This post is mostly replies to comments and quotes, sorry.
The thread is still a complete model of the Sun, has anyone whose posted on here shared their ideas of what is on the INSIDE of the Sun? The Surface of the Sun.com website link was the only one I think I've seen on this thread. Am I right? I'll come up with a reasonable explanation of my theory, once I've worked it together in comparing and contrasting with other existent models, like the Thornhill Model.
“Keep in mind that the mainstream model 'assumes' that the photosphere is 'opaque' and that's a silly argument to begin with in a plasma separated environment where double layers and overall conductivity play a role in the process.” -MM
I would whole-heartedly agree on the opaqueness of plasma being a much less than reasonable assumption since laboratory tests would agree with that concept. As far as I understand, plasma just “outshines” the fainter emissions beneath it, right? Kind of like, but not exactly, how we can’t see starlight during the daytime due to the ionization of Oxygen in our upper atmosphere. It’s not opaque, just interference, I’m to understand.
Could the chromospheres (or the densest layer above the proposed surface) create sufficient resonance to change the frequency of emissions that our satellites and other sensory equipment pick up? The thought maybe not so much about opaqueness and temperature, but rather be about misrepresentation of composition or quantum state (like how ionized an element is or the particle “content” of the layer underneath the chromospheres) due to a resonance effect like what is found on planets with sufficient atmosphere or reflective cavities.
“In terms of iron ion wavelengths, in particular the 94A, 131A, 171A, 193A, 211A, 335A, the most important aspect is temperature IMO, and the knowledge that these wavelengths are primarily tuned to specific iron ion emissions, and they are marginally sensitive to a few other elements. Those specific wavelengths are particularly sensitive to iron ion emissions that tend to require temperatures ranging in the hundred(s) of thousands of degrees (minimum of 160,00K) to well over 10 million degrees to even be observed in the raw images. Fusion certainly becomes a viable physical option at the higher temperature ranges that we can observe, and in fact Rhessi has provided spectral confirmation of that process in coronal loop discharge events.”-MM
I’m sorry. I think I got lost. What do you mean by IMO? I understand some of the basics of mass spectroscopy/chromatography, but I’m not use to that acronym. Are you, from the quote above, suggesting the iron ion wavelengths are from the hypothesized surface of the Sun or from the discharges? Because the following quote makes more sense but seems to be in conflict with that.
“The outside layers of the solar atmosphere are progressively hotter than the inner layers even in the mainstream model. The corona is thought to be millions of degrees Kelvin, whereas the plasma layer underneath of it (the chromosphere) is measured in the 20,000 Kelvin range. The double layer that sits under the chromosphere, the photosphere, is measured in the 6,000 Kelvin range. Sunspots regularly show plasma that is measured to be 1500K less than than the surface of the photosphere. I suspect that density, conductivity, and raw kinetic energy all play a role in the heating processes in the double layers of the solar atmosphere. I'm sure that the surface of the electrode is cooler than the surrounding electrically conductive plasma.” –MM
I’m more confused by context than anything, not at all suggesting an error on your part. Can you help me understand what you were saying from the iron ion wavelength quote?
With the temperature factor and the double layers, could it be both a resonance effect and like a large stellar “nesting doll”, multiple layers, each trapping ions in extremely powerful magnetic envelopes that act as a anodes in a transformer-like array? This could be effected by a more rotor-like layer that has a stator-like core (a generator-like core, a transformer or capacitor outside) that is directly linked into the cosmic circuit. Thus, the magnetic field forces from the inner layers could make the appearance of solid formations in the outer layers, whether their liquid, plasmatic or dissolved matter in a superfluid (albeit very exotic superfluid).
“Actually, it turns out that the *mainstream* has a problem with the roundness of the sun, whereas *non plasma* models are quite consistent with the sun's roundness.” –MM
The roundness could be accounted for by the power of the Sun’s electromagnetic intensity counteracting whatever centripetal forces that would otherwise oblique a solid body with far less magnetic field strength, right? Again, if we had multiple layers, perhaps even some counter rotating, that had high electromagnetic strength, that seems like it could be the difference between a star and a planet.
“There is a massive increase in density as we go down inside the chromosphere from 10-17 to 10-6(that's 10 to the minus 6 gm/cc) so the dencity at the photosphere is still lower than my vacum pump can get! and at the top of the chromasphere the dencity is a trillion times less!!! temperature is ineffectual at these extreme low pressures, so it shouldn't concern us , it only confuses things to talk of these higher temperatures further out.
