Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[sol invictus]

Are you going to answer my question, Michael?

What's the optical depth of everything from the outer edges of the sun's atmosphere down to this putative "solid surface", at whatever wavelengths you claim show the surface?

You should know the answer to that immediately, because it must have been among the very first things you checked when you formed this idea years ago. So what is it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Somebody on the internet disagree with me, and say so clearly"
What do you expect a lawyer to do with that?

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or my "interpretations" of data. Lots of folks do that. I do however have a serious problem with being called a "fraud" by a guy that probably doesn't even know what solar related FITS file looks like, does, or where to find one, let alone how to build running difference images or movies from them.

 

[GeeMack]

You don't care about the answers! You don't care about squat except being a first class internet stalker and personal attack troll.

So you're not going to answer the legitimate questions. Well you can't say I didn't predict that.

Case in point. I just produced "running difference" images using the exact same tools that the "pros" use, built from original FITS files, not prereleased video like you did, and did you even notice? Hell no. Did you even care? Hell no!

You don't understand what you made. And as long as you continue to claim qualifications that you clearly don't possess, no, I don't care how hard you worked at watching your download meter all weekend. I've offered you every opportunity to actually engage in some real scientific analysis, but you're refusing (all the while throwing another tantrum, I might add).

Ya right, another dog and pony show for Michael to do your bidding no doubt...... Up yours. I just toasted your butt in the RD imaging dept, including using the very RD process you cited in 2005 and the IDL language it's based on. I did so from original FITS files too, not some prereleased video.

And nothing about the 35 measly frames of video you made shows a solid surface or answers any of the outstanding questions people are asking you. And nothing about following the directions on the back of the box and shoving a script into a piece of software shows that you actually understand the images that you're working with and more importantly, the results. I can make a running difference video out of any video or series of images I have available. Which particular material I started with is irrelevant.

And after your heroic deed of watching that download meter ticking away for ever so long, you still haven't pointed out in your running difference video where the mountains and valleys are. You haven't described the method, objective and quantitative, that allows you to see solid three dimensional features below an opaque photosphere, and described that method in such a way that other people can apply it and come to the same conclusion you've reached. When can we expect that? Never?

The only problem I have is you, and my lawyer will be contacting you shortly. I had to choose how I spend last week carefully in terms of time, but I haven't forgotten your promise to give my layer your info.

I told you to have him prepare the outline of the paperwork as a PDF file and post it. Let me know when it's ready.

Kiss my you-know-what. I already "got my hands dirty". I spent *HOURS* (actually days) downloading files to "get down and dirty" with FITS files, and create original images from them. You never did anything of the sort.

Last time I downloaded files, even very large ones, I didn't get my hands dirty. I guess we're doing it differently.

Lets see you explain *ANYTHING* in the RD image in terms of solar physical processes now. You're no "expert" on anything as far as I can tell, not even an expert on working with the software you cite, or an expert at creating RD images from original FITS files *IN ANY SOFTWARE PROGRAM*.

I explained why each pixel is the shade that it is, something that you've refused to do. If we don't know what makes each pixel in the original images a certain shade, how can we even begin to understand what the running difference graph is showing us? It is, after all, a simple graphical representation of a series of mathematical calculations. That's all it is. Period.

Oh, and your throwing another tantrum rather than addressing any of the substantive concerns that everyone seems to want you to address is noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you're not going to answer the legitimate questions. Well you can't say I didn't predict that.

I have answered *TONS* of questions from anyone and everyone over the years. You aren't interested in listening to anything.

You don't understand what you made.

I know I made images from original FITS files, something you've *NEVER* done!

And as long as you continue to claim qualifications that you clearly don't possess, no, I don't care how hard you worked at watching your download meter all weekend.

So really, no matter what tools I use, no matter what images I produce for you, no matter what I say about anything, you simply intend to dog me around the internet slandering me, is that it?

I've offered you every opportunity to actually engage in some real scientific analysis, but you're refusing (all the while throwing another tantrum, I might add).

I don't throw temper tantrums or attack individuals like you. I simply pick my battles intelligently and I win most of them over time I might add.

