A complete model of the Sun

[oz93666]

Over the past few weeks , I've been trying to understand the structure of the sun and how it works , I'll lay out what I think I know , hopefully readers can correct any errors.

The sun has a solid iron surface at the level we see when looking into a sun spot (iron is solid at 3000K at those pressures) ... http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ .....

Above this solid surface, is the 100km thick photo-sphere, where the (cold) fusion occurs in magnetically confined cells operating like cyclotrons , this accounts for 1/3 rd of the suns energy output (evident by the nutrino flux) ,2/3 rds coming from the kinetic energy of the plasma stream .

Plasma (mostly electrons and protons ) hit's the sun at one pole , spreads over the surface, some is consumed in the fusion process in the photo-sphere , the remainder is fired out from the opposite pole of the sun. Heavy element fusion products are vented in the solar wind .

How is it possible for the inner solid surface to be cooler than the hotter photo-sphere , which is radiating heat inwards as well as outwards???? There can only be one answer ...creating atoms heavier than iron consumes energy . Some how heavy elements are being created from smaller elements near the solid surface, and this acts as a heat sink.

To account for the suns low density it must be hollow , perhaps the iron shell carries a charge on it's inner surface that keeps it 'inflated' .

[Michael Mozina]

Over the past few weeks , I've been trying to understand the structure of the sun and how it works , I'll lay out what I think I know , hopefully readers can correct any errors.

The sun has a solid iron surface at the level we see when looking into a sun spot (iron is solid at 3000K at those pressures) ... http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ .....

Above this solid surface, is the 100km thick photo-sphere, where the (cold) fusion occurs in magnetically confined cells operating like cyclotrons , this accounts for 1/3 rd of the suns energy output (evident by the nutrino flux) ,2/3 rds coming from the kinetic energy of the plasma stream .

Plasma (mostly electrons and protons ) hit's the sun at one pole , spreads over the surface, some is consumed in the fusion process in the photo-sphere , the remainder is fired out from the opposite pole of the sun. Heavy element fusion products are vented in the solar wind .

How is it possible for the inner solid surface to be cooler than the hotter photo-sphere , which is radiating heat inwards as well as outwards???? There can only be one answer ...creating atoms heavier than iron consumes energy . Some how heavy elements are being created from smaller elements near the solid surface, and this acts as a heat sink.

To account for the suns low density it must be hollow , perhaps the iron shell carries a charge on it's inner surface that keeps it 'inflated' .

The specific website that you mentioned (mine) is based upon a primarily internally powered "cathode" solar model rather than Jeurgen's (Scott/Thornhill's) externally powered anode concept, although many of the same ideas, images and concepts would still apply to either solar model (assuming they were inclined to use them). I'd have to assume that an anode solar model at least "allows" for some amount of core fusion to occur as does the cathode model on that website.

I think I'll allow a Jeurgens/Thornhill/Scott solar model fan answer your various questions with respect to an anode model, but I'll be happy to answer your questions as it relates to Birkeland's cathode model.

Keep in mind that Birkeland's cathode model is internally powered so the bulk of the fusion in Birkeland's model probably occurs in the core, and closer to the core than the surface, although his model certainly allows for fusion processes to occur above the cathode surface as well. I would assume that the plasma pinch/electrical discharge is the primary method of any type of surface fusion, as I'm sure is the case with most EU solar models. Those very same assumptions would apply to an "Alfven" "electric sun" model as well by the way, although none of the images or ideas that are shown on my website would necessarily need to be applied to Alfven's internally powered solar model.

The surface of the cathode is cooler than the core of the sun for many of the same reasons that the surface of a planet is cooler than it's core. The various plasma layers of the atmosphere of the sun become *hotter* as we move away from the surface. The chromosphere is already known to be hotter than the photosphere, and the corona is even hotter than both the photosphere and the chromosphere. This is due to the heat that is generated by the collisions of cathode rays slamming into protons and various elements in the solar atmosphere. The effect is exactly the same as you might observe in this video of a cathode model in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfV ... e=youtu.be

Another important difference with Birkeland's model as described on that website is that the atmospheric plasmas are mass separated and layered by atomic weight. There's also at least one more layer of mostly silicon plasma sandwiched between the cathode and the layer that's commonly thought of as a "photosphere" In that Birkeland model on my website, the shiny surface of the photosphere is mostly composed of neon, the chromosphere is mostly helium, and the corona is mostly hydrogen. The neon layer is not 'opaque' as is the case with the standard solar model, and probably no atmospheric plasma layer is actually "opaque" in Birkeland's model. The "heat" from the lower atmosphere is also being carried up and away from the surface of the cathode toward the heliosphere by the constant movement of electrons and other particles away from the surface.

