Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[phunk]

What I want to know: Have any of these so called solid surface features been seen in images taken at different times? If they're solid, they should persist, right?

 

[GeeMack]

What I want to know: Have any of these so called solid surface features been seen in images taken at different times? If they're solid, they should persist, right?

Well by "solid" Michael doesn't really mean solid the way most sane intelligent English speaking people use the term. It's more like a rigid yet amorphous, static yet changing, stable yet inconsistent, always the same until it becomes different, homogeneous yet mass separated right down to the isotope, persistent yet fleeting sort of solid.

​

 

[Tim Thompson]

Layering & Convection in the Solar Atmosphere

Actually, GeeMack is quite correct, and you are way wrong. Helioseismology is extremely supportive of the standard model.

You mean *EXCEPT FOR* that "subsurface stratification" where your gas model "predicted" an open and flowing convection zone?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510111

There is nothing at all in the paper you cite which supports your erroneous interpretation. This paper is fully consistent in all respects with open flowing convection.

You posted the very same paper in a thread on the BAUT forum back in 2005: Heliosiesmology findings find stratification of transition layer at .995R. In that thread you said: "Dr. Manuel's ideas about 'mass separation' and heliosiesmology findings of stratification sure lend strong scientific support to the idea that the transitional regions is located under, not above the photosphere IMO.". In that thread, user Duane responded with this:

I do not see where there is any support for Dr Manuel's mass separation studies here though. The researchers are only using limited frequency f-mode seismic data to allow them to see a very thin slice of the solar radius to try and measure the antiphase rise of the top of the photosphere at solar max versus the apparent in-phase rise at the transition zone between the photosphere and the convective zone.

This is an interesting paper, in that solar research up to now has assumed that the phase/antiphase oscillations in the upper photosphere were constant with depth. These new f-mode studies suggest that is not the case.

At the leptocline, the oscilations were found to be in phase with the solar cycle, suggesting that there is some type of inversion occurring between the leptocline and the top of the photosphere. As this is a very small zone (~0.03Rs) the researchers think that using even higher frequency f-mode studies may identify a previously unseen layer between the top of the photosphere and the leptocline.
​

As given here, "leptocline" refers to a boundary layer that separates the top of the convective zone of the stellar interior from the base of the photosphere, in the same sense as the "tachocline" is the boundary layer between the top of the radiative zone and the bottom of the convective zone. The tachocline has been understood for a long time, but the leptocline is a relatively new discovery. There is nothing about this kind of layering that inhibits convection. Indeed, this kind of layering is as one would expect from the usual model for the solar interior.

See, you have been making these claims for 5 years, and they are no more valid now than they were then.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Newtonian Gravity & G.R.

As for MOND, the primary reason you see lots of papers about MOND is because a lot of people just don't like the idea of dark matter. The issue at hand for them is gravity in the extremely weak field limit and whether or not Newtonian gravity is the correct weak field limit of general relativity.

That's not quite right. There is no question about whether Newtonian gravity is the weak-field limit of GR - it is.

Indeed so, I said that all wrong. I meant to say something more like ... "whether or not Newtonian gravity is the correct weak field limit of gravity". The point of studies like the one I cited is that they find no evidence in cosmological data that there is any deviation from general relativity, meaning no deviation from Newtonian gravity, as the weak field limit of physical gravity. This favors the dark matter hypothesis over the modified gravity hypothesis.

But of course this has nothing to do with brantc's desire to modify gravity in the moderate to strong field regime, where the position of general relativity and Newtonian gravity are well established.

 

[dasmiller]

Interesting question.

As for where to begin, I suggest you figure out the minimum thickness a sphere of iron would have to be, dependant on diameter. At some point, I imagine you'll either wind up with a solid sphere, or a limit, but it's just a guess. I'd have to look into the equations to be certain.

I probably won't get around to it though.

But it shouldn't be hard. If you can find the right equations...

And the right equations aren't that hard. I just looked at the single case with a hollow iron sphere with the sun's diameter and a 94,000 thick shell.


Plugging in some routine values, the compressive load on the shell is ~38,000 times the compressive yield strength for a decent steel at room temperature. Now, there are some improvements possible; if it was a huge single crystal, you might be able to triple the compressive strength. And if the temperature is above the Austenite conversion temp, you'll pick up a little more. So maybe the an idealized shell would have 0.0001 (0.01%) of the needed compressive strength.

