'13-07-29, 06:45 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But despite my ignorance, I still maintain that I have legitimate questions that don't seem to have good answers. May we take this as your tacit acknowledgement of the epic failure of at least two key components of your idea? Which two? Well, the compressibility of plasmas, and the necessity for the Sun to be powered by a source other than fusion (in the core). Quote: [...] which is unexplained in the Dalsgaard model. What led you to think that it could, ever, be explained "in the Dalsgaard model"?
'13-07-29, 06:56 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler So what happens when a computer tries to run code that doesn't take all of the applicable laws of physics into account? Do you get a syntax error or something? Computers can certainly be used to do the heavy-duty number crunching inherent in physics simulations, but just because it was done on a computer doesn't mean that it was a physics simulation. In gaming software, are they running out Newtonian mechanics in real time, or is that all just quick-n-dirty algorithms that fake it? If so, how did they ever get the code to compile? Or does the compiler know whether you're a game developer or a physicist, and throw different errors accordingly? (Syntax error for game developers: ERROR! Those colors are aweful! Syntax error for physicists: ERROR! That formula doesn't include the Coulomb force! ) In reality, there is an acronym used by computer programmers that you should learn: GIGO. This stands for "garbage in, garbage out". So when you say, "If this particular simulation pops out with supersonic-flow as a valid solution, then that sounds reasonable to me," you obviously are just assuming that if it came out, it has to be good, not realizing that the programmer might have fed in some garbage. Being a computer programmer, I know better than to make assumptions about what was fed in, to produce the desired output. I overlooked this, when writing my earlier post. So, we can now be much more confident that you, CC, ran an independent check on the Model S table (which you copied onto your website), right? I mean, being a computer programmer, you know better than to make assumptions about what is fed in, so you independently checked that Model S contains only the ideal gas laws, right? Or perhaps not. "But yes, I'm saying that incompressibility has to be taken into account, though it's not any sort of simple incompressibility, and the limits are definitely not the room-temperature liquid densities." (source) Hmm, does that mean you now acknowledge that you made assumptions about what was fed in, to produce the desired output ... assumptions which you now know to be garbage?
'13-07-29, 08:25 phunk	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Yes. Now consider this, from Continuous and line spectra of granules and intergranular lanes (with my bolding): Originally Posted by Z. Suemoto, E. Hiei, Y. Nakagomi Temperature and velocity structures above granules and intergranular lanes were studied on spectrograms covering Caii H and K lines. In agreement with our earlier results, it was confirmed more quantitatively that there appear two kinds of bright continua, one in the outer wings (granular continuum) and the other in the inner wings (temporarily called K0-continuum) of Caii H and K lines, and that these two kinds of bright continua are located more or less in a complementary fashion. Further, it was found that the bright K0-continuum is well associated with higher central residual intensity of absorption lines. These facts suggest that in the upper photosphere of, say, τ Motions above granular regions are essentially upwards, whereas those of intergranular regions are predominantly downwards, and in the uppermost photosphere the motions become more random. How do you get negative buoyancy with higher temperatures? It doesn't say the intergranular lanes are hotter, it says there are high temperature regions within the uppermost parts of the intergranular lanes. It also says nothing about the size or temperature of those regions, so we have no idea how they affect the average temperature of the intergranular lanes. The hilighted part suggests to me a possible explanation, the random motion in the upper photosphere above the descending intergranular lanes could lead to entrainment of pockets of hot plasma in the cooler descending flow.
'13-07-29, 09:57 ben m	Let's look at some research, shall we? Sol pointed us to: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/..._284.text.html Let's read the introduction, shall we? Quote: Granules and intergranular lanes are the manifestation of overshooting convection in the solar photosphere, a process that has been studied in detail by means of two- and three-dimensional simulations (e.g., Stein & Nordlund 1989, 1998; Cattaneo et al. 1990; Steffen & Freytag 1991; Steiner et al. 1998; Gadun et al. 1999; Ploner et al. 1999). One of the most striking results of the simulations is the existence of supersonic horizontal flows in granules. As explained by Stein & Nordlund (1998), these flows are a natural consequence of mass conservation in a highly stratified atmosphere. The vertical upflows of granules turn into horizontal flows relatively soon due to the exponential decrease of the density with height. All the mass emerging into the photosphere through the granular cross section must leave the granule through its edges. Since the lateral area available for the outflow is much smaller than the cross section of the granule, the horizontal flow is forced to accelerate to conserve mass. The larger the granule, the more pronounced the area difference and the stronger the horizontal flow. Occasionally, supersonic velocities are reached. Supersonic velocities are not, in this case, obtained by really fast linear acceleration under buoyant forces. They're reached because the middlingly-fast gas that's rising under buoyant forces then has to flow through a constriction, which forces it to become somewhat faster. Let's compare that to CC's understanding: Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But if you're talking about convection, you're talking about acceleration from a resting position, and there isn't any nozzle. It turns out that there is a nozzle. And that the acceleration is not from a resting position.