I doubt the sun is "hollow", but rather it's most likely filled with high temperature, highly pressurized plasma, which is probably experiencing fusion. Odd things however can and do happen in terms of mass layouts of materials in space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

Watch what happens when Don Pettit puts an air bubble inside of a water sphere on the space station. The air is considerably less dense than the water in the shell, but the water doesn't necessarily sink to the bottom and end up in the core due to the surface tension of the water. The heavier elements of the sun may end up sitting against the outer shell, and the core may contain lighter elements.

I'd assume (and have published papers) that heavier elements do get created in the plasma pinch processes we observe in satellite images, but I'm not sure that those heavier elements actually act as a 'heat sink' per se. I do however think that's how we get carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, and probably heavier elements as well.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

[oz93666]

The specific website that you mentioned (mine) is based upon .....

Wow .... I feel very fortunate to be able to communicate with you , Michael.... that's a brilliant website ...You seem to be the only one out there pushing the idea the suns surface is solid iron !!!

Thanks for your reply , I'm still digesting it , but the main point that is troubling me is, how is it possible for the solid surface of the sun to be cooler than the photosphere? The photosphere is not only radiating heat outwards to us , but inwards .... anything inside the surface of the sun will be the temperature of the photosphere , this is a law of thermodynamics .... It maybe true that areas further out are hotter, but there the plasma density is so low it doesn't effect things much . The radiation from the sun corresponds to black body radiation at 5800 K ,and that goes inward and outward , everything inside has to be at least the same temperature....

There is only one way out , and that's to have an endothermic reaction going on at the iron surface . The synthesis of any atom larger than iron is endothermic , cools things down, perhaps swirling ions at the surface combine with iron and cool it down? ... This is the only known way for the surface to be cooler ....IMHO..... please tell me where I'm wrong ..... oz

[hyrumpoint0]

...how is it possible for the solid surface of the sun to be cooler than the photosphere? The photosphere is not only radiating heat outwards to us , but inwards .... anything inside the surface of the sun will be the temperature of the photosphere , this is a law of thermodynamics

Another theory which I happen to believe, can also help explain this dilemma --> a metallic hydrogen core near absolute zero. With the sun's intense gravity and the added inward pressure from the sun's intense radiation, can gas or any element exist in any other state than solid? Even "establishment" scientists have dared to theorize about metallic hydrogen existing in the cores of the gas giants.
Would metallic hydrogen reflect heat?

It's easy to assume that since the outside of the sun is so hot, the inside must be hotter.

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks for your reply , I'm still digesting it , but the main point that is troubling me is, how is it possible for the solid surface of the sun to be cooler than the photosphere? The photosphere is not only radiating heat outwards to us , but inwards .... anything inside the surface of the sun will be the temperature of the photosphere , this is a law of thermodynamics .... It maybe true that areas further out are hotter, but there the plasma density is so low it doesn't effect things much . The radiation from the sun corresponds to black body radiation at 5800 K ,and that goes inward and outward , everything inside has to be at least the same temperature....

You're essentially "assuming" that the "photosphere" is actually "opaque" as the mainstream claims. I'm not assuming anything of the sort. Due to opacity and density differences, the photosphere doesn't have to be as hot or hotter than the chromosphere, nor does the photosphere have to be as hot or hotter than the corona simply because the corona and chromosphere radiate their excess heat in all directions. The density and opacity of each of the various plasma layers matters in terms of heat dissipation/retention. Keep in mind that the flow of charged particles is mostly aimed *away* from the sun, taking the excess heat in the atmosphere along with it.

FYI, we suggested in our published papers that the surface at .995R is "rigid", not necessarily solid. If it is solid, it's not solid iron however. It's more akin to an ordinary planetary crust, and it's most likely to resemble the crust of Mercury in terms of elemental composition.

Fusion of iron would be endothermic, but I'm not sure that there's much of that actually happening, particularly in the atmosphere.

The .995R "rigid surface* concept could easily be applied to a Jeurgen's anode solar model as well, but I wouldn't "assume" that it *has* to be applied to a Jeurgen's solar model simply because I would personally do so. Such an "interpretation' of the satellite images would however work in that scenario, and the solar satellite images still need to be explained regardless of which wiring configuration one prefers.