For comparison, it's roughly equivalent to stacking up 10 cars and then supporting the stack with a toothpick.

Of course, if it's above iron's melting point (which seems to be thermodynamically necessary), the compressive yield strength drops dramatically.

I didn't check my math, so don't take this too seriously.

ETA: BTW -I'm having a little trouble picturing the failure mode, which is always an interesting question in this sort of problem.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Neutron Capture Gamma Rays

Not to mention visible gamma rays from the discharge process, and fusion processes as well.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002750/

Hogwash. Once again you just invent fake facts out of thin nothing. We have discussed this before, and you are being just as obstinately stupid now as you were then. The 2.223 Mev line observed by RHESSI is a well known signature of neutron capture and has nothing at all to do with discharge processes, which do not generate line emission, aside from the obvious fact the neutral neutrons do not take part in electrical discharge events. Likewise, the neutron capture has nothing at all to do with solar powering nuclear fusion events, which involve charged particles (e.g., the proton-proton & CNO cycles), require far higher energies to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and generate neutrinos with energies specific to the particular reaction. To the best of my knowledge, neutron capture reactions do not generate any neutrinos at all, so there is no way these gamma rays can have anything to do with the falsely claimed lack of fusion power in the sun.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, I can imagine an iron shell which was too big to be stable might crush itself; the iron flowing rather like squashed clay.

Let's go through the calculation. I'll consider a small square patch of this surface, of sides LxL and depth z. The volume is L²z, and the mass is pL²z where p is the density. The weight of the shell is a bit tricker. At the outer surface, the gravity is g, but it's zero at the inner surface, and it varies linearly between the two. So the average gravity will be half the surface gravity, so the weight will be gpL²z/2.

OK, what keeps this patch of surface from falling inwards? Lateral pressure from the sides. Symmetry requires that this pressure is purely lateral. It creates a net outward force because the sides aren't parallel. How off-angle are they? Well, for a small patch, the angle theta between opposite sides will be given by sin(theta) = L/R. Since this is a very small angle, we can use the approximation sin(theta) = theta = L/R. OK, so if we have a force of F on each side, they don't point antiparallel to each other, but at a slight angle. The components which don't cancel will be F*sin(theta) = F*L/R. So the net outward force on our patch will be 4F*L/R. This must equal the weight of the patch, so
4F*L/R = gpL²z/2
F = gpLzR/8
But it isn't the force itself which limits us, but the pressure. And the pressure is P = F/A = F/Lz. That gives us
P = gpR/8

Now let's plug in some numbers:
g = 274.0 m/s²p = 7.874 g/cm³ = 7874 kg/m³R = 6.96x10⁸ m

P = 1.87x10¹⁴ Pascals = 1.87x10⁵ GPa
Which is about 10,000 times the pressure needed to form diamond. Iron, and basically any other material, will indeed flow under that kind of non-isotropic pressure.

 

[brantc]

Nominated.

Thanks. Now I know somebody loves me.

 

[brantc]

What you cannot do is understand what you read.
Helioseismology

(emphasis added)
The web page is very careful to state that the Sun acts as a resonant cavity. In other words it can be modelled as if is was a a resonant cavity.

This is a symptom that we often see from cranks. Their ignorance leads them to think that a model is the thing itself. So you are just deluding yourself that using a resonant cavity model means that teh Sun is an actual resonant cavity as in electronic devices.

I also see that you are imitating Micheal Mozina's delusion about running difference images being actual picures.
I thought that you were smarter but obviously I was wrong

Ok mr cranky crank. I included that part about "acts like", didnt I????

"Acts like" means that "Our model doesnt fit so we have to say acts like so it makes our model seems less wrong." A resonant cavity is a resonant cavity.

Didnt you read the part where they have to try different models until one fits??? That means they made NO predictions.
They are making it up as they go along. I can use the same tactic if necessary.....

We will get to the running difference images.

 

[brantc]

Right. So you're not into REAL science. Got that.
Right. You don't do REAL science. Got that.
Aye, it's much easier when you can just SAY that your BS idiocy already fits, instead of actually doing the actual work.

If making something up and tuning it to match observations is real science, then have at it.

I prefer science that makes predictions.

I am doing to work. It starts by hashing out your hypothesis and seeing what observations that it matches with the LOWEST number of adjustable parameters.

