Recovered: Iron Sun Theories

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

If it's not part of the plasma, it's part of the "dust". Every body/globe is just dust. They are likely all Silicates or Iron/Basalt with a Silicate Surface.

Whether they are a Star, Planet or Comet is all in relation to it's movement thru electric fields or as a focus pinch in an electrical circuit.

Simple, straightforward and totalyly awesome

I completely agree.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

The main criticism of the iron Sun, is that "we know the Sun is a ball of gas, because of helioseismology evidence". Aside from the faulty logic that "my theory negates your theory", do you have a Web pages that criticizes helioseismology and its implications?

Quite the contrary Ian, heliosiesmology evidence confirms this model. I have pages of heliosiesmology data that support my model rather than demonstrate it's a ball of gas.

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

What's that "stratification subsurface" doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone? If you review the blog page of my website, you'll find additional heliosiesmology data that confirms that downdrafting (and upwelling) plasmas turn at horizontal angles at about .995R. That's not "predicted" in standard theory, and yet the plama *must* behave that way in our model since that moving plasma is running into a solid crust at that location.

I'm a *huge* fan of heliosiesmology and in fact we have cited that heliosiesmology evidence in our later work.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Hello All

Sometimes you need to go beyond the standard model to discover the actual workings of our sun.

Take your time and read some of the papers by Michael and prof Oliver Manuel, cutting edge info.

Michael good on you mate from the land of ozzzzzzzz.

Thanks mate!

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Michaeal Mozina"

I thought I'd start a thread related to iron solar theories in the context of EU theory. IMO the sun is not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather it is mostly made of iron and nickel and it's atmosphere is composed of double layers of various plasmas that are arranged by atomic weight.

Very interesting pictures and videos, thanks. How long do you think these "rigid" structures have been observed to stay there?

I've tracked them over a period of days in the SOHO images. You can find several years worth of RD SOHO images on in their archives.

Anything longer than one hour?

Much longer than an hour. Some surface feature are "eroded" due to the electrical activity on the surface, but many features can last for weeks. In quiet periods they can last an entire rotation, but that is unusual in my experience. Usually there is a lot of erosion over the course of 27.3 days.

I am doubting they have been observed over any significant fraction of a solar rotation.

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/Th ... n_0001.wmv

This particular series of SOHO RD images spans about 8 days. Keep in mind that these images are rather "blurred", and the features are exaggerated due to the timing between images (about 6 hours).

Forgive the obvious question, but how do you explain the observed density of the sun at less than a quarter that of iron?

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/WaterBalloon/

Scroll down and watch the water bubble videos. The density inside the "crust" need not necessarily be as dense as the crust itself. It's also possible that the core contains a spinning neutron core that has a "charge" associated with it, and that may create a charge repulsion scenario between the core and the plasmas around the core. It's also possible that our solar system is being accelerated in the z-axis (towards the south pole) and that acceleration has some effect on our concept of "actual" (vs percieved) density. I can't technically see inside the crust so I try to keep an open mind on that issue.

All estimates of photosphere temperature are well above the boiling point of iron, do you expect these features to be made of gaseous iron?

Actually, the photosphere is significantly cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona. The sun is "layered", and each layer gets progressively cooler and more dense as we approach the surface. The (silicon and calcium) layers under the photosphere are observed to be several thousand degrees cooler than the photosphere during upwelling events during sunspot activity. IMO the surface temp is probably less than 1500 degrees Kelvin, although depending on conditions, iron can stay solid in temperatures up to over 5100 Kelvin.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 083025.htm

Those were all very good questions by the way......

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Does anyone have a good DEFINITION of a "running difference image?" I'd mentioned the movie(s) / image(s) thereabout a while back and wondered aloud (don't recall if it was on the forums or in private msgs) whether the images in the movie were actual images or some kind of generated images, and likewise, whether the "structures" were in fact physical structures or an artifact of the algorithms used to generate the "differences" in the images.