[oz93666]

Thanks for your reply , I'm still digesting it , but the main point that is troubling me is, how is it possible for the solid surface of the sun to be cooler than the photosphere? The photosphere is not only radiating heat outwards to us , but inwards .... anything inside the surface of the sun will be the temperature of the photosphere , this is a law of thermodynamics .... It maybe true that areas further out are hotter, but there the plasma density is so low it doesn't effect things much . The radiation from the sun corresponds to black body radiation at 5800 K ,and that goes inward and outward , everything inside has to be at least the same temperature....

You're essentially "assuming" that the "photosphere" is actually "opaque" as the mainstream claims. I'm not assuming anything of the sort. Due to opacity and density differences, the photosphere doesn't have to be as hot or hotter than the chromosphere, nor does the photosphere have to be as hot or hotter than the corona simply because the corona and chromosphere radiate their excess heat in all directions. ....

It absolutely makes no difference whether the medium in question is solid or liquid or 'metalic hydrogen' or plasma, transparent or opaque....If we have a hot surface ,it's a fundamental law of physics , that this heat will be transmitted to adjacent cooler surfaces , by conduction and radiation ....In the case of a sphere where the top layer is hot this heat will be transmitted inwards until the interior is the same temperature, (assuming no internal heat production).

I've just raised this issue on a physics forum ....will report any interesting replies.

[jacmac]

oz93666 said:

Plasma (mostly electrons and protons ) hit's the sun at one pole , spreads over the surface, some is consumed in the fusion process in the photo-sphere , the remainder is fired out from the opposite pole of the sun.

A few years ago I remember reading a criticism of EU ideas by Tom Bridgman; yes that Tom Bridgman.
He said,paraphrasing, that any polar current to the sun, powerful enough to light up the sun, would necessarily itself be lit up entering and leaving the solar poles. I basically agree with this criticism. (IT IS THE ONLY THING HE SAYS THAT I AGREE WITH.)

As I have said elsewhere, I think the external electric power to the sun comes from a drift current as described by Dr. Scott.

That leads me to be interested in the proposal by BOB JOHNSON ( EU 2013) that the sun is powered by an internal PLASMOID, and that the anode sun model is incorrect. He also talks about a CURRENT FREE DOUBLE LAYER situation which seems to be involved. This I think could generally describe the chromosphere area which is the transition from the photosphere to the corona; two areas with very different ionization situations.

I suggest that if the sun is a plasmoid, the photosphere, chromosphere, and corona taken together IS THE PLASMOID.

Also, in agreement with Michael Mozina, the interior of the sun is a "solid " body. ( He says rigid, not necessarily solid). I believe this is indicated, for four reasons:
1) A solid or rigid interior would be logical to ACT AS AN ANCHOR to the external electric environment we can observe which we call the sun. An unanchored electric sun would be free to move around in space, not unlike ball lightning, but does not do so.
2) Another clue, is the planets. Wherever we look bodies in orbit seem to orbit larger bodies.
3) The photosphere (the quiet sun) is very stable in its general composition and size and rotation rate. A fixed solid or rigid interior would also be very stable as to composition, size and rotation rate and could influence the photosphere to be the same..
4) A solid or rigid interior body could very well be oblate, as is the earth and many of the other planets. The photosphere is very close to a "perfect" sphere, which is no doubt due to electric reasons. An oblate interior of the sun might explain the differential rotation we see in the photosphere, as the distance from a surface to the photosphere would be greater with an increase in latitude toward the poles.

Jack

[oz93666]

Another theory which I happen to believe, can also help explain this dilemma --> a metallic hydrogen core near absolute zero. .

I'm not sure , how with any model , we could get temperatures of zero ....hydrogen could well be solid metal at very extreme pressures but still 'hot'...

Further investigation has resolved my misunderstanding about sunspots , which is valid for all models ..... We are not looking into the sun when seeing a sunspot, the photo-sphere sea of plasma is fairly level, magnetic fields , normal to the sun inhibit heat production/flow at a sunspot... so the surface temp of that region drops.

[oz93666]

.....any polar current to the sun, powerful enough to light up the sun, would necessarily itself be lit up entering and leaving the solar poles. I basically agree with this criticism.

You have to be right ....So we have a fairly unidirectional flow of negatively charged plasma coming into the sun , and a random flow of positively charged plasma thrown of in the solar wind , going outwards. Presumably these two opposing flows don't interact too much because they're so rarefied , they flow through one another.

Also, in agreement with Michael Mozina, the interior of the sun is a "solid " body.

I now believe MM may have been a little imaginative in his interpretation of the data and there's no hard evidence of a solid interior.... still that doesn't mean it's not there ,some say it can't be too near the surface because of the differential rotation of the surface...
I think oblicity was shown to be a non issue ....the strong surface gravity(24g)keeps it very spherical measured to be less than a hairs width on a beach ball and this is very close to what theory predicts.