'13-07-29, 10:54 DeiRenDopa	More critical review. From the "Heliosphere" section of CC's website: Originally Posted by CC There is also a lot that we can learn about the Sun's evolution and energy budget by studying the heliosphere. The Sun condensed from a dusty plasma with a volume of something like 7.48 × 1037 km3.2,3,4 The temperature would have been roughly 10 K. The volume of the Sun is 1.41 × 1018 km3, meaning that the dusty plasma was compressed by a factor of 5.31 × 1019. If we multiply the dusty plasma temperature (i.e., 10 K) by the same factor, we get an expected temperature of 5.31 × 1020 K. (my bold) Assuming, for now, that the values you give are correct, would you please explain the reasoning behind this, CC? Specifically, what 'laws of physics' are you applying here?
'13-07-29, 14:06 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa ...you certainly didn't want to be caught with egg on your face... No, I don't mind so much, but since you're clearly obsessed with this idea, I guess it's time that I tell you why I proceed, despite the fact that I have made errors, and thus have, indeed, gotten egg on my face. The reason is that I'm not seeking to seem perfect, for the sake of some sort of oh-so-important credibility — I'm seeking the truth. Professionals need credibility, but I'm an amateur, so I have no use for it. Abraham Lincoln said that it is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. You probably consider those to be words of wisdom, but I do not. I'd rather be thought a fool for challenging our existing understanding of the Universe, than to BE a fool for blinding accepting things that don't even make sense. You're right that better than 99% of the time, such things didn't make sense only to me. But in the end, I will have gained the understanding that I sought. Others, who blindly accept what they have been told, gained nothing. And I'll go ahead and address the more general issue here. Most of the people on this forum attack anybody who challenges the established notions within the scientific community. I can understand the attacks on charlatans who play on the gullibility of the public with mystical ideas (e.g., most, but perhaps not all, of the paranormal psychologists). But when you start attacking anybody who challenges mainstream views, you've made a very big mistake. You're basically saying that we already have all of the knowledge and understanding that we'll ever need, and anybody who doesn't go along with it is just plain wrong. Well, OK, then just go ahead and fire all of the scientists, because we already have all of the knowledge and understanding that we'll ever need! And indeed, as the scientific community locks down on its contentions, and presents their consensus as a finished product that nobody can challenge, the science funding continues to dwindle (which is a trend that predates the current economic slump). Why is that? When scientists have achieved a consensus, and presented a finished product, the funding gets cut? Yep. Why? Why not? They did their jobs. Now they're done. Now let's spend the money on something else, because we're certainly not going to get anything new from scientists. No, they've already locked down on a consensus. They don't want the general public challenging it, and they themselves fear to go against the mainstream, because that necessitates forfeiture of all credibility, which is prerequisite for funding, which makes it a self-defeating proposition. You can say that the elite within the scientific community can still introduce new ideas, and that they should continue to get funding. But from the general public's perspective, that just doesn't work. The stuff coming out of the mainstream is surely the work of elitists. But it's looking less and less like science, and more and more like science fiction. General relativity, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, wormholes, string theory... this is all great stuff, if you're an elitist, or if you're into science fiction. But to the layperson, elitism + nonsense = insanity. If the general public doesn't understand it, and they are told to suck up to the elitists, and if there isn't any tangible value coming out of it, they aren't going to pay for it — it's that simple. The whole thing becomes just a little bit farcical when the champions of critical reasoning use nothing but argumentum ad verecundiam, hominem, et nauseum to defend the scientific community against people who are not thinking critically! The irony is that all of those non-critical people out there, who dabbled in science fiction and came up with an idea that sounded cool, and who now refuse to listen to criticisms, and who simply won't give up — they learned all of that from you! So yes, it's true that when an amateur doesn't understand an expert, it generally isn't the expert who is wrong. Do you want to know what else is generally true? All of us know that when a naive question is asked, and the answer is a fallacious attack on the question (or on the questioner), the person doing the answering is generally incompetent. A proficient expert, when asked a question, will either answer it in a straight-forward manner, or comfortably say, "I don't know." In fact, 20 years ago I learned that when interviewing candidates for positions available, it's useful to ask tough questions, and to pay close attention to how the candidate answers when he/she doesn't know. I also learned to pay close attention to how he/she responded to being corrected. Somebody who thinks that he/she is to be considered right, whether he/she is right or not, is not worth hiring, because that's the type of person who is going to do just whatever he/she feels like, right or wrong. That's no expert — that's just somebody with an ego problem. And that's how the scientific community is presenting itself to the general public these days. So it's no wonder that the funds are dwindling. So, if you spot an error in my work, feel free to put all of the egg you want on my face. An identified error is an opportunity for progress. But if you're wondering why your rhetorical attacks on me haven't worn me down, it's because they aren't going to — ever. I'm seeking rational, physical explanations for how things work. I'm not always right, but I am using a critical process, which is immune to rhetoric, and which insists on clarity. There are plenty of fine examples of the value that such a method has yielded, and there's no mistaking the process. So this is what I'm doing. Chances are, you'll win the argument (at least in your minds), because you'll convince yourselves that you have discredited me, and in your minds, credibility is the only measure. In my mind, that always was, and always will be, the mentality of a scam artist, which I am not, and without learning to focus just on credibility, never will be. That's enough for one post. I'll come back later to respond to the rest of the backlog.
