Recovered: Iron Sun Theories

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Michael 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.

Because they are the lightest elements, the hydrogen and helium layers form the outermost atmospheric layers of the sun where the temperature is the greatest. Because the corona (the whole atmosphere) is electrically active, the temperatures inside the light coronal plasmas can rise to millions of degrees. This extreme heat in the outermost layers caused by coronal loop activity produces a great deal of photon release from the hydrogen and helium layers in particular. That high number of photon emissions that are associated with hydrogen emissions, and the abundance of light elements in solar ejecta, have caused astronomers to "assume" that hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in our universe. That is definitely not the case IMO.

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com

I would begin this discussion by citing two specific satellite images that you can find on my website. The first image is a "running difference" image from the TRACE satellite program.

(click to view larger image)
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi

The "rigid" nature of the "structures" that can be observed in running difference images at 171A and 195A are what convinced me that there was a serious problem with conventional solar theory. Unlike the shifting patterns we see in RD images of plasma layers, these iron ion images of the sun show a remarkable sense of "rigidness". During many online discussions at various astronomy oriented websites, not one mainstream astronomer has ever seriously attempted to explain this image (any RD image) or the image below in terms of standard solar theory.

The second image is a Doppler image of Nickel ions from the SOHO program put together by Dr. Alexander Kosovichev from Stanford.

(click to view larger image)
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/tsunami.htm

I circled one of the "rigid structures" that can be observed in these Doppler images of the solar atmosphere. Note that there is a "tsunami" passing through the photosphere in this image. The wave passes right over the "structures" we observe, suggesting that whatever it is, it exists *under* the photosphere. FYI, even Dr. Kosovichev could not adequately explain the rigid features seen in these Doppler images. As a side note, although Dr. Kosovichev disagreed with my assessment of his image, he did go out of his way to mention my website to his contacts at LMSAL. For the first 3 months my website was up and running, the three LMSAL servers that were generating traffic on my website made up over 30% of my traffic for these months.

Another interesting development took place a few months after Dr. Manual and I published our first paper together. Dr. Kosovichev released a new paper demonstrating that the sun has a "stratification subsurface" sitting at about .995R, right in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory.

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

It was actually the 17 gigabytes of SOHO RD images in SOHO's archives that caused my "epiphany" about EU solar theories, and iron sun theories. These other two images were images that I went looking for once I realized that the the x-rays associated with coronal loops were due to electrical discharges that were traversing the solar atmosphere.

Another interesting development along the way from my perspective was my introduction to the work of Kristian Birkeland.

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

Over 100 years ago, Birkeland realized that he could create many of the solar features that had been observed in terms of electrical discharges from a metal sphere. In essence, Birkeland figured out exactly how a sun worked over 100 years ago and even *experimented* with his ideas to verify that they worked. IMO he was *way* ahead of his time. Birkeland was the real "inventor" of the first "metal sun" concept. He even took images of his early terella experiments that very clearly mirror what we observe is satellite images today.

(click to view larger image)

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

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


(SNIP)

Over 100 years ago, Birkeland realized that he could create many of the solar features that had been observed in terms of electrical discharges from a metal sphere. In essence, Birkeland figured out exactly how a sun worked over 100 years ago and even *experimented* with his ideas to verify that they worked. IMO he was *way* ahead of his time. Birkeland was the real "inventor" of the first "metal sun" concept. He even took images of his early terella experiments that very clearly mirror what we observe is satellite images today.

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
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

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

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Solar"

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.

While viewing the running difference image from the TRACE satellite program, which I had saved to my HD, I noticed something that seemed to support the idea of the sun having a solid metallic surface and wondered if you'd comment on it. My curiosity stems from the two areas indicated with arrows; especially the upper one.

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.

(click to view larger image)

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.

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.

(click to view larger image)

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

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

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.
_________________
Smile and live another day

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Saul"

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? Anything longer than one hour? I am doubting they have been observed over any significant fraction of a solar rotation.

Forgive the obvious question, but how do you explain the observed density of the sun at less than a quarter that of iron? All estimates of photosphere temperature are well above the boiling point of iron, do you expect these features to be made of gaseous iron?

Thanks -

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Mikael_Joe"

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.

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

Very interesting, i definatley see it. Especially the etchings are clear and very cool to look at which brings me to think that the peaks of the hills or mountains are lit up by what could be the suns equivalent of st. elmo's fire.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Mikael_Joe"

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.

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com

I just finished reading the PDF for the a more general audience. I can highly recommend it as a layperson. It is very understandable and easy to grasp what is being presented.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "iantresman"

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?
_________________
Ian Tresman
http://www.plasma-universe.com

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: Running Difference Reply with quote
OP "Steve Smith"

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

Last edited by Steve Smith on Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Running Difference Reply with quote
OP "iantresman"

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.

Are you suggesting that the images from the TRACE Website are merely mathematically models derived from an equation and a computer simulation, and not from data derived directly from the Sun?
_________________
Ian Tresman
http://www.plasma-universe.com

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: Reality vs. Calculation Reply with quote
OP "Steve Smith"

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

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: Reality vs. Calculation Reply with quote
OP "iantresman"

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.

So more like a topographical map derived from, say, GPS height readings of the land, perhaps with all the contours lines replaced by an "artificial" surface? So basically not a visible image, of visible light, but data from the Sun converted, filtered and artificially coloured/textured so that we can view said data.
_________________
Ian Tresman
http://www.plasma-universe.com

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: Bias Reply with quote
OP "Steve Smith"

Yes, for the most part Ian.

If the GPS data were analyzed over the course of a year and then the changes in the terrain over that time were plotted in exaggerated height to bring them out, that would be more like the running difference plot of the sun.

One of the things I have to keep in mind when I look at pictures of Mars, for example, from THEMIS or HiRISE is that I am not looking at a picture of Mars. I am looking at either infrared or radar light being translated through computer algorithms in order to simulate a picture of the surface. Which is why they are all black and white.

Bear in mind that all the TRACE images are false color and highlighted by human bias.

Steve

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

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.

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...

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)...

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?

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

~Michael Gmirkin

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: Review the Thread Reply with quote
OP "Steve Smith"

I just told you what a running difference image is.