[Webbman]

there is the possibility that the black part of the "sunspot" is a lithium shell and a carbon or boron shell underneath that.

1.Hydrogen--->2.helium--->3.lithium--->6. carbon --->12. magnesium
or

1.Hydrogen--->2.helium--->3.lithium--->5. Boron --->8. oxygen

and so on...

of course all the other elements in sequence would have their own shells (quantity determined by fusion probability via an interacting mass gradient), but since iron and nickel are magnetic, these would form bubbles as they would be influenced by magnetic fields more-so than other elements. Thus would behave differently in the interior of the sun.

so my sun is a simple mass gradient of elements with balls of nickel and iron floating around inside it, occasionally getting expelled to form a new planet, taking a little bit of everything with it on its way out. Thus all the planets are different because the expulsion is different every time but usually heavy on the lighter element and scant on the dense elements (since they migrate deeper).

I think mass gradients are greatly undervalued and the force of gravity greatly overvalued.

[Michael Mozina]

It absolutely makes no difference whether the medium in question is solid or liquid or 'metalic hydrogen' or plasma, transparent or opaque....If we have a hot surface ,it's a fundamental law of physics , that this heat will be transmitted to adjacent cooler surfaces , by conduction and radiation ....In the case of a sphere where the top layer is hot this heat will be transmitted inwards until the interior is the same temperature, (assuming no internal heat production).

I've just raised this issue on a physics forum ....will report any interesting replies.

If that were actually true then it would be *impossible* for the surface of the photosphere to be cooler than the chromosphere and the corona. What is the physics that makes this "possible" in the standard solar model in your opinion?

There is in fact a density and particle flow movement process that must be considered with respect to various temperature layers in the solar atmosphere.

[jacmac]

oz93666, Thanks for your reply.
You said:

I think oblicity was shown to be a non issue ....the strong surface gravity(24g)keeps it very spherical measured to be less than a hairs width on a beach ball and this is very close to what theory predicts.

I am suggesting the INTERIOR of the sun may be oblate; which could explain or be a contributing factor in explaining the differential rotation of the photosphere.

[hyrumpoint0]

I'm not sure , how with any model , we could get temperatures of zero ....hydrogen could well be solid metal at very extreme pressures but still 'hot'...

With the scant experimental data available about 'metallic hydrogen' I don't think anyone can say for sure how it behaves, but the theory is pretty "solid ~ ha ha". Even if it's not absolute zero inside the sun, cold is probably what it would be. Temperature, remember, is average kinetic energy. Under the extreme pressure conditions inside the sun, it's not hard to imagine the crystal lattice being pretty rigid with no room for movement of the protons, only vibration.
As a side note, the absolute temperature is not important, it's the possible mobility of the electrons which could have a huge impact on the surface magnetic fields. It might even be the source.

[lokilokison]