'13-07-29, 14:26 DeiRenDopa	Quick reply, CC. The sentiments you express come across as noble, even admirable. Yet I find it hard to believe they come from the pen (!) of the same person who wrote this: "The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations." And follows this breath-takingly sweeping statement with page after page of what seems like rather extreme ignorance, which (to me at least) displays essentially none of the critical thinking you seem so passionate about. This same author later writes "posted here to encourage critical reviews", yet fails to answer one of the most basic questions concerning the nature of the claims being made. I'm very much looking forward to you dealing with the backlog, especially concerning solar neutrinos and the source of energy that powers the Sun.
'13-07-29, 15:44 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But when you start attacking anybody who challenges mainstream views, you've made a very big mistake. a) In my job as a scientist, I travel 20,000 miles a year in order to find people to tell me what I'm wrong about. I love having people tell me I'm wrong. When they're right, it saves me the wasted effort of chasing a lead down a blind alley. When they're wrong, explaining/defending my idea usually helps me clarify something to myself. When it's not obvious whether they're wrong or right, then we figure it out and learn something in the process. b) You think you've "challenged mainstream views"? I had a student in my particle-physics class who reported that the neutral kaon could decay into the neutral pion via the strong force. (Just K -> pi, no other decay products.) Was that a "challenge to mainstream views"? Gene Ray claims that the Earth is a cube with four simultaneous days in every rotation. Is that a "challenge to mainstream views"? Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully published a paper claiming that the black hole information paradox had no solution consistent with ordinary principles. Is that a "challenge to mainstream views"?
'13-07-29, 16:11 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa So anything involving modelling of plasmas is, by your definition, not in any Newtonian regime, right? Because any modelling of plasmas must, by definition, incorporate electromagnetic forces, right? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Not necessarily. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Why not? In a quasi-neutral plasma, without electric currents and magnetic fields, and if you aren't up against any sort of incompressibility (depending on the temperature), the ideal gas laws apply nicely, as well as the principles of conduction and convection, which is all Newtonian mechanics. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Hmm, so a density gradient in a model which incorporates radiative transport cannot, by your definition, be Newtonian, right? The density gradient might be Newtonian, even if the heat source and/or transport mechanisms are not. In other words, does the heat produced by a fission reactor dissipate with distance from the source of the heat, per the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Yes. Is nuclear fission Newtonian? No. Is this extremely confusing? Yes. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa What led you to think that it could, ever, be explained "in the Dalsgaard model"? See post #163. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa So, we can now be much more confident that you, CC, ran an independent check on the Model S table (which you copied onto your website), right? I mean, being a computer programmer, you know better than to make assumptions about what is fed in, so you independently checked that Model S contains only the ideal gas laws, right? Exactly! I actually found it difficult to determine how, exactly, Dalsgaard was getting his numbers. There are plenty of vague references to hydrostatic equilibria and temperature/pressure/density relationships. But he didn't exactly lay it out. So I decided to crunch the numbers for myself, to see what I'd get. I'm still working on it, but here's what I've done so far. (See Stellar Model Checker for more info.) This is a finite element analysis (FEA) engine that I'm developing, for double-checking existing solar models, and for toying with new ideas. The basic idea is to use the golden spiral method to find a relatively well-distributed set of points on a sphere (like this). Those are then taken as the centers of the bases of pyramids, with their apexes at the center of the sphere. It doesn't matter that the square-sided pyramids don't form a perfect polyhedron that blankets the surface of the sphere without overlaps — I'm just looking for equal-volume pyramids that total the volume of the sphere, and that are equally spaced. Then I subdivide the pyramids into discrete parcels, assign the model densities to the parcels, and calculate the gravity from each parcel, to each parcel. This gives me the force developed by gravity (i.e., the pressure). Then, given the model temperatures, I can double-check that the model densities are correct. The code that does all of this is here. And here are the results. (The red line shows the calculated densities, while the black line shows the input densities.) Note that it isn't an exact match — the calculated densities are roughly 1/3 of an order of magnitude greater than the input densities. The nature of the discrepancy has not been determined. For one thing, I'm starting at 1.0 SR, while the Dalsgaard model has a bit of mass above the surface. The calcs also return an inordinate mass at the center, because of how it handles the innermost parcel. With more mass around the outside, and less in the center, the gravitational pressure would be less. Would it be 1/3 of an order of magnitude less? Only fixing the inaccuracies will tell for sure. I'll let you know when I have that done. Originally Posted by phunk The random motion in the upper photosphere above the descending intergranular lanes could lead to entrainment of pockets of hot plasma in the cooler descending flow. Entrainment can occur either because of low pressure, such as in a Venturi, or because of friction. The plasma in question is virtually frictionless, and you're not going to get a Venturi effect to drive a downdraft, since low pressure and high density (i.e., negative buoyancy) are mutually exclusive. Originally Posted by ben m Supersonic velocities are not, in this case, obtained by really fast linear acceleration under buoyant forces. They're reached because the middlingly-fast gas that's rising under buoyant forces then has to flow through a constriction, which forces it to become somewhat faster. [...] It turns out that there is a nozzle. And that the acceleration is not from a resting position. Well, you "could" call the density gradient a "nozzle". Normally you'd just call it an adiabatic updraft, but whatever. And you "could" say that velocity developed by buoyancy, plus the particle velocity, when encountering the edge of the "density gradient nozzle", would be capable of supersonic speeds. That would be the vertical velocity. And "all the mass emerging into the photosphere through the granular cross section must leave the granule through its edges." OK. But then they go on to say that "since the lateral area available for the outflow is much smaller than the cross section of the granule, the horizontal flow is forced to accelerate to conserve mass." It sounds like they're saying that the supersonic downdrafts are a consequence of their smaller volume (i.e., if the same amount of stuff has to flow through a smaller cross-section, it has to flow faster). Correct me if I misread that, but if that's what they're saying, that's incorrect. It would be true for a closed system, in which you could exert external pressure on the plasma, and force it to flow downward. But in an open system, when the expanding plasma runs into the limits set by neighboring granules, and the two outflows collide, the high pressure should send some of the plasma down, and some of it up. This means that intergranular lanes should be ridges, not valleys.
