Recovered: Iron Sun Theories

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "biknewb"

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

Hi Pluto
What is this process controlling the energy release?

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

I remember finding your site quite some time ago and actually sat and read the whole site over a period of a few days. My complements on the site by the way.

Thanks.

As you watch the running difference it *appears* as if the upper area indicated by the topmost arrow, is suddenly, quickly, and violently 'dented' or 'bent' out of place, such as something of a metalliferous nature would be, by the force of the discharge. Thus forming a darkened area not seen initially. I use 'bent' or 'dent' because there seems to be no return to the prior smooth state seen when the vid begins.

The second, and lower arrow, is pointing to an area which appears as if a hole were being burned via a magnifying glass into the surface. It ends up looking almost perfectly spherical and it seems as though one end of a 'hoop' is centered on it as the vid closes.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/goldraw.avi

I included the raw video for the CME timeline so you can compare the actual images to the LMSAL images.

IMO, these two dark "holes" are related to the CME, the change of electrical activity near the surface, and the processing technique itself. If you look at the LMSAL website, they list this as a "running difference' image. IMO, it's likely more like a "running average" image. If you watch the processed image long enough you'll start to see that the detailed parts of the "surface" are "filled in" over time and they don't just appear in the first few frames. IMO that is due to their processing technique of averaging the changes over time. That averaging process is the same thing that leaves the "holes" in the surface where you've highlighted them IMO. In the raw image, there is a sharp increase in light in both those images directly after the CME, and from that frame on, those areas appear dark. If you stop the raw video at a particular frame, you'll see a white outline in the raw images that directly resembles that first (upper) hole in the video. You'll note too that this CME changes the electrical patterns near the surface, and I believe that is what creates the second hole you see in the later video.

Note too that you can follow that "dust" or coronal rain as it is ejected from the surface from the CME event. If you look closely, you can see the effect of that dust/rain settling back to the surface in the way it changes the lighting contours of the surface where it falls back to the surface.

I don't know if it's a lack of data or what have you that produces this blackening effect in these areas and have ruled out shadow. There are actually three areas there that appear to turn black as the 'wave' of current courses across the figures.

I think if you watch that raw video, and compare it to the RD/RA images from LMSAL for the same timeframe, you'll see bright emissions, in single frames, directly after the CME event. That bright "flash" creates the holes we see in later frames. It's a little tough to compare both images because neither image is timestamped. When I get some time, I will eventually try to rerun the raw images with timestamps, but the RD/RA image isn't mine, and LMSAL refuse to even divulge the author of that particular image, so I can't ask them any questions about the exact processing techniques that were used. I have however created similar RD images from STEREO and SOHO and TRACE images. You can find some STEREO RD images I created on the blog page of my website. They reveal the same surface "patterns' over time.

That is one series of images that impressed me very much as it seem to show finer detail as the ejecta is accelerated away. As if there were actually 'Solar dust' sitting there before hand; filling 'cracks', valleys, 'pits' etc and the discharge etched away the more loose material. You can particularly see this in the area to the far right as indicated below when watching the video.

That "peeling" effect is an electrical erosion process taking place at the actual surface IMO. There we get to see the electrical activity reshaping the surface itself over time. The surface is a very dynamic environment due to the electrical activity taking place there.

Those areas in particular impress me as electrical surface 'etching'.

That's my impression as well.

Your post is right on the money solar. This is pretty much the same process I went through when trying to analyze these images. The two most important events IMO, are the "dust" generated by the CME event, and the erosion process in the bottom right of the images. IMO that CME event is triggered by a massive change of current flow that "blows out" part of the surface and turns it into heavy flying plasma that looks like "dust in the wind". That surface erosion is caused by the electrical activity changes that take place after the CME event itself.

Sorry for the long delay in my response. It's been a very hectic last few months for me.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

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

Hi Pluto
What is this process controlling the energy release?