And nothing about the 35 measly frames of video you made shows a solid surface or answers any of the outstanding questions people are asking you.

It does show which of us has the capability of producing RD images with the same tools that LMSAL uses and NASA uses, and who the real "pixel kiddie" around here is. Hell, I even used the IDL RD routine for you and everything. You invested what, 10 minutes of your time?

And nothing about following the directions on the back of the box and shoving a script into a piece of software shows that you actually understand the images that you're working with and more importantly, the results.

This coming the from the guy that says "Flying stuff? What flying stuff"? Please! You couldn't even isolate the light source in the original images until I told you. You have *NEVER* put together a "solar process" and single pixel or event of that image, NEVER.

I can make a running difference video out of any video or series of images I have available.

From the original FITS files too, or just a preexisting video you cut up into frames?

Which particular material I started with is irrelevant.

Only if you start with full resolution images. It can be done in almost any software program too which was my first clue you were clueless when you picked on a single product.

And after your heroic deed of watching that download meter ticking away for ever so long, you still haven't pointed out in your running difference video where the mountains and valleys are.

Why would I? There are much higher resolution TRACE images to work with, and that's the data I'm really interested in anyway. That's the real reason I went to all the trouble and cost of ordering the IDL language years ago and the point in firing up the SSW and SSWDB tools on my computer last week.

You haven't described the method, objective and quantitative, that allows you to see solid three dimensional features below an opaque photosphere, and described that method in such a way that other people can apply it and come to the same conclusion you've reached. When can we expect that? Never?

You've never demonstrated the photosphere is "opaque" in the first place. You "allege" it has magical SPF infinity sunscreen properties that no mostly hydrogen and/or helium plasma could ever have.

I told you to have him prepare the outline of the paperwork as a PDF file and post it. Let me know when it's ready.

I've had more pressing problems going on, but she'll let you know when it's ready.

I explained why each pixel is the shade that it is, something that you've refused to do.

All you have ever done is describe the PROCESS of creating RD images. Never once have you associated a single solar process with a single event or pixel in any from of that image. NEVER! You claimed originally that the persistence of the image was due to the process and that was my first clue that you didn't know what you were talking about. When I asked you to isolate the line in the RD routine from IDL you cited that was responsible for the rigidness, you ran like hell. You don't know *ANYTHING* about the effect of solar processes in RD images. NOTHING! The only thing that you know how to do is attack me personally and publicly. You'll pay dearly for that behavior eventually.

What you will *NEVER* do for us (my prediction) is put together the "solar processes" and their effects on the RD image. You refuse to do that. You have always refused to do that, and you will continue to refuse to do that. You're afraid.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Have you ever actually created a RD image from an original satellite image FITS file? Yes or no?

 

[Ziggurat]

I simply pick my battles intelligently and I win most of them over time I might add.

Translation: I run away from questions I can't answer, which is most of them. Then I can claim I didn't lose.

You aren't fooling anyone here, Michael. Well, maybe brantc, but... well, his understanding of physics might even be worse than yours. Hard to say for sure. Everybody else can see that you have never, ever backed up any of your claims with a single calculation. You have never, ever quantified a single parameter in your model. It's not even clear that you can perform simple arithmetic - I suspect so, but at this point I wouldn't even be surprised if you couldn't. Meanwhile, plenty of people (including me) have shown you why your ideas are simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with observations and basic physics. And we have done so quantitatively, not just with arm-waving.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Translation: I run away from questions I can't answer, which is most of them. Then I can claim I didn't lose.

Like you can answer every "mystery" in astronomy with your favorite models? Come on.

You guys can't even produce a single empirical experiment that shows "dark energy" causes a single atom to accelerate but you want me to believe 70% of the universe is made of the stuff, but it has no effect whatsoever inside the solar system. Please. You can't even "explain" solar wind something Birkeland actually "predicted" (real experimentation too) 100 years ago.

You aren't fooling anyone here, Michael. Well, maybe brantc, but... well, his understanding of physics might even be worse than yours.