A running difference images is created by literally subtracting one image from another. It tends to highlight *change over time*. If for instance you watch RD images of the sun's corona, you can observe the waves of energy flowing off the sun. The wavelength in question is very important by the way. A RD image taking in 304A (light from helium ions) shows a great deal of change over time because the structures they come from are changing rapidly over time. On the other hand, an image taken 195A or 171A or 284A shows a remarkably different set of "features" that have a "lifetime" that is far greater than what might be observed in 304A. Movement, and lack thereof are critical to any discussion about RD images.

If we're basing assumptions off of "artifacts," are the artifacts indicative of actual struct5ures, or are they simply artifacts that shouldn't be given significant weight? I guess it depends on how the images are generated, how much we trust the algorithms behind them, and what meaning we ascribe to the outcome images/movies...

Define "artifact" for me.

My understanding is that the "running difference" images are basically a look at how various pixels or "regions" do or don't change from one image to the next. Theoretically this could tell us how mobile certain features are, versus how stationary relative to the perceived surface of the sun (whatever we're imaging)...

You're basically correct. They are created by subtracting one from from another, and what they tend to show (depending on the wavelength) are the plasma movements over time. The problem however when we get to the iron ion filters is that they show a completely different set of features that have a completely different lifetime than anything related to plasma. Plasmas tend to ebb and flow, much like water or gas. Solids tend to not move much, and therefore there "should be" quite a difference between the lifetime of "structures" that we might find in these so called "artifacts". The "artifacts" in a plasma wavelength like helium tend to ebb and flow and move around. The rotate in a differential pattern as well. When we look at the sun in the iron ion spectrum however, we get a completely different kind of artifact with a completely different lifetime and a completely different rotation pattern.

Of course is reality, it simply tells us how mobile the light and dark regions are..., or how much they do/don't brighten or darken over a given time period (as recorded in time lapse images). But what does this tell us? Does it tell us there's a "solid surface?" Or does it just tell us that in a given region there was/wasn't brightening or dimming over a given interval?

I don't think you could answer that question from *one* RD image. What you can tell from a string of them however is that the "artifacts" observed in the various wavelengths show remarkably different patterns of rotation and lifetimes. Plasmas should move, and we know they move around and come and go in about 8 minute intervals at the surface of the photosphere. When we look at iron ion wavelengths however, we get a completely different kind of image that shows significantly different movement patterns.

In the words of Austin Powers: "Whoop dee doo Basil, what does it all mean?"

~Michael Gmirkin

IMO it "means" that something is far more "rigid" than the photosphere of the sun. The RD images of the photosphere show much more movement and clear signs of differential rotation patters that are unique to each hemisphere and tend to depend on it's proximity to the equator. RD images of the sun in iron ion wavelengths however show a completely different picture.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Running Difference Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

You guys are treating the visual representation of mathematical calculations as if it is a real image. The thing you posted is the equivalent of a data plot and is not the surface of the sun.

I'm sure St. Elmo's fire crawls around on my long division problems too.

Steve

The difference here Steve is the "longevity" of the features in question. In a chaotic, and moving plasma environment a RD image will show significant change very clearly. Why aren't these features changing ever 8 minutes or so just like the structures in the photosphere?

Note in that RD Trace image that you can see the "dust" blowing in the plasma wind right after the CME event. We can see the particles in the plasma atmosphere blowing from the bottom right toward the upper left, and we see their effect on the reflections off the surface as they return to the surface. We can observe a series of changes in the surface as a result of the CME event as Solar pointed out. I'll address his post next so you see where I'm coming from.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: Reality vs. Calculation Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Ian,

Now hold on! (quoting Dwardu)

TRACE (and EIT, where they also create running difference images) provides periodic data streams about the sun. The "running difference" calculations applied to the data generate a simulated view of the sun that shows the changes from one dataset to the next over an applied timeframe.

You are not looking at an "image of the sun". You are looking at the result of (I don't know how many images and it isn't relevant) many sets of information that have been processed to bring out the differences between them.