What laboratory experiments and principles match your observations?

You cant say that there is anything in your model except solar flare experiments and the "neutrino" observations for lab experiments.

I have provided laboratory observations(thermionic emission from metal cathode) that explains everything on the solar surface.

The flares, the iron, the photosphere, why the corona is hotter, the structure of the sun, the reason for acoustic observations. All lab observations. All first principles.

All you guy have done is show me your model and said "Your wrong" when your model does no better(actually worse) then what I have offered.

Only because you think that gravity is right. And fusion is in the center of the sun.

Here is a talk that will show the state of "physics" and why it is permissible from me to speculate a new model of gravity.

Physics in Trouble: Why the Public Should Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_a2PqKq38&playnext_from=TL&videos=Iz8I6u6bD5g

 

[brantc]

Proving once again that you have absolutely NO understanding of the subject.

Pure fantasy.



The term "resonant cavity" in this usage doesn't mean the sun *has* a cavity within it, just the modes of oscillation follow similar principles.
Did you not catch the line:
"Acoustic waves become trapped in a region bounded on top by a large density drop near the surface, and bounded on the bottom by an increase in sound speed that refracts a downward propagating wave back toward the surface." ?
This is similar to the way acoustic waves can become channeled between layers of different acoustic refractive index in the body of the Earth, or between different water (temperature and salinity) layers in the ocean, or how fiber optics keep light waves confined with variable refractive indices of the material.


But see, you DON'T know NEARLY as much as you imagine you do; you need to go back and cover all the basics before you will have any idea how far wrong you are.



Which, sadly for you, only emphasizes how pitifully out of your depth you have wandered.


Cheers,

Dave

I read the article.

 

[brantc]

Iron's quite ductile, isn't it? I was just wondering how large a hollow iron sphere could be before it ceased to be rigid enough and collapsed under its own gravity. Don't really know where to begin, though.

Depends on the model of gravity you use.

 

[Reality Check]

If making something up and tuning it to match observations is real science, then have at it.

I prefer science that makes predictions.

Making something up and tuning it to observations is real science.
Making predictions is real science.
This is what the current model of the Sun does.

Your idea is made up and does not match observations, e.g.

• the fact that the Sun is at a temperature of ~5777K at the photosphere and increases in temperature to ~9400 K further in.
• the fact that Helioseismology shows no solid surface (iron or otherwise).

Your idea is made up and does not make any predictions.
Your idea is not science of any kind. It is the delusion of a crank.

 

[brantc]

I have a question about that image. It appears to show a solid surface with ridges and other terrain elevation features. These features can be seen in the image because they have distinct highlights and shadows that make them appear to be strongly and directionally illuminated, from a source located to the upper right of the area (since the highlights face that direction and the shadows are opposite) and from an elevation considerably above the plane of the surface (because the shadows are short).

My question for the iron sun proponents is, what's the source of that directional illumination?

If we're going to interpret the image based on what it looks like, it sure looks like there's a directionally localized light source brighter than the sun's surface shining on the sun's surface. What and where is that light source?

Respectfully,
Myriad

The source of the illumination is the discharges at the base of the loop(footprints) as well as the loops it self. Same as arc welding or a arc lamp!!! This takes place with the light from ionized iron(77,000 to 1.5 million K).

The light source in the images is the loop itself as well as the footprints at the end of the loop arc.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for brantc

1. Why is your solid iron surface emitting IR or EUV light that is typical of plasma?
   First asked 31 March 2010
2. What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum temperature of 5777 K?
   First asked 29 March 2010
   No actual answer that I can see.
3. What density measurments does the hollow iron shell account for?
   First asked 2 April 2010
4. What is your "slightly different model of gravity"?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   So far it is any model that he want so long as it "supports" his thermodynamically impossible iron shell .
5. How thick is your thick hollow shell made of iron?
   First asked 2 April 2010
   First answer : 93 986.4865 kilometer thick shell but the Sun is all iron and a vaccuum inside the shell !
6. Cite the detection of your 93,986.4865 kilometer thick iron shell in helioseismology?
   First asked 6 April 2010

 

[Tim Thompson]

Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible II

My model is a fully iron shell or solid.

Do you mean by this that the sun could be either a hollow region surrounded by a rigid shell of solid iron or fully solid sphere of iron?