That's all you folks seem to know how to do isn't it? You can't attack someone as being "evil" in your religion, so you just claim your detractors have a poor understanding of physics or math or both. I'm afraid your criticisms ring a wee hollow however when the primary detractors say "Flying stuff, what flying stuff, and "White light images? What white light images?

Hard to say for sure. Everybody else can see that you have never, ever backed up any of your claims with a single calculation.

That's not even true. DRD/Nereid however taught me that it was a complete waste of time in most cases to bark math for you on command. Lots of the images require "math galore" to even produce, but that seems to be irrelevant from your perspective unless I personally do it for you on command.

You have never, ever quantified a single parameter in your model.

Not true. It's mass is the same as the standard model.

It's not even clear that you can perform simple arithmetic - I suspect so, but at this point I wouldn't even be surprised if you couldn't.

That's sort of the need you folks have to "put down" anyone and everyone that disagrees with you. You have to really villianize them good and proper in your own way of course.

Meanwhile, plenty of people (including me) have shown you why your ideas are simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with observations and basic physics. And we have done so quantitatively, not just with arm-waving.

Oh boloney. You guys *OVERSIMPLY* everything, you hand wave around a few oversimplified mathematical claims based on your oversimplified strawman and try to claim the high ground. It's absurd because you refuse to actually deal with the materials presented.

You are in fact "arm waving" with math, and nothing more. Your same arguments fall apart the moment we even attempt to apply them to your own solar model or the photosphere would heat up to 20,000K or million degrees. Your math models can't even explain solar wind, but you want me to explain every single detail of this model or abandon it? How logical is that actually?

 

[GeeMack]

I have answered *TONS* of questions from anyone and everyone over the years. You aren't interested in listening to anything.

I'd be interested in seeing you describe your solid surfaced Sun myth in quantitative terms, you know, like real scientists do. I think we all would.

I know I made images from original FITS files, something you've *NEVER* done!

Why yes, Michael, I have.

So really, no matter what tools I use, no matter what images I produce for you, no matter what I say about anything, you simply intend to dog me around the internet slandering me, is that it?

Not even close. But when you are tootling around the Internet spouting your unsupportable fantasies about the Sun, if I'm in the vicinity, I'll be more than happy to point out the fact that you don't have the qualifications you claim to have and that you are apparently unable to describe your crackpot conjecture in quantitative terms, you know, like real scientists do.

I don't throw temper tantrums or attack individuals like you. I simply pick my battles intelligently and I win most of them over time I might add.

As for winning those battles, how many professional physicists have you gotten on board with that solid surfaced Sun myth of yours? None? Well your idea of winning is clearly in contradiction to the common usage of the term.

And your "not throwing temper tantrums or attack[ing] individuals" doesn't include all the shouting with *ASTERISKS*, your threats to sue me for making an honest assessment of your web site, or telling me how you're going to, how did you put that...

I think before I spend money on a lawyer, I'll spend some time creating a few RD movies for you first and stuff your arrogant attitude right down your throat. We'll then compare them to what NASA has in their daily archives and see what you come up with for the same time period. Like I said, I have a day job, and you aren't my first priority in life, even with that smug arrogant attitude. Chill for a while.

[Bolding mine.]

It does show which of us has the capability of producing RD images with the same tools that LMSAL uses and NASA uses, and who the real "pixel kiddie" around here is. Hell, I even used the IDL RD routine for you and everything. You invested what, 10 minutes of your time?

Well if it took you longer than it took me, I guess everyone here would agree I'm very much better at this stuff than you.

This coming the from the guy that says "Flying stuff? What flying stuff"? Please! You couldn't even isolate the light source in the original images until I told you. You have *NEVER* put together a "solar process" and single pixel or event of that image, NEVER.

Sure I have, many times. And your repeating that lie will not make it become true. The solar process involved is the heating located in the corona that is seen through that 171Å filter. The brighter the pixel, the closer it is to that approximate million degree peak sensitivity of the filter. But maybe your reading comprehension problem is related to a general communication deficiency and you're using the word "never" differently than pretty much everyone else who speaks English.

From the original FITS files too, or just a preexisting video you cut up into frames?