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/

To answer that question, I think we have to look at Birkeland's terella experiments. The "arcs" were the result of having a positively charged sphere being bombarded with electrons from the outside. The sun's surface is "relatively" positively charged compared to the solar sheath. The electrons of the outside universe are pouring into the sun, whereas the neutrons that are "pinched" out of the atmosphere are being accelerated off the surface as they travel out into space in "streams" that can be seen in LASCO images of the sun.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/

If you look at that Lasco C3 image, you'll see lit "beams" that pour off the sun and out into space. That movement is even more pronounced when you look at the RD LASCO images. You can see the waves of material being cast off into space.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

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

If you look at sunspot activity in closeup images (G-Band SOT Hinode images, or from the Swedish telescope), you can see the obvious ebbs and flows going on near the umbra and penumbra parts of those objects. Sunspots exhibit very "fluid-like" behavior, and there are obvious signs of differential rotation that can be seen in such images. That is because that is taking place at the surface of the photosphere, and the photosphere is composed of plasma. If you watch that Doppler image from Kosovichev, you can see the wave passes through the photosphere. That is due to the "texture" of plasma. It's fluid-like in it's behavior. Contrast that now with the "rigid structure" you can see under the wave as the wave passes over that 3 dimensional rigid feature under the photosphere. The movement pattern (lack thereof) in that "angular feature" is clearly unlike the movements we're witnessing from that wave in the photosphere.

FYI, that comes into play in "shock wave" events where you can observe waves running into solid objects and that rigidness changes the direction of the wave.

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

That water shell in that NASA video is not gravitationally unstable when it surrounds the air bubble. As long as there are EM influences and "surface tension" to consider, it's not nearly as "cut and dry" as current theory would suggest. It need not be made of "solid iron", or anything of the sort.

Spinning neutron core?

Something causes the sun to have a 22 year cycle. A rapidly spinning 'core' that rotates slowly over time would go a long way to explaining the sun's solar cycles.

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.

Here is a density spreadsheet I put together for Nereid awhile back.

(click to view larger image)

Even with a small spinning core, the overall density of the materials in between the core and the crust would still be slightly heavier than water (on average). IMO that would require some sort of external/internal EM effect as was the case with that water shell analogy. If there is a spinning neutron core inside the shell, then it's "crust" is mostly likely made up of iron and nickel ions that have been stripped of their electrons, and it's most likely to be positively charged. That may repulse any positively charged plasma and "push" it away from the core.

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 ?

When I say "surface", I mean that I believe it has an actual "crust' just like any planet. It's a very dynamic crust, much like the crust of Venus, but it's an actual surface crust composed of many elements just like any planetary crust.

The plasma layers above the crust are seen in various filters related to the ions that mostly makeup that specific layer. I don't believe that the photosphere is opaque to every wavelength particularly the iron ion wavelenghts, and there are other ways of looking under the photosphere as that Kosovichev Doppler image demonstrates.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

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.

It's not only an interesting idea IMO, I think it's a necessary idea that must be considered. In Birkeland experiments, he was able to produce aurora around the poles of his terella by charging the surface of the terella negatively. He produced solar like coronal loop features when he charged the sphere positively. If that is how it works between planets and suns, then the sun may actually be an "attractive' force to a planet, and that force may play a role in the movement of planets around suns, though not necessarily in my favor as it relates to density. I'm not sure how EM fields effect the movements of objects, but I'm pretty certain that they play a role in the process.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

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

If you look at sunspot activity in closeup images (G-Band SOT Hinode images, or from the Swedish telescope), you can see the obvious ebbs and

{SNIP}
sort of external/internal EM effect as was the case with that water shell analogy. If there is a spinning neutron core inside the shell, then it's "crust" is mostly likely made up of iron and nickel ions that have been stripped of their electrons, and it's most likely to be positively charged. That may repulse any positively charged plasma and "push" it away from the core.

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 ?

When I say "surface", I mean that I believe it has an actual "crust' just like any planet. It's a very dynamic crust, much like the crust of Venus, but it's an actual surface crust composed of many elements just like any planetary crust.