'13-07-29, 16:23 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m b) You think you've "challenged mainstream views"? I had a student in my particle-physics class who reported that the neutral kaon could decay into the neutral pion via the strong force. (Just K -> pi, no other decay products.) Was that a "challenge to mainstream views"? Gene Ray claims that the Earth is a cube with four simultaneous days in every rotation. Is that a "challenge to mainstream views"? Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully published a paper claiming that the black hole information paradox had no solution consistent with ordinary principles. Is that a "challenge to mainstream views"? I agree that ignorance is no challenge. But all that you have done so far is chink away at the edges of what I'm saying. You think that if you can find any flaw in my reasoning, then my reasoning is flawed, and therefore I must concede defeat. But the central assertions about hydrodynamic behaviors on the surface of the Sun, which shouldn't be there because in a smooth density gradient there is no boundary to support such behaviors, have not been addressed head-on. If I misspell a word, you can find fault with me, and therefore all of what I'm saying is wrong? Do you know the name of that fallacy?
'13-07-29, 17:09 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But all that you have done so far is chink away at the edges of what I'm saying. Um! You wrote an extensive Web page explaining that the core of the Sun has to be made of osmium, or something, because hydrogen plasma is incompressible. That's the first subpage on your Web site. You talked yourself into imagining an energy-conservation-violating perpetual motion machine that powers the Sun via electricity and gravity. That's the second and third pages of your website. How is this "chipping around the edges"? It seems to be the foundation of what you're hoping to say. Quote: But the central assertions about hydrodynamic behaviors on the surface of the Sun, which according to CC-intuition shouldn't be there because according to CC-intuition in a smooth density gradient there is no boundary to support such behaviors, have not been addressed head-on. (Italicized clauses added by me.) See, CC, you have not made a coherent, physics-based argument that "a smooth density gradient" cannot support "such behaviors". You have merely stated that you can't picture it working. Please recall that Sol linked to a paper that shows, using hydrodynamic simulations, that the laws of physics can handle these phenomena perfectly well---i.e. that CC-intuition on these points isn't very good---which seems to me to address the point perfectly head-on. Please recall that your response to such a paper was to ignore it because simulations are sometimes wrong, like maybe they forgot some laws of physics or something. It seems to me that this is failing to address the point head-on, or side-on, or at all.
'13-07-29, 17:55 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler It sounds like they're saying that the supersonic downdrafts are a consequence of their smaller volume (i.e., if the same amount of stuff has to flow through a smaller cross-section, it has to flow faster). They're not just saying that. They're not trying to reason through it by waving their hands and talking about what "should" happen. They plugged in the numbers, and the laws of physics, and that's what happened. This is the citation that Bellot Rubio gives for the supersonic prediction: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...499..914S That paper make it easy for you. First, the paper explicitly contains all of the equations that they used to apply the laws of physics to these plasmas. You think they forgot something? Check for yourself. Second, the abstract answers your ridge/valley question explicitly. Quote: At the highest numerical resolution, excellent agreement between simulated convection properties and observations is found. In interpreting observations it is crucial to remember that surfaces of constant optical depth are corrugated. The surface of unit optical depth in the continuum is higher above granules and lower in the intergranular lanes, while the surface of optical depth unity in a spectral line is corrugated in ways that are influenced by both thermal and Doppler effects. That's just the abstract. The details are in the paper. Including a bunch of methodological tests to check for bugs in the numerical simulation. What sanity tests have you applied to your methodology, CC?