Whatever series of images or video we have available. There isn't some kind of magical thing about any particular format of image that makes it more difficult to process than another. Well, not for people like me who actually do posses the expertise that they claim to have.

Only if you start with full resolution images. It can be done in almost any software program too which was my first clue you were clueless when you picked on a single product.

Just because you have trouble using one piece of software or another doesn't mean everyone does.

Why would I? There are much higher resolution TRACE images to work with, and that's the data I'm really interested in anyway. That's the real reason I went to all the trouble and cost of ordering the IDL language years ago and the point in firing up the SSW and SSWDB tools on my computer last week.

And to think, you could have done it all so much faster and cheaper and achieved the same results.

You've never demonstrated the photosphere is "opaque" in the first place. You "allege" it has magical SPF infinity sunscreen properties that no mostly hydrogen and/or helium plasma could ever have.

I don't need to demonstrate that the photosphere is opaque. It is by definition. If you have an issue with that, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

I've had more pressing problems going on, but she'll let you know when it's ready.

Good. I await the entertainment that might be had from reading legal papers accusing me of, well, whatever it might be when one calls a guy's crackpot claims crackpot and a web site packed with non-evidence a fraud.

All you have ever done is describe the PROCESS of creating RD images. Never once have you associated a single solar process with a single event or pixel in any from of that image. NEVER! You claimed originally that the persistence of the image was due to the process and that was my first clue that you didn't know what you were talking about. When I asked you to isolate the line in the RD routine from IDL you cited that was responsible for the rigidness, you ran like hell. You don't know *ANYTHING* about the effect of solar processes in RD images. NOTHING! The only thing that you know how to do is attack me personally and publicly. You'll pay dearly for that behavior eventually.

I described the solar process, not just above in this posting but certainly dozens of times over the past half a decade. Your insistence on repeating that lie is noted.

What you will *NEVER* do for us (my prediction) is put together the "solar processes" and their effects on the RD image. You refuse to do that. You have always refused to do that, and you will continue to refuse to do that.

And you will never say whose face it is in that picture of the face on Mars.

You're afraid.

Afraid of what... you?

​

Have you ever actually created a RD image from an original satellite image FITS file? Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[sol invictus]

You seem to have plenty of time to respond point by point to people's posts right now, Michael. So why haven't you answered my question?

It should be very quick - it's just one number - and of course you know the answer very very well, it being perhaps the most basic aspect of the work you've been doing for the last 5 (?) years.

What's the optical depth of everything from the outer edges of the sun's atmosphere down to this putative "solid surface", at whatever wavelengths you claim show the surface?

 

[Ziggurat]

Like you can answer every "mystery" in astronomy with your favorite models? Come on.

Wow. Who'da thought: science isn't finished.

You guys can't even produce a single empirical experiment that shows "dark energy" causes a single atom to accelerate but you want me to believe 70% of the universe is made of the stuff

No, Michael. I really couldn't care less about your opinion of dark matter. It's irrelevant to our current conversation. Just like the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs is irrelevant.

You can't even "explain" solar wind something Birkeland actually "predicted" (real experimentation too) 100 years ago.

That would be a big resounding no. Birkeland predicted an outflow of heavy element ions which he thought led to planetary formation. That's not what's going on.

That's not even true. DRD/Nereid however taught me that it was a complete waste of time in most cases to bark math for you on command. Lots of the images require "math galore" to even produce, but that seems to be irrelevant from your perspective unless I personally do it for you on command.

Yeah, um... sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Not only do you not know what you're doing with those images, even if you did, that still wouldn't quantify a single parameter of your model.

Not true. It's mass is the same as the standard model.

You didn't quantify that. That's a measurement you took from other sources. And since it's the same as the standard model, it serves no purpose in trying to distinguish your model from the standard model.

That's sort of the need you folks have to "put down" anyone and everyone that disagrees with you. You have to really villianize them good and proper in your own way of course.

No, Michael. I don't need to villainize you. But after a few years of your nonsense, my patience has grown thin. Play the victim all you want to, Michael. But you can't walk the walk. You can't do physics. It's really as simple as that.