The melting point of iron is 1811 Kelvins, and its boiling point is 3134 Kelvins. The effective temperature of the photosphere of the sun is 5777 Kelvins, which significantly exceeds both of those temperatures. Exposed to a temperature that high the iron will not "thermalize" anything, certainly not by any physics that works in this universe. It will melt & boil & vaporize, and it will do so fairly quickly.

In sunspots the lowest temp measured was 3180K Sunspots are holes in the photosphere.

Sunspots are not "holes" in the photosphere. They are more analogous to "bubbles" of enclosed in a magnetic field than they are to "holes". Furthermore, helioseismology reveals the 3D structure of sunspots (e.g., Duvall, et al., 1996; Zhao, Kosovichev & Duvall, 2001; Gizon, et al., 2009 and citations thereto).

From Scientific American ...

The page you quoted talks about heat flowing back from the corona to the photosphere, which is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Coronal maximum particle densities range from about 10⁹ e^-/cm³ at the base (1.003 solar radii) to about 10^3.2 e^-/cm³ at 20 solar radii. But at optical depth of 1.0 the particle density of the photosphere is about 7.7x10¹³ e^-/cm³, 1.2x10¹⁷ H/cm³, a total mass density about 4 gm/cm³ for the photosphere, compared to about 10^-20 gm/cm³ for the corona. So the actual energy density of the photosphere is many orders of magnitude greater than that of the corona, even if the temperature of the corona is orders of magnitude grater than the temperature of the photosphere.

But the situation for sunspots is much different. The density of material inside a sunspot is not significantly different from the density outside the sunspot. But the sunspot remains relatively cool because the surrounding magnetic field inhibits convective energy transport into the sunspot. But this magnetic field does not interfere with radiative heat transport at all. That's why sunspots can't get cooler than about 3200 Kelvins. And note that your 3180 K is still 46 K in excess of the boiling point of iron, so this does not help your cause if your cause is a solid & rigid shell.

Only a small amount of energy (light) comes from the photosphere since its a thin plasma I would expect it to have lines.

By no wild stretch of the imagination is the photosphere a "thin" plasma. It is an optically thick plasma and we can clearly see that it emits easily recognized, Planck Law, blackbody radiation, with absorption lines superimposed on it. Only the very thin regions (chromosphere, corona & etc) exhibit line emission. If your solid & rigid iron shell is below the photosphere, then it will be directly impacted by bolometric thermal emission from the overlying photosphere. And remember my earlier post ...

Furthermore, one must remember that 5777 Kelvins is an effective temperature, a best fit blackbody to an actual thermal emission that is a superposition of blackbody emission curves that are generated at different depths in the photosphere. ... The temperature at the lowest level we can determine is 9400 Kelvins. We don't see much of that on Earth, because of the opacity of the overlying layers. But your iron surface is pretty much hugging the 9400 Kelvin base of the photosphere.

So there is no getting around the key point: Your solid & rigid iron shell is staring at least 9400 Kelvins (probably more) right in the face. Under these circumstances, physics as we know it to be makes both "solid & rigid" physical impossibilities.

All I have to go on is helioseismology.

... which shows that there is nothing like a solid surface on the Sun.

How could the sun be a resonant cavity with harmonics unless it was???? Not a decreasing density ball of plasma.

You seem to be under the impression that only objects with rigid boundaries can resonate. That is quite wrong. Anything that exists can resonate. It is easy for the sun, with, no rigid surface at all, to act as a resonator. I have already referenced the appropriate sources of knowledge ...

Actually, GeeMack is quite correct, and you are way wrong. Helioseismology is extremely supportive of the standard model. This is extensively documented in the literature; e.g., Helioseismology, Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Reviews of Modern Physics 74(4): 1073-1129, November 2002; The Internal Rotation of the Sun, M.J. Thompson, et al., (not me & no relation that I know of), Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41: 599-643 (2003), and the many citations to both. More recently, see M.J. Thompson, 2010; Gizon, Birch & Spriut, 2010; Solar Interior Rotation and its Variation, Rachel Howe, Living Reviews in Solar Physics 6(1), February 2009 (free access online); Zhao, et al., 2009; Chaplin & Basu, 2008; Christensen-Dalsgaard, 2007; Gough, 2006 & etc. Finally, see the book Stellar Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, edited by M.J. Thompson & Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Cambridge University Press 2003.

The idea that a bounded sphere is implied by helioseismological data is unacceptable, and very much contradicted by the weight of scientific study of the topic.