'13-07-29, 18:47 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m Um! You wrote an extensive Web page explaining that the core of the Sun has to be made of osmium, or something, because hydrogen plasma is incompressible. That's the first subpage on your Web site. You talked yourself into imagining an energy-conservation-violating perpetual motion machine that powers the Sun via electricity and gravity. That's the second and third pages of your website. How is this "chipping around the edges"? It seems to be the foundation of what you're hoping to say. I should clarify the logic (here, and there too). My whole reasoning for questioning the existing description of the internals of the Sun was not because I started in the interior, or because I started with an electric model, or with a different view of QM. Rather, I rejected other electric models (e.g., the "Electric Star" hypothesis), and did my own investigation. Going back to the standard model, I couldn't rationalize the surface behaviors of the Sun with Newtonian mechanics. I became convinced that powerful non-Newtonian forces were present, and this took me back into a study of EM, but for a very different set of reasons. So "if" the surface of the Sun has to have a strong electric charge, this begs many tough questions about the solar interior. I concluded that it could only mean that there was an opposite charge deeper down. Then I chased the implications through all of the way, and came to a radically different model. The point here is that it all rests on whether or not the surface behaviors are indicative of a density gradient that is not smooth at all. Another clarification should be made here. I'm contending that the Dalsgaard model only takes the ideal gas laws into account, at least as concerns the density gradient. I still "think" that I'm correct on this point, though I have yet to prove it with my own calcs. But my points about the density ledge at the solar surface still stand, regardless of whether Dalsgaard includes Coulomb forces or not. The bare-faced fact is that I'm calling attention to the smooth density gradient in the Dalsgaard model, which is unmistakeable, and I'm saying that this doesn't provide for the hydrodynamic behaviors actually observed on the surface. So it's possible that when I fix the treatment of the top and bottom in my FEA engine, the discrepancy between my calcs and Dalsgaard's will be only 1/4 of an order of magnitude (instead of 1/3). Perhaps that pressure discrepancy is coming from the Coulomb force in Dalsgaard's calcs, and which is not in mine. But if so, the Coulomb force is evenly distributed, otherwise, his curve wouldn't parallel the ideal gas laws, just at a different level. That means that the Dalsgaard model still doesn't answer for the density drop-off at the surface. Which could only mean that the Coulomb configuration is different from what Dalsgaard estimated. So the central contention here is that at the surface of the Sun, in the transition from the chromosphere to the photosphere, the density gets instantaneously much greater (i.e., within a couple hundred kilometers), in a way that is not represented in Dalsgaard's numbers, which increase steadily with depth in that region. Originally Posted by ben m See, CC, you have not made a coherent, physics-based argument that "a smooth density gradient" cannot support "such behaviors". You have merely stated that you can't picture it working. Let's return to the raw data. Take a look at this image. Is that a surface wave? Or have a look at this movie of spicules emanating from an undulating surface. Are those surface waves? Or look at some of the movies of granules on this page. I have no doubt that all of these behaviors can be "simulated". I once saw a simulation of Batman flying. Since then, I've been convinced that anything can be simulated. The question is, "What are the physical forces responsible for such behaviors?" Is there a surface there or not? If you're not convinced that there is a surface there, then for you, I'm solving a non-problem, and I'm wrong before I begin.
'13-07-29, 19:49 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m They're not just saying that. They're not trying to reason through it by waving their hands and talking about what "should" happen. They plugged in the numbers, and the laws of physics, and that's what happened. This is the citation that Bellot Rubio gives for the supersonic prediction: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...499..914S That paper make it easy for you. First, the paper explicitly contains all of the equations that they used to apply the laws of physics to these plasmas. You think they forgot something? Check for yourself. Second, the abstract answers your ridge/valley question explicitly. That's just the abstract. The details are in the paper. Including a bunch of methodological tests to check for bugs in the numerical simulation. Have a look at the graph at the top of page 916. Notice the bump in the pressure, density, and temperature at the solar surface? That isn't there in the Dalsgaard model. So why isn't it? And what are the forces responsible for that bump?
'13-07-29, 20:21 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I should clarify the logic We should clarify the logic too, Charles Chandler. If you do not have a good knowledge of the physics involved then it is illogical to state that the physics is wrong. If you do not have a good knowledge of the physics involved then it is logical (or to least commonsense) to trust people who do have good knowledge of the physics involved, e.g. astronomers. Astronomers do "rationalize" the surface behaviors of the Sun with the physics used in their models. That rationalization is making sure that their models match what is observed, e.g. the supersonic flows in granules. It is easy to imagine that the Sun has a strong electric charge. The next logical step is to show the physical consequences of this charge and that this does not violate observations. As an example - the obvious step is a "back of the envelop" calculation to see what the order of magnitude of this charges needs to be to explain what you want to explain. This leads to a good sanity check - if you get too big a charge (> ~77 Coulomb) then the Sun explodes ! On the global electrostatic charge of stars Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Another clarification should be made here. I'm contending that the Dalsgaard model only takes the ideal gas laws into account, at least as concerns the density gradient. Everyone now knows that the 1996 Dalsgaard model only takes the ideal gas laws in account. That actually matches what is observed quite well (except for the points that the Dalsgaard paper suthors actually raise) Everyone also knows that the later models add other effects to the ideal gas laws to get a better match to the observations. This is typical of how science works. The bare-faced fact is that everyone knows about the "smooth" density gradient in the Dalsgaard model and that is not expected to provide for the hydrodynamic behaviors actually observed on the surface. The Dalsgaard model is a model for the interior of the Sun which does not include the surface. It does not provide for quite a few things, e.g. sunspots coronal loops solar flares granules mesogranules supergranules spicules Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Let's return to the raw data. That image is not raw data. That movie is not raw data. Those movies of granules on this page are not raw data. We have no doubt that the appropriate laws of physics can be plugged into computer simulations and get matches to these observations. Any demand that the "physical forces" be listed is irrelevant because the physical forces are present in the simulations, i.e. gravity and electromagnetism.
'13-07-29, 20:29 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Notice the bump in the pressure, density, and temperature at the solar surface? That isn't there in the Dalsgaard model. So why isn't it? And what are the forces responsible for that bump? It is not there for the simple reason that the Dalsgaard model uses the ideal gas law as you should know, Charles Chandler. The computer simulation adds more realistic physics and gets a better match (maybe that bump!) to the observations. The forces responsible for that bump are gravity and electromagnetism.