Like I said, it's exactly like looking at a data plot, except the complexity of the plot and the false color make it look like a picture.

SS

Well, that is all accurate, but then when we watch RD images of the corona, the sun's movements of energy are quite obvious. When we observe RD images of the photosphere we observe all sorts of movements from one frame to the next and a great deal of change over the course of an hour or so. That RD TRACE image is at least an hour and a half in length and there is little or any movement that is not directly related to the CME and the ejected material from the CME event.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: Reality vs. Calculation Reply with quote
OP "Solar"

Ian,

Now hold on! (quoting Dwardu)

TRACE (and EIT, where they also create running difference images) provides periodic data streams about the sun. The "running difference" calculations applied to the data generate a simulated view of the sun that shows the changes from one dataset to the next over an applied timeframe.

You are not looking at an "image of the sun". You are looking at the result of (I don't know how many images and it isn't relevant) many sets of information that have been processed to bring out the differences between them.

Like I said, it's exactly like looking at a data plot, except the complexity of the plot and the false color make it look like a picture.

SS

That's very interesting and good info to know. I don't remember how long ago I found and read Mozina's site but I can tell you with great certainty that it was very helpful in 'confirming' Electric Universe theory for me. Not because it recognizes plasma as an active solar principle (though that helped) but the .avi's etc led me to TRACE and SOHO. I studied, observationally, every movie I could and ended up downloading the TRACE dvd files to watch them on my tele.

It was a very helpful as I sat there and pondered the electrical implications of coronal hoops, flares, sunspots etc in relation to what I had understood about EU at that point. Afterwards, EU seemed to be on very solid observational ground because of solar movies, running differences (whatever one choses to call them and however they are obtained) - which were the only thing I could find that actually seem to show one of EU's premier tenants i.e. electrical etching of a planetary surface. In this case the Sun.

At the same time I don't know if the sun has a surface but the tubular transverse electrical arching across it's surface (especially at the edges) sure gives the impression of what electrical etching *might* look like for a young planet. See?

I think it good to consider that many EU proponents have surveyed a great host of theories and ideas that have fostered their presence here. It's composed of a curious lot who seem to know and have info about many approaches and they aren't afraid to contrast them. But that does not mean that they subscribe to those ideas. In fact, as in my case, there are and will be questions. Especially if someone from one of the many theories that were perused actually ends up here.

Needless to say that by opening himself up for questions he's done far more than others who could likewise allow us such a contrast. We have a fine example of that. Today's technology allows my voice over he phone to be composed of strictly of 1's and 0's. Totally digital. But in no way does that mean that we cannot have meaningful discourse.

By the way. Here's what appears to be another Solar hole.

(click to view larger image)

Are these artifacts of the running difference process?

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: Reality vs. Calculation Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

By the way. Here's what appears to be another Solar hole.
<snip image>
Are these artifacts of the running difference process?

FYI, that particular image is not a RD image, but rather it is a simple overlay image of a TRACE iron ion image (in blue) and a Yohkoh x-ray image in yellow. The "hole" in that image is simply an area of the surface that is not emitting much light in either spectrum. Keep in mind that this is nothing more than two overlaid raw images, and neither of these two colored images is a RD image.

The interesting thing about that particular image is that it gives us a sense of atmospheric "depth". The x-ray light near the surface is being mostly absorbed by the photosphere, which is why you're seeing almost no x-ray light from the base of the loops. Once the loops get out of the photosphere, the x-rays are no longer absorbed which is why the tops of the loops are visible to Yohkoh, but not much action is visible to Yohkoh near the base of the loops. The iron ion wavelengths on the other hand (in blue) are able to penetrate the photosphere region of the atmosphere which is why why can see the base of the loops and the surface action underneath the Yohkoh image in yellow.