The plasma layers above the crust are seen in various filters related to the ions that mostly makeup that specific layer. I don't believe that the photosphere is opaque to every wavelength particularly the iron ion wavelenghts, and there are other ways of looking under the photosphere as that Kosovichev Doppler image demonstrates.

I think the idea of the sun mostly being a Ferrite/Iron Ball which has spawned the metal cores of most planets in the system. Silicates would likely be lifted and removed a long long time ago.

Given the extensive EDM of the sun, the "landforms" could actually be eroded or move. (Very very slowly, visually)
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "saul"

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

That water shell in that NASA video is not gravitationally unstable when it surrounds the air bubble. As long as there are EM influences and "surface tension" to consider, it's not nearly as "cut and dry" as current theory would suggest. It need not be made of "solid iron", or anything of the sort.

Well surface tension may work to hold air with a water bubble for a few minutes in 1atm of pressure at 25 deg. C. However that is hardly proof that some other substance (iron?) can do the same feat with 35 orders of magnitude more mass, at high temperatures and 100 gees of force. Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum.

If we're looking for a model that is "like any other planetary crust", maybe we should consider trying silicon, that way at least the heavy stuff could go below.

As for excited iron emission lines, they don't come from any kind of surface but from high in the corona where the temperatures are the hottest, as you can see by looking at the limb in pictures like this one:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040925.html

Remember that those "solid features" we are looking at in your original post are some thousands of kilometers long. Long lived features in gas or other fluids is quite possible as you pointed out.

Cheers -

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

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

If charge affects mass in large amounts (Planets/High high Charge) then the solution is obvious.

But since measurements of inert balls and charged balls is a challenge, or has never been done, I don't think we are going to get answers soon.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

I think the idea of the sun mostly being a Ferrite/Iron Ball which has spawned the metal cores of most planets in the system. Silicates would likely be lifted and removed a long long time ago.

Well, silicates make up a lot of a planets crust. I would expect it would make up part of the solar crust a well. The surface is not likely to be where *all* the iron is concentrated. If there is a neutron core inside that shell, the shell of the neutron core likely contains a great deal of the iron and nickel that makeup the sun. It could be (I think it's likely) that the crust is more the density of something like Olivine, and not necessarily mostly iron, particularly not in every single location.

Given the extensive EDM of the sun, the "landforms" could actually be eroded or move. (Very very slowly, visually)

I see some evidence of surface erosion, volcanic activity, and crust fracture activity as well.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Mikael_Joe"

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum.
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Tzunamii"

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum.
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

Old habits are hard to break

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "saul"

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum.
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

Has to be at least as old as the Earth, right?

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Mo"

Even with a small spinning core, the overall density of the materials in between the core and the crust would still be slightly heavier than water (on average). IMO that would require some sort of external/internal EM effect as was the case with that water shell analogy. If there is a spinning neutron core inside the shell, then it's "crust" is mostly likely made up of iron and nickel ions that have been stripped of their electrons, and it's most likely to be positively charged. That may repulse any positively charged plasma and "push" it away from the core.
M M


Why not a current going through the centre of the Sun ? And
we could get a pinch in the centre. This could push stuff away
from the centre leaving a hollow Sun and a shell of planet-
forming material at the surface. Other spheres formed
electrically show evidence of current going through the sphere,
so why not the planets and stars.

The 22 year cycle looks likely to be due to the double layers of
Saturn and Jupiter increasing the current to the Sun, when
they line up every 22 years.

Mo

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:04 am Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Tzunamii"

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum.
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

Has to be at least as old as the Earth, right?

Theres no evidence the Earth is billions of years old either.
Billions of years is an assumption needed for Mainstream cosmology to be viable.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "biknewb"

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum.
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

Has to be at least as old as the Earth, right?

Theres no evidence the Earth is billions of years old either.
Billions of years is an assumption needed for Mainstream cosmology to be viable.

There is this model of a Saturnian system where the Sun could even be younger than the Earth.