Oh boloney. You guys *OVERSIMPLY* everything

I've only bothered with simple models because that's all it takes to demonstrate how wrong you are. If my oversimplifications are not valid, you are free to show me improved calculations. But you won't, because you can't. Because you can't do physics.

It's absurd because you refuse to actually deal with the materials presented.

Get back to me when you've calculated the gravitational pressure of your water bubble.

Your same arguments fall apart the moment we even attempt to apply them to your own solar model or the photosphere would heat up to 20,000K or million degrees.

Nope. I've already explained why you are wrong. That you persist in believing otherwise shows that you really don't understand thermodynamics (or optics) at all.

Your math models can't even explain solar wind, but you want me to explain every single detail of this model or abandon it?

No, Michael. I have only challenged you on two points: the fact that your model violates thermodynamics, and the fact that gravity would crush your sphere. Just those two things. Hell, addressing even just one of them would do. What has been your response? On the first question, you have only responded with a profound misunderstanding of thermodynamics and blackbody radiation, and on the second you have only responded with a video of water bubbles floating on the ISS. You still show no signs of understanding why this response was so laughable. Maybe you'll get a clue if you actually calculate the gravitational pressure from such a bubble. But I doubt it. In fact, I doubt you're even capable of performing this calculation.

But go ahead and prove me wrong. Since you're so confident I'm in error, produce the numbers. You'll have proven me doubly wrong, both because you'll have demonstrated that you can do what I claimed you couldn't, and because the numbers themselves will show I'm wrong.

I feel quite confident in asserting this won't happen.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You seem to have plenty of time to respond point by point to people's posts right now, Michael. So why haven't you answered my question?

Probably because you wouldn't like either possible answer I could give you?

Shall we base this overly-simplistic "very quick one number" you're looking for on *mainstream* plasma abundance figures and plasma layering schemes, or the layered plasma model on my website? That one isn't "very quick" nor very likely to please you anyway. The first one isn't even of interest to me personally.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow. Who'da thought: science isn't finished.

So I have to be finished "or else", but your model gets a free pass?

No, Michael. I really couldn't care less about your opinion of dark matter. It's irrelevant to our current conversation. Just like the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs is irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant because you say it is. A comparison to that "dark energy" stuff is really more of a better example however. You're sure it makes up the vast majority of the universe and has no effect whatsoever on the sun or the solar system. You guys act like I'm the only one with "out there" ideas going, when in fact just the opposite is true.

That would be a big resounding no. Birkeland predicted an outflow of heavy element ions which he thought led to planetary formation. That's not what's going on.

You mean to tell me no heavy ions come from the sun?

He did predict all types of ions, both positive and negative would come from the sun, including but not limited to heavy ones.

Yeah, um... sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Not only do you not know what you're doing with those images, even if you did, that still wouldn't quantify a single parameter of your model.

Talk about mixing ideas here. You can complain about one or the other of my skills or lack thereof, but try to do so in separate sentences would you?

You didn't quantify that. That's a measurement you took from other sources. And since it's the same as the standard model, it serves no purpose in trying to distinguish your model from the standard model.

So let's start with something like solar wind predictions. Birkeland's model "predicts" high speed solar wind, coronal loop activity and all the things we see in satellite imagery in space.

No, Michael. I don't need to villainize you. But after a few years of your nonsense, my patience has grown thin. Play the victim all you want to, Michael. But you can't walk the walk. You can't do physics. It's really as simple as that.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
I've already been involved in "walk the walk" published papers none of which you've commented on as far as I recall. I'm not going to be able nor interested to do every mathematical calculation possible on this solar model all by myself. So what?

I've only bothered with simple models because that's all it takes to demonstrate how wrong you are.

But that's the problem from my perspective. All you've done is oversimplified the issue to the point of absurdity and *assume* it's right for the purposes of your strawman calculation. It's not a useful calculation if it doesn't take all the complex physics into account.

If my oversimplifications are not valid, you are free to show me improved calculations. But you won't, because you can't. Because you can't do physics.

No need to villianize me eh?