FYI, I haven't forgotten your last message. I'm at work right now answering these messages between tech calls. As soon as things slow down here I'll respond to that message. I need some time to explain what I think we're observing in that image and to upload the raw images of that same event so that you can see what I mean.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

If we're basing assumptions off of "artifacts," are the artifacts indicative of actual struct5ures, or are they simply artifacts that shouldn't be given significant weight? I guess it depends on how the images are generated, how much we trust the algorithms behind them, and what meaning we ascribe to the outcome images/movies...

Define "artifact" for me.

Hmm... How to define "artifact?" Hadn't really thought about defining it. I'm sure there's one around somewhere. I guess I was thinking in terms of so-called "camera artifacts."

Things that "appear" in images that aren't ACTUALLY there but rather are an artifact or signature left due to the specific process involved in taking the measurement. Or in some ways, it's the "noise" in an image, as opposed to "signal."

For example, some photographers take pictures in a dark room with a flash. They get back pictures of their friend, illuminated by the flash, and a number of "floating orbs." When the picture was taken, there were no "floating orbs" present. Some people say, wrongly, "well, those must be ghosts! Wooo..." however, analysis of the camera, and the environment yields further insight that the room was quite dusty, and some of the dust was extremely close to the lens. While the shutter was open, the light from the flash ricocheted off the dust and into the shutter before it closed, exposing the film with "floating orbs."

The orbs themselves did not exist. They were artifacts of the photographic process and the environment, and the distances and physics involved.

Likewise, another instance I recall reading about was when someone was taking videos around sunset, and had set their video camera to a slower shutter speed, to capture more light. When they watched the videos, they thought they'd discovered a new breed of multi-winged dragonfly-like insect that was quite long and wispy. In fact, what had happened was that they had video'd a rather normal bug, but the shutter had been opening and closing slowly enough on the slow shutter for the bug to have moved across the frame a good distance in one frame, then a good distance again in the next frame. And in the video playback, it appeared to be one very long weird insect, or even a swarm of such insects, when in fact it was only one or two.

So, my question is simply one of whether such artifacts can be created through whatever algorithm is used for processing running difference images. IE, could something that doesn't actually exist somehow be left as such an "artifact" in a heavily processed image or series of images, simply due to the way in which it's processed?

IE, is the "immobility" or "immutability" an artifact of how things are being processed? Does the immobility mean what we think it means about the structure of the sun? Or does it simply mean something about the process that took the image?

Hope that makes sense?

Not to say yea or nay to the interpretation or question the validity of the images or our level of faith in their quality. Just some fair introspective questions. Personally, I think the running difference movie is awesome. Just have had a few reservations about assuming it means what has been implied without knowing the process behind the creation of the image(s) and what they actually mean. Personally, I think it would be a rather cool coup d'etat if they do mean what's implied on the surfaceofthesun site... Smile

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

I will post my favorite picture of the solar surface at 192nm.

(click to view larger image)

The features under the loops are from the coronal rain that falls and builds up on the surface. They are iron mountains......
Coronal rain is superheated iron plasma that flow up the loops and when it reaches the top it cools falling at 10,000 F to the solar surface.

On thing about the iron sun model is that it has to use a different model of gravity, be hollow or our understanding of gravity is off. I personally use a different model of gravity.....
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

Hello Michael

Mate, thank you for being hear and there.

I read all you links.

I just hope people sit down and actually read them and get a better understanding.
_________________
Smile and live another day

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "M5K"

On thing about the iron sun model is that it has to use a different model of gravity, be hollow or our understanding of gravity is off. I personally use a different model of gravity.....

I do have an idea that could explain the perceived difference between gravity and mass, but I haven't run any numbers to verify if it works with our observations. On the plus side, it only uses already known and verified information.

Compare the following formulas:

Strength of the force of gravity between two objects of mass m1 and m2:
F = (-G)*(m1*m2)/(d^2)
G is the universal gravitational constant
d is the distance between the objects

Coulomb's Law for the magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges:
F = (1/4*Pi*epsilon0)(q1*q2)/(d^2)
d is the distance between the objects
epsilon0 is a constant I can't remember the name of

The interesting thing is that the magnitude of both forces falls of at the same rate, that is square of distance, and that they can have opposite direction if both charges q1 and q2 have the same sign.