The real measured temperature of the sun is 5800K and the laws of physics demand this is also (at least) the internal temperature ...IMHO!” –oz39666
Do you know a site where the hypothesized pressure data of the layers of the Sun are shown? I would like to read that. Aren’t a lot of astrophysical presentations of temperatures merely based on emissions mostly and, every so often, based also on black body formulas? Couldn’t it be that Michael is referring to temperature from the standpoint of emissions from a plasma, rather than a black body?
If you were referring to temperature differential and, if I understood you right, that you were saying that the “surface” couldn’t be cooler than the chromospheres/photosphere due to physics demanding it, perhaps only from one area of physics would demand such. Yet, something in the realm of the physics that the SAFIR project is working with could elucidate the way that works better.
The few details that the SAFIR team did say about their observations from SAFIR 2 (maybe even SAFIR 1, I don’t recall) was that the anode was cooler on the surface than on the interior or surrounding atmosphere. This was an observation they compared to the sunspots and their revealed area. Would that be comparable to your situation?
“Well, I wouldn't personally expect *all* the iron to be visible in satellite imagery, nor concentrated near the surface if that's what you're eluding to. The spectral data however demonstrates the presence of a lot of Iron and Nickel at various high energy ionization states, and the SDO images isolate these emissions to coronal loop activity all along the surface of the electrode.” –MM
No, I wasn’t suggesting that the iron of sufficient mass comparable to a majority of a Solar Mass would be visible or possibly visible IN the Sun. I merely stated that, as far as I’ve read or heard, there has not been a single mass that has had a strong minority, much less majority, of solid iron (no matter the state) that has been observed, putting aside the interpretations of neutron star (and such) observations. This was under the misunderstanding that you were saying that you hypothesized that the Sun is mostly comprised on iron and had a lot of solid iron in it.
I make no contest to the observed presence of Iron and Nickel in various, even high energy ionization, states. Also, for a coronal loop, and other electromagnetic phenomenon observed from the Sun, there has to be a circuit, and, thus, something acting as an electrode in appropriate circumstance.
“Based on running difference imaging techniques, SOHO has demonstrated that the the sun has a solid, electrically conductive, ferrite surface, just below the observable photosphere which rotates uniformly every 27.3 days. The uniformity of this movement is unlike anything we find in the photosphere. It's rigid. It moves UNIFORMLY from equator to pole. It is being dynamically reshaped and eroded by continual electrical arcing between magnetically polarized points along the surface.” –Surface of the Sun Website
“It’s the “solid, electrically conductive ferrite surface” part that I find hard to accept. Is it possible that, despite a rapid drop in electrical conductivity and loss of ferromagnetic abilities, that iron (if it is truly still called ferrite at the temperatures suggested) could be a useful component of magnetic activities?
The melting point of ferrite iron is 1812 K (1539 C) and from previous discussion in the forum, observations are either: the surface is at least 4,000, if not 5,000 K, OR temperature measurements of the area thought to be the surface (somewhere in the “Standard Model” as the Convection Zone) are not accurate and have yet to account for a fundamental factor or element. Most experiments with iron, even at extreme pressures and temperatures would not readily support solid Iron at those temperatures, much less properly conductive (since, as a solid, iron looses conductivity as it approaches melting point).
The website, as far as I looked, did not give the data source or reference for solid, electrically conductive ferrite at temperatures above 2000 K. If there is, please, let me know.
With any eroding and arching surface of solid iron, there must also be a way for the surface to be cooled and infrared radiation to escape faster than being produced by the upper layers (chromosphere and photosphere). If there is a factor that makes it that the infrared radiation, and other emissions factored as black body radiation, observed to be misleading to the real temperature of the hypothesized surface layer, that could save the appearances.
“The term "hollow" is a misnomer. I do not believe that the sun is hollow, rather I believe it's filled with various plasmas at different ionization states, temperatures and densities. The surface features we see in iron ion images are "more rigid" than the surface features we observe in the photosphere which come and go in about 10-12 minute intervals.” –MM
I think we’re considering the same thing with different wordings, then, at least, on the plasma and other possibly filling it. It was the wording that I was getting caught up in that seemed like some of us were thinking of a hollow iron shell that was the surface and far less dense components were found inside.
I hope to bring more constructive thoughts to the table next time, perhaps even a few ideas of my own. Apologies if this seemed hypercritical of lesser details.