Get back to me when you've calculated the gravitational pressure of your water bubble.

What in the world makes you think it's necessary or relevant for me to do so?

I need a cup of coffee and I know there is stuff from yesterday I left hanging. You'll have to wait your turn on the rest of your complaints like everyone else.

 

[Myriad]

1. The sun has a rigid surface composed of solid state matter. This surface possesses contour features that are permanent on a time scale of, at least, months.

2. These contours can be imaged by means of high-energy photons emitted in the corona, which pass sufficiently through all intervening layers, and reflect sufficiently off the solid surface, to permit such imaging.

Mr. Mozina, are those accurately stated claims of yours?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[BenBurch]

Can we shoot this ridiculous thread and put it out of its misery?

 

[sol invictus]

Probably because you wouldn't like either possible answer I could give you?

What do you mean, "either" possible answer? Surely you know that optical depth is a continuous parameter?

Shall we base this overly-simplistic "very quick one number" you're looking for on *mainstream* plasma abundance figures and plasma layering schemes, or the layered plasma model on my website? That one isn't "very quick" nor very likely to please you anyway. The first one isn't even of interest to me personally.

I want to know what you think it is. Depending on the answer, we can then move on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

1. The sun has a rigid surface composed of solid state matter.

Yes.

This surface possesses contour features that are permanent on a time scale of, at least, months.

Month's plural? Hmmm. I would say days, weeks and maybe a full month, but months plural is "pushing it" IMO. The main features may last that long (mountains for instance), but the reflection patterns change over time and it is a highly volcanic surface.

2. These contours can be imaged by means of high-energy photons emitted in the corona,

Most of them are not emitted in the corona, but rather far below the photosphere all along the "surface". Some coronal loops ("big daddies") come up and through the photosphere but IMO most of the light originates under the photosphere.

which pass sufficiently through all intervening layers, and reflect sufficiently off the solid surface, to permit such imaging.

Yes.

Mr. Mozina, are those accurately stated claims of yours?

Respectfully,
Myriad

With the exceptions noted, yes.

Respectfully,
MM

 

[Myriad]

Month's plural? Hmmm. I would say days, weeks and maybe a full month, but months plural is "pushing it" IMO. The main features may last that long (mountains for instance), but the reflection patterns change over time and it is a highly volcanic surface.

Days would be sufficient.

And thank you for the clarification regarding where the high-energy photons in question are emitted.

Proof (or at least strong support) of your hypotheses is then easily obtained. By tracking the most prominent surface features over time, show that the centuries-old observation that the rotation rate of the sun's conventionally visible surface varies with latitude is not in fact the case for the solid surface that can be imaged underneath. Show a constant angular rate of rotation consistent with a rigid solid sphere.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[GeeMack]

So let's start with something like solar wind predictions. Birkeland's model "predicts" high speed solar wind, coronal loop activity and all the things we see in satellite imagery in space.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, that picture of Birkeland's Saturn experiment again. How cute. More bunnies.

Oh, and when are you going to explain how images created using data from the corona can be manipulated into a graph that somehow shows a solid surface thousands of kilometers and a layer of opaque plasma away?

And I take your silence on my last response to your running difference tantrum and your refusal to explain every single pixel in that running difference image at the top of your web site to be an admission that I have the expertise necessary to understand them and you don't. Thanks. You could have just said so.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Could you give the model (preferably with calculations) to explain how the iron shell of the sun formed initially and is stable?

Is this where we left off? FYI, sorry for the delay. It's been a busy week.

How is the sun heated exactly since in your model most of its mass seems to be in a static iron shell.

Some background papers might be useful here:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

I think you're looking for the third paper on the list.

What experiments have you performed or would you suggest need to be performed to actually prove how your model of the sun works (I realize that not every physicist can reproduce nuclear fusion, but the experiments have been done)?

Birkeland did the original experiments on an "electric sun" model. He actually came up with real "predictions" (things he actually physically learned from the experiments and didn't know ahead of time) via these experiments. They include coronal loops, solar wind, high speed jets, the aurora, all the things we see in satellites in space.

How long would your sun last and how old would it currently be?