Thus, if the sun and the planets have a charge of same sign, then gravity is going to pull and the electrostatic force is going to push. This could lead one to think that the mass of the objects involved is lower than it actually is, as the electrostatic force is working against the gravitational attraction in this scenario.

Now, as I said, I'm not sure if this theory will stand if someone runs the numbers. Still, I think it's an interesting idea.

Last edited by M5k on Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "saul"

Anything longer than one hour?

Much longer than an hour. Some surface feature are "eroded" due to the electrical activity on the surface, but many features can last for weeks. In quiet periods they can last an entire rotation, but that is unusual in my experience. Usually there is a lot of erosion over the course of 27.3 days.

Sunspots sometimes last through multiple rotations.. there are features on Carrington maps that last a long time. Would you consider these surface features?

Forgive the obvious question, but how do you explain the observed density of the sun at less than a quarter that of iron?

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/WaterBalloon/

Scroll down and watch the water bubble videos. The density inside the "crust" need not necessarily be as dense as the crust itself. It's also possible that the core contains a spinning neutron core that has a "charge" associated with it, and that may create a charge repulsion scenario between the core and the plasmas around the core. It's also possible that our solar system is being accelerated in the z-axis (towards the south pole) and that acceleration has some effect on our concept of "actual" (vs percieved) density. I can't technically see inside the crust so I try to keep an open mind on that issue.

Are you suggesting there is a shell of iron? That is gravitationally unstable.

Spinning neutron core? The problem was that the iron is already more dense than the observed sun. Adding a neutron core to the iron sun model is only going to make the thing more dense still and further from observations.

All estimates of photosphere temperature are well above the boiling point of iron, do you expect these features to be made of gaseous iron?

Actually, the photosphere is significantly cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosphere is cooler than the corona. The sun is "layered", and each layer gets progressively cooler and more dense as we approach the surface. The (silicon and calcium) layers under the photosphere are observed to be several thousand degrees cooler than the photosphere during upwelling events during sunspot activity. IMO the surface temp is probably less than 1500 degrees Kelvin, although depending on conditions, iron can stay solid in temperatures up to over 5100 Kelvin.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 083025.htm

Those were all very good questions by the way......

Thanks for your answers. I'm a bit confused hearing the word "surface", sorry. What and where exactly do you mean by that? How can layers under the photosphere be observed ?

Cheers -

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

Hello All

A compact core is extremely important for many reasons. In nut shell.
Apply Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology to this logic and your home and hose.


1) Holds the solar envelope in it position.That is the sun wants to expand by its own activity. In due time when the compact core loses its critical mass the solar evelope starts to expand.

2) The compact core supplies most of the energy released into the solar envelope.

3) The electromagnetic/gravitational strong forces releases the energy in a controlled process. This prevents over heating by high energy photons.

4) The compact core being plasma release EM/G waves as in jets, that mixes the solar envelope and sometimes we see large explosions ejecting matter .


The sun produces many of the elements from Hydrogen, being the first element formed from the neutron composite core and the remaining elements upto Fe. Other elements are formed but are unsable in the enviroment of the solar enevelope.

Billions of years will pass and the Fe bulks up until the comapct core loses its mass and thus its ability to hold the solar envelope (which expands) and control the release of high energy photons that are released from the CM striking the Fe atoms causing a fission chain reaction breaking down Fe to Hydrogen and resulting in more gigantic fusion reactions, forming a zone for neutrons to form and rejuvinate the compact inner core.

Oh! all these chain reactions produce the supernova, exploding the solar envelope and leaving behing a compacted core, most probably made of Neutron composites.

I hope I got it right, Michael can you check my logic.

I know Hilton corrects me, when I go of the tracks.
_________________
Smile and live another day