'13-07-29, 21:10 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Have a look at the graph at the top of page 916. Notice the bump in the pressure, density, and temperature at the solar surface? That isn't there in the Dalsgaard model. So why isn't it? And what are the forces responsible for that bump? Um? First of all, I see no bump at all in the pressure, and the "density" has a non-monotonic slope maybe. Looks unremarkable. Second of all, "what are the forces responsible"? The complete set of force equations are given in the paper. Third, if one cares at all, this is the sort of question to which there might be any of a dozen boring answers. It would take considerable work, patience, and expertise to dig through the literature, re-run this simulation to perform additional sanity checks, etc., to track down this sort of thing. (The implication being: you sound like you're more excited in jumping to a conclusion---the conclusion that there isn't a boring explanation, that there never will be, that a new paradigm is arising, etc.---than in doing the sort of hard work that seeks the most accurate answer, whatever it turns out to be.)
'13-07-29, 22:35 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m First of all, I see no bump at all in the pressure, and the "density" has a non-monotonic slope maybe. Looks unremarkable. Look again. On a log graph, the pressure and density should be straight lines, as they are in the log graphs of the Dalsgaard model. Originally Posted by ben m Second of all, "what are the forces responsible"? The complete set of force equations are given in the paper. The equations are given, but the forces are not identified. Originally Posted by ben m Third, if one cares at all, this is the sort of question to which there might be any of a dozen boring answers. Right. It's thrilling if it disproves my point, but boring if it supports it. Originally Posted by ben m It would take considerable work, patience, and expertise to dig through the literature, re-run this simulation to perform additional sanity checks, etc., to track down this sort of thing. So why do we have to dig so deep to find the driving forces? Anyway... If you consider the implications of the non-Newtonian density gradient, you realize that it's actually a heckuva problem. The hydrodynamic photosphere, topped by the tenuous, wispy chromosphere, require a force to establish. It isn't gravity, and it isn't hydrostatic pressure, because we already know what those two will do. And it's not the magnetic force, because the behaviors don't change, regardless of the strength and polarity of the magnetic field. I "think" that this leaves only the electric force. The implications of that are staggering, but nevertheless have to be investigated.
'13-07-29, 22:51 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler There is also a lot that we can learn about the Sun's evolution and energy budget by studying the heliosphere. The Sun condensed from a dusty plasma with a volume of something like 7.48 × 1037 km3. The temperature would have been roughly 10 K. The volume of the Sun is 1.41 × 1018 km3, meaning that the dusty plasma was compressed by a factor of 5.31 × 1019. If we multiply the dusty plasma temperature (i.e., 10 K) by the same factor, we get an expected temperature of 5.31 × 1020 K. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Assuming, for now, that the values you give are correct, would you please explain the reasoning behind this, CC? Specifically, what 'laws of physics' are you applying here? PV = nRT
'13-07-29, 22:58 dasmiller	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler PV = nRT You think it's safe to assume that the sun was adiabatically compressed by an external process, it is homogeneous after compression, there were no phase changes (e.g. gas->plasma), gravipotential is and was negligible, and that there was no net radiation during the millions of years that the collapse required? eta: to be fair, the last assumption is redundant with the 'adiabatically' part
'13-07-29, 23:19 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler PV = nRT Nope. PV = nRT has three state variables. You need to know two of them to calculate the third. You, on the other hand, looked at a factor of 5x10^19 change in one variable (V), and blindly multiplied it by a second variable (T). You did not use PV = nRT in any way, shape, or form. Heck, even if you meant to use PV = nRT, and made the mistake of treating P = constant, then you still did it wrong: at a constant P, blindly applied, a factor-of-10^19 decrease in volume implies a factor-of-10^19 decrease, not increase, in pressure. If I interpret what you did as an application of PV = nRT, then you: a) saw the volume decrease by 5x10^19 b) decided to increase the temperature by 5x10^19, for no good reason c) accepted, but somehow failed to mention, that the pressure must have increased by 2.5x10^39 OK, metacognition time. Which mistake did you make, and why? Does this mistake make you wonder if you'd be better off studying basic thermodynamics before attempting to use basic thermodynamics arguments to poke holes in 100 years worth of professionally-written, peer-reviewed, well-regarded solar structure calculations?
'13-07-29, 23:45 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler The equations are given, but the forces are not identified. Equations 1, 2, and 3 are the Euler equations, the standard force laws of fluid dynamics. Quote: So why do we have to dig so deep to find the driving forces? Anyway... For the same reason that turbulence, planet formation, antiferromagnets, etc., etc., etc., etc., are still not understood. Because simple laws of physics can have complicated outcomes. Quote: If you consider the implications of the non-Newtonian density gradient, you realize that it's actually a heckuva problem. The hydrodynamic photosphere, topped by the tenuous, wispy chromosphere, require a force to establish. What a vague and non-physicsy statement. "Require a force to establish"? Sure, so what? The first thing you learn in intro stellar structure is how to solve hydrostatic balance (aka the balance of gravity and pressure forces) in a star. The second thing you learn is how to identify convective zones in such a solution. There is no problem writing solutions to these ordinary, boring force laws that have the property of a convective photosphere and a tenuous chromosphere. You have not identified a problem needing a solution. You have simply confused yourself. You looked at the system briefly, were unable to make sense of it while applying about your partial and disorganized mental picture of the laws of physics, and decided that the lack of sense was the system's fault rather than your own fault. Quote: It isn't gravity, and it isn't hydrostatic pressure, because we already know what those two will do. I think they'll do pretty much what we see. You think they won't? Sorry, you have confused yourself. Maybe you don't know what gravity and hydrostatic pressure (and an internal heat source!) will do, but I do, if nothing else because I took an undergrad course on stellar structure, half of the content of which was writing codes to solve radial hydrostatic-balance equations and to identify where this would cause convection.