Wow! There's a lot of good scientific discourse going on here!
If I may, I would like to fumble in a little discourse with you, seeing as I'm not as well read and conversed in the subject as many of those present.
Recently, the SAFIR team described a situation very similar to the one being analyzed, where the anode was hotter on the inside than the outside, even despite having a layer of super-heated plasma within an inch away. Montgomery Childs lead that presentation in the EU 2016 conference, I believe. If I recall correctly, he said that the infrared radiation (heat) was leaving the anode at the usual speed of light and had no sufficient atmosphere to retain the heat, much less reflect it back. Then, seeing as the chamber of the SAFIR 2 was near vacuum and the convection processes inside were not creating enough return heat, I seem to remember him (Monty) say that the anode core was hot due to induction (electrical). It may seem a little redundant to think the last part, but a correction to my memory on that one would hold the truer content. If everyone present has seen that presentation, does that answer the Sun's "surface" being cooler than it's interior problem?
What I gathered from it in relation to this discussion would be that the photosphere and higher altitude material don't sufficiently hold the radiation (particularly the infrared ~heat) back or reflect it back to the iron, or what you will, surface.
In welding (since that is an area I'm a little more familiar with), MIG and MAG and TIG (metal inert/active gas welding; TIG being Tungsten inert gas welding) all use gases similar to those found in/on the Sun and other stars. Some shield the still reactive metal from atmospheric gases, like Oxygen, so as to keep the metal from embrittlement due to bonding. Iron oxides are very brittle and so are ferrous compounds with high Hydrogen contents or Nitrogen. These three are common in the spectra observed from the photosphere, correct?
From one of the proposed models that I've seen posted here (on the http://www.surfaceofthesun.com website), the iron surface also has lots of Calcium and Silicon layers. These I would like to contemplate in a moment, but for now, let's focus on the gases closest to the surface. Neon is cited as the proposed majority, at that layer, before digressing into layers of Helium and Hydrogen. If much of the Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen are "created" through various transmutations (ionic and nuclear) in the layers between the Neon and Helium/Hydrogen, then that would save the lower layers and the surface from being mostly embrittled and having it's conductivity reduced exponentially.
On to contemplating the basic, rough model of an iron star model with the characteristics described on the site's (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com) surface model page. Calcium is far more chemically reactive than Iron and is not instantly attracted to Iron nor Silicon. Given that these layers are fairly pure (we'll assume 77% or better), the Calcium layer could be fluidic and act as rapid heat exchanger, just like liquid Sodium in Generation IV nuclear reactors. The Silicon, unlike Calcium, is relatively content without Oxygen, but in the presence of the heat AND Oxygen, it would most likely for silica, right? But, again, let's stick to the model, as I understand it. As relatively pure Silicon, it could have weak semi-conducting properties (again, due to the extremes of the atmosphere). The Neon would act as a pleasant insulator, if the Silicon in the form of silica hasn't already acted as such. We could continue with this as plausible because of what we know about the analogy of MIG welding, the inert gas keeps the metals (and metalloid) from being oxidized/hyrdogenated/nitrilized, etc. Then, our more electronegative elements are confined to upper atmospheres.
The Iron (core?) acts as either as the focal antenna/transformer receiving and transducing the galactic current or as a field stator (if I'm using the terms correctly) for a moving core rotor or as a armature (perhaps created by a plasmoid initially) for creating magnetic fields (thus, attracting further plasma involvement). The Calcium would be easily moved and excited by such a interior, maybe even in strictly maintained currents, similar to our oceanic and atmospheric currents but different. The Silicon would coat like a caramel surface, giving a vague appearance of solidity. With the Neon layer, it could easily create a capacitor situation. If the interior acted as an AC generator/motor, rudimentarily, then it could be a power phase corrector which would keep the interior in phase with the galactic oscillations, correct? In conjunction with the outter layers of negatively charges elements, then the positively charged Hydrogen, wouldn't that be a form of transistor? If from Ca and Fe to C/N/O to H, that would be a P-N-P transistor, allowing for an anode-like outside in the corona, right?
Forgive me, I haven't even read Hannes Alfven's work detailing the circuit diagram for his ideas, much less familiarized myself with the EU's more formalized version of Sun circuit (I've seen it a few times, but it's not memory to me yet).
This being just verbalized in the moment sounds similar to a complex transformer, similar to Tesla coils, just lacking some of the familiar assembly. I could be easily wrong on that, since I haven't pursued the accuracy of that statement yet.
Did that help or hinder in the discussion?

[Michael Mozina]

I now believe MM may have been a little imaginative in his interpretation of the data and there's no hard evidence of a solid interior....

I'm thinking that this may warrant a discussion of it's own, particularly now that I better understand the fusion solar model that Scott and Thornhill are proposing with respect to neutrinos, the types of fusion, the location fo fusion, etc.

I'll start a thread here on the topic of coronal loops and plasma pinches and how that topic ties back to solar physics, and solar satellite imagery in general. I'd actually appreciate a skeptical review of my "interpretation" of the various images, and how they tie back to SDO images today. I still *strongly* believe that the stable pattern of coronal loops that we observe in iron ion wavelengths does suggest the presence of at least a much more "rigid" (than the photosphere) layer that sits underneath of the surface of the photosphere. I think I can explain my argument via satellite imagery, and I'd welcome your feedback actually.

still that doesn't mean it's not there ,some say it can't be too near the surface because of the differential rotation of the surface...

Keep in mind that the differential rotation that we observe is happening at the surface of the photosphere, not necessarily to layers that might sit *underneath* of that surface.

I think oblicity was shown to be a non issue ....the strong surface gravity(24g)keeps it very spherical measured to be less than a hairs width on a beach ball and this is very close to what theory predicts.

Actually the mainstream has a "mystery" and a problem with the "near perfect roundness" of the sun. Without a solid crust, it really shouldn't be as "round" as it is were it actually all made of whispy light plasma.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 57068.html

A mystery surrounds the shape of the Sun - it is just too perfectly round, say scientists.

In fact the Sun turns out to be one of the roundest objects ever measured.

Scaled down to the size of a beach ball, the difference between the Sun's widest and narrowest diameters would be far less than the width of a human hair.

Having no solid surface, the Sun's rotation should make it slightly flattened.

But the new measurements show that the flattening is much smaller than expected.