The kind of boundary you are thinking of is not at all required by helioseismology, so there is no positive reason to assume such a boundary exists. Furthermore, other areas of physics, such as thermodynamics, argue very convincingly that such a rigid boundary cannot exist. Remember, one cannot pick & choose the bits & pieces of physics we like and then discard & ignore the rest. Physics is an all or nothing affair. If helioseismology says yes, but thermodynamics says no, then clearly our interpretation of one or the other must be wrong. I choose my (correct) interpretation of thermodynamics over your (erroneous) interpretation of helioseismology every time.

 

[Reality Check]

Prediction of the solar neutrino flux from "aether based" reactions

A question from Tim Thompson that will go on the list

Nuclear fusion reactions generate both neutrinos and gamma rays. However, from the sun we see only neutrinos, but none of the gamma rays. If, as you say, "neutrino emission is from fusion activity on the surface of the sun", then the obvious question is ... Where are all the gamma rays that we should see but don't see?

was answered by

That actually ties into the question about the Aether. Its not that neutrinos are from the fusion activity, its that they are from reactions that are aether based. In other words the reaction that emits a neutrino(that unit of energy) is actually an aether reaction that emits a particle that we term a neutrino. This particle also occurs in other aether transactions that we term nuclear reactions, in which a neutrino is emitted. They dont have to be fusion events to produce neutrinos although they are both the result of the same mechanism, the pinch(reconnection).
...some more gibberish...

In other words brantc is making up a fantasy to support his delustion of an Iron sun with Aether batteries.

But I could be wrong .

First asked 7 April 2010
brantc,
Please show the equations of your "aether based" reactions and how they predict the neutrino flux from the Sun.

 

[Reality Check]

Please list the empirical controlled experiments for "aether based" reactions

Further to the last question,
First asked 7 April 2010
brantc,
Please list the empirical controlled experiments (using MM-speak which you seem to talk) in labs here on Earth that demonstrate your "aether based" reactions, e.g. large scale neutrino fluxes appearing out of nowhere from iron shells.

 

[Ziggurat]

All you guy have done is show me your model and said "Your wrong" when your model does no better(actually worse) then what I have offered.

Only because you think that gravity is right.

I wonder why we might think that. Could it be the massive body of experimental confirmation? Nah, couldn't be.

And fusion is in the center of the sun.

Hmm... which option should I choose... a mechanism which we know provides massive amounts of energy, which can indeed power the sun for billions of years, and which produces secondary signatures like neutrinos... or the mechanism that some random internet poster made up out of combining phrases in a manner that has no apparent meaning, and which this random poster can't actually explain or quantify?

Here is a talk that will show the state of "physics" and why it is permissible from me to speculate a new model of gravity.

You can speculate all you want to, but your citation of this talk in the current context reveals (yet again) your profound ignorance of physics. Yes, theorists are looking for new models of gravity. But those new theories aren't needed to describe the gravitational field of the sun. In fact, if any new theories of gravity do emerge, they MUST agree with current theories in the low-field regime (which the sun is), because current theories are well tested in these regimes. That isn't where any difference will, or even can, emerge. So the idea that you can make the sun behave fundamentally differently by introducing a new theory of gravity is a delusion, a delusion brought about by both ignorance and arrogance.

Oh, and gravity has nothing to do with the thermodynamic impossibility of keeping the inside of the sun colder than the photosphere.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Plugging in some routine values, the compressive load on the shell is ~38,000 times the compressive yield strength for a decent steel at room temperature. Now, there are some improvements possible; if it was a huge single crystal, you might be able to triple the compressive strength. And if the temperature is above the Austenite conversion temp, you'll pick up a little more. So maybe the an idealized shell would have 0.0001 (0.01%) of the needed compressive strength.

...it isn't the force itself which limits us, but the pressure. And the pressure is P = F/A = F/Lz. That gives us
P = gpR/8

Now let's plug in some numbers:
g = 274.0 m/s²p = 7.874 g/cm³ = 7874 kg/m³R = 6.96x10⁸ m

P = 1.87x10¹⁴ Pascals = 1.87x10⁵ GPa
Which is about 10,000 times the pressure needed to form diamond. Iron, and basically any other material, will indeed flow under that kind of non-isotropic pressure.

Thanks dasmiller. Thanks Ziggurat. I love this forum.