'13-07-30, 01:00 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by dasmiller You think it's safe to assume that 1) the sun was adiabatically compressed by an external process [i.e., not net radiation], 2) it is homogeneous after compression, 3) there were no phase changes (e.g. gas->plasma), 4) and gravipotential is and was negligible? There certainly would have been energy loss due to radiation. At some point, the condensing gas cloud would have become thick enough to absorb most of it, greatly slowing the energy loss. How much energy was lost to radiation? I don't know. I don't know what you mean by "homogenous". Phase changes would certainly have absorbed some of the energy. I don't see how gravipotential would affect the temperature. But as ben correctly points out, the bigger problem is that PV = nRT has three state variables. I wrote that section a good while ago, and hadn't looked at it in a while. So I have to get that straightened out. Originally Posted by ben m Equations 1, 2, and 3 are the Euler equations, the standard force laws of fluid dynamics. And how do the laws of fluid dynamics account for the non-Newtonian density gradient? Originally Posted by ben m There is no problem writing solutions to these ordinary, boring force laws that have the property of a convective photosphere and a tenuous chromosphere. Please send an email to Dr. Dalsgaard. (Try to be polite about it.)
'13-07-30, 04:22 Dancing David	Originally Posted by ben m a) In my job as a scientist, I travel 20,000 miles a year in order to find people to tell me what I'm wrong about. I love having people tell me I'm wrong. When they're right, it saves me the wasted effort of chasing a lead down a blind alley. When they're wrong, explaining/defending my idea usually helps me clarify something to myself. When it's not obvious whether they're wrong or right, then we figure it out and learn something in the process. b) You think you've "challenged mainstream views"? I had a student in my particle-physics class who reported that the neutral kaon could decay into the neutral pion via the strong force. (Just K -> pi, no other decay products.) Was that a "challenge to mainstream views"? Gene Ray claims that the Earth is a cube with four simultaneous days in every rotation. Is that a "challenge to mainstream views"? Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully published a paper claiming that the black hole information paradox had no solution consistent with ordinary principles. Is that a "challenge to mainstream views"? Having watched my father and his colleagues talk endlessly about their works and dissect each others theories I have to agree with you, I am not going to characterize CC's statement other than to say they are wrong.
'13-07-30, 04:26 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I agree that ignorance is no challenge. But all that you have done so far is chink away at the edges of what I'm saying. You think that if you can find any flaw in my reasoning, then my reasoning is flawed, and therefore I must concede defeat. But the central assertions about hydrodynamic behaviors on the surface of the Sun, which shouldn't be there because in a smooth density gradient there is no boundary to support such behaviors, have not been addressed head-on. If I misspell a word, you can find fault with me, and therefore all of what I'm saying is wrong? Do you know the name of that fallacy? This si rhetorical polemic, it is un-related to any critique of your theory. I have yet to read where you establish that plasma is incompressible. Perhaps you should address teh foundation of your theory rather than making rhetorical spin statements. I know many people have addressed you rudely, and I am sorry for it. However your theory seems based upon the premise that plasma is imcompressible past a certain level, and I don't believe I have seen you establish that as yet. You have stated that the core of the sun can not be a hydrogen/helium plasma, I am waiting for your evidence.
'13-07-30, 05:58 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Please send an email to Dr. Dalsgaard. (Try to be polite about it.) As CC is wont to say, this is getting ridiculous. CC: The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. (source) me: The Dalsgaard model does not take what I ate for lunch yesterday into account either, therefore the Dalsgaard model is wrong. So, I agree with you. (source) And I have a far better example of the SSM (the one in the J. Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996 paper) "failing to explain even the simplest of solar observations" (source): Yes, "the Dalsgaard model" fails to explain an entire class of simple observations of the Sun, dating back at least to early Chinese observers1, sunspots. Huh?!? Let's remind ourselves of something that has been pointed out to CC, at least once, but which he has - obviously - failed spectacularly to grasp (my bold): "The standard solar model (SSM) is a mathematical treatment of the Sun as a spherical ball of gas (in varying states of ionisation, with the hydrogen in the deep interior being a completely ionised plasma). This model, technically the spherically symmetric quasi-static model of a star, has stellar structure described by several differential equations derived from basic physical principles. The model is constrained by boundary conditions, namely the luminosity, radius, age and composition of the Sun, which are well determined." Yep, by definition, anything about the Sun which is not spherically symmetric cannot be explained by an SSM, whether it's the one in the 1996 paper or not. By definition. From my earlier post, quoting WP: Originally Posted by WP Simulations of near-surface convection A more realistic description of the uppermost part of the convection zone is possible through detailed three-dimensional and time-dependent hydrodynamical simulations, taking into account radiative transfer in the atmosphere.[6] Such simulations successfully reproduce the observed surface structure of solar granulation,[7] as well as detailed profiles of lines in the solar radiative spectrum, without the use of parametrized models of turbulence.[8] The simulations only cover a very small fraction of the solar radius, and are evidently far too time-consuming to be included in general solar modeling. Extrapolation of an averaged simulation through the adiabatic part of the convection zone by means of a model based on the mixing-length description, demonstrated that the adiabat predicted by the simulation was essentially consistent with the depth of the solar convection zone as determined from helioseismology.[9] An extension of mixing-length theory, including effects of turbulent pressure and kinetic energy, based on numerical simulations of near-surface convection, has been developed I added: "Got that CC?" CC obviously didn't get it (perhaps he simply didn't read it?); in how many posts since has he continued to flog point out things which "the Dalsgaard model" fails to explain, but which it cannot explain (because they are beyond its explicitly stated scope)2? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I'm seeking the truth. If that's so, why, CC, do you persist with such blatant argumentum strawman3 tactics? 1 I vaguely remember reading that early Chinese written records include mentions of what we today call sunspots; I could be mis-remembering though 2 I count ~ten 3 Anyone have a better Latin version of 'strawman argument'?
