes the Sun shine.
Check out klasm's post on x-ray binaries.
The evidence of a stratified layer is not evidence of solid surface or a dominating influence of Iron.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Michael I don't see a

Message 15056 in response to message 15055

Quote:
Michael
I don't see a justification for re-inventing the theory of stellar interiors.

I do in fact "see" a structured layer in satellite images (and heliosiesmology) that suggests to me that hydrogen fusion is an unlikely source of solar energy. I'm not really 're-inventing' anything, I'm simply trying to explain what I observe.

Quote:
There are many observations that can not be simply explained by current theories.

Which is why I fail to see why I should treat the gas model as any "better" by default. Theories are useful, if and only if they can explain real and observed behaviors.

Quote:
The facts may speak for themselves but your presentation of the facts seem to involve large leaps of interpretation without much justification.

You say this as though you are certain there is a "better" explanation that takes smaller leaps of faith, but I disagree. There are many leaps of faith that are simply taken for granted in astronomy that have never been justified, starting with the notion of "Big Bang" that involved only subatomic energy at some stage. We don't know that to be the way our universe formed, but we "assume" that hydrogen is the most abundant element because hydrogen would be the first atom to form in such a subatomic soup. If however we experience more of a "big slam", iron and silicon and all the things I "see" in satellite images may have predated this physical universe by eons. There are many leaps of faith taken by gas model proponents as well, including the idea that fusion is the power source.

Quote:
I don't know the engineering details of the picture you pin so much on, so I will not will attempt any explanation. If you wish to convince me you will need to write a much more through paper.

I do know a lot of the details of the images (plural) that led to the theories I have put forth. It is the study of these satellite images for over 15 years that leads me to these conclusions. Keep in mind that these are direct observations and the ideas I put forth were specifically based on direct observation. This is quite a bit different than just "theory". You can question my 'interpretation' all you like, but the images come from NASA and Lockheed and I did not create them. I've written to NASA and Lockheed and Stanford and I've listened to their explainations. Using my model, I predicted that we would see a stratified layer just under the photosphere in May of this year, nearly 6 months before the heliosiesmology study confirmed it. Coincidence?

Quote:
Check out klasm's post on x-ray binaries.

Will do.

Quote:
The evidence of a stratified layer is not evidence of solid surface or a dominating influence of Iron.

When you review raw EIT video, or any images for that matter, you can see light emitting from large arcs across the surface. The SOHO and TRACE systems are specifically designed to see light from iron ions, so we know these "loops/arc" contain iron, and these loops/arcs occur all along a very large surface.

Furtermore, Dr. Manuels work has suggested that iron is the most abundant element on the sun.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.