That depends on which specific core model you select and whether you believe some or all of the energy comes from the outside or from the inside. Suffice to say a neutron core model could last a very long time and even potentially "replenish itself" through some sort of fusion driven, collapse upon itself scenario. A small neutron core would almost necessitate charge difference between the neutron crust and the plasma around the core.

Where did your iron come from initially?

It's always existed.

The big bang theory allows for mainly hydrogen and some helium, which contracts into stars synthesizing the higher atomic compounds and spreading it into the galaxy for second/third generation stars to capture.

Sure, but Alfven's sort of cyclical "Bang" theory does not require or necessitate any specific type of matter be instantly created in the bang.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

Since your model does not seem to power stars with nuclear fusion, there needs to be another source for iron, what is it?

Fusion can and probably would play a role in the energy output process however. The problem with this model is that there are potentially a lot of different energy sources including fusion, fission, induction, etc to choose from, not simply *ONE* as is true in standard theory.

Or do you believe the big bang model/particle physics to be wrong, in which case, what theory do you have available to replace it that gives explains the results of collider data so far?

I don't really have a preferred 'big picture' belief system as do most astronomers. Maybe there was a "bang", maybe not. I do tend to favor an expanding universe scenario, but I don't believe in A) inflation B) dark energy C) dark matter, none of which have been seen in collider experiments to date.

 

[Ziggurat]

So I have to be finished "or else", but your model gets a free pass?

Michael, you haven't even started. You have yet to make a single quantitative prediction. Not one.

It's only irrelevant because you say it is.

No, Michael. It's irrelevant because if you're right that dark energy doesn't exist then of course it won't affect the sun, and because if you're wrong and astronomers are right, its effects are too weak to make a noticeable difference on this scale. So the answer doesn't matter when discussing whether the sun consists of an iron shell.

You mean to tell me no heavy ions come from the sun?

Damned few, and not enough to match what he predicted.

So let's start with something like solar wind predictions. Birkeland's model "predicts" high speed solar wind, coronal loop activity and all the things we see in satellite imagery in space.

We're not talking about Birkeland's model, we're talking about YOUR model. And "high speed solar wind" means nothing. What does your model predict the velocity should be? What does your model predict the composition should be? What does your model predict the flux should be? It's got to be quantitative, Michael, or it doesn't matter.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, the irony of you saying, "Talk about mixing ideas here." The picture on the left is Birkeland's model for the rings of Saturn, not the sun.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
I've already been involved in "walk the walk" published papers none of which you've commented on as far as I recall.

I have commented on them. And I'm also aware of how little can be required to get your name on a paper, so being "involved" doesn't really tell me anything. And the papers in question answer none of the questions I have raised.

I'm not going to be able nor interested to do every mathematical calculation possible on this solar model all by myself.

You don't need to do every calculation possible on this solar model. Which is why I've done some of them for you. The point, Michael, is not that you can't do every calculation, it's that you can't do any calculation.

But that's the problem from my perspective. All you've done is oversimplified the issue to the point of absurdity and *assume* it's right for the purposes of your strawman calculation. It's not a useful calculation if it doesn't take all the complex physics into account.

And yet you can't tell me what I'm not taking into account, and you can't even estimate the size of any corrections that would be introduced by considering these other factors. The last time you tried to do so, you made the ridiculous assertion that I wasn't considering the surface tension of solid iron. Which was absurd on several levels, the first and most obvious being that solids don't have surface tension, the second (which I didn't point out before) being that even if there were a surface tension, it would only make the problem worse.

What in the world makes you think it's necessary or relevant for me to do so?

In the sense that you're completely comfortable making absurd and nonsensical claims, nothing. But since you tried to use the water bubble as a counterexample to my claim that your model would collapse on itself, the actual gravitational pressure of such a water bubble is VERY relevant to determining if there is indeed any relevant similarity between the two scenarios. So if you actually want to defend the argument you made, you should pony up.

I need a cup of coffee and I know there is stuff from yesterday I left hanging. You'll have to wait your turn on the rest of your complaints like everyone else.

I will likely be waiting for years. You never do calculations.