'13-07-30, 06:17 godless dave	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler No, I don't mind so much, but since you're clearly obsessed with this idea, I guess it's time that I tell you why I proceed, despite the fact that I have made errors, and thus have, indeed, gotten egg on my face. The reason is that I'm not seeking to seem perfect, for the sake of some sort of oh-so-important credibility — I'm seeking the truth. Professionals need credibility, but I'm an amateur, so I have no use for it. Abraham Lincoln said that it is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. You probably consider those to be words of wisdom, but I do not. I'd rather be thought a fool for challenging our existing understanding of the Universe, than to BE a fool for blinding accepting things that don't even make sense. You're right that better than 99% of the time, such things didn't make sense only to me. But in the end, I will have gained the understanding that I sought. Others, who blindly accept what they have been told, gained nothing. You're setting up a false dichotomy here. It is possible to learn things without challenging the parts that you don't yet understand. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But when you start attacking anybody who challenges mainstream views, you've made a very big mistake. You're not being attacked because you challenge mainstream views. Your statements are being criticized because they contain misconceptions of mainstream views, and because they are often factually incorrect.
'13-07-30, 06:17 DeiRenDopa	RC, this is nonsense: Originally Posted by Reality Check Everyone now knows that the 1996 Dalsgaard model only takes the ideal gas laws in account. If you think so, then please help CC independently derive the "sound speed, etc for Model S", using only the ideal gas laws. This part you got (almost1) right, and it deserves repeating (if only because CC apparently did not read it, or grasp it): Quote: The bare-faced fact is that everyone knows about the "smooth" density gradient in the Dalsgaard model and that is not expected to provide for the hydrodynamic behaviors actually observed on the surface. The Dalsgaard model is a model for the interior of the Sun which does not include the surface. It does not provide for quite a few things, e.g. sunspots coronal loops solar flares granules mesogranules supergranules spicules This, in the last part of your post, is particularly pertinent: Quote: That image is not raw data. That movie is not raw data. Those movies of granules on this page are not raw data. This points to a key failing in CC's ideas (per his website); namely, that "observations" (or "raw data") are nearly always deeply reliant on quite a lot of physics ... of the standard, textbook kind. Estimates of elemental composition of a plasma/gas from its spectrum, for example, are pure gibberish if you throw out thermodynamics, atomic theory and some basic quantum mechanics, for example (MM never understood this). This is highly relevant to what CC has published, because of its explicit reliance on a much crackpot physics (as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, more than once). However, pursuing this, with CC, would likely be ... difficult. 1 Two of the constraints - boundary conditions - on all SSMs are the (observed) radius of the Sun and its (observed) luminosity
'13-07-30, 06:19 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler And how do the laws of fluid dynamics account for the non-Newtonian density gradient? Stop using the term "non-Newtonian density gradient". What you actually mean is "a density gradient that Charles Chandler has mentally compared to his own intuitive guess about what density gradients should look like". I can't explain how real forces account for made-up rule violations. Imagine if a creationist looked at a cladogram of the mammals, decided that it violated conservation of vowels, and demanded an explanation. "How do the so-called theory of evolution account for the non-vowel-conserving cladogram?" The density gradient looks fine to me.
'13-07-30, 06:24 godless dave	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But the central assertions about hydrodynamic behaviors on the surface of the Sun, which shouldn't be there because in a smooth density gradient there is no boundary to support such behaviors, have not been addressed head-on. I You have yet to even support the assertion in bold.
'13-07-30, 06:34 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler In a quasi-neutral plasma, without electric currents and magnetic fields, and if you aren't up against any sort of incompressibility (depending on the temperature), the ideal gas laws apply nicely, as well as the principles of conduction and convection, which is all Newtonian mechanics. OK, so if I may paraphrase (and extend): a plasma may be "in a Newtonian regime" if it can be shown that certain of its properties can be described using ideal gas laws only, right? However, such models will always be wrong, because such ideal gas laws can only ever be approximations, right? Quote: See post #163. If you follow this back to its source, you may find that it concerns regimes which SSMs can never explain. By definition. I hope you (now) know why. Quote: Originally Posted by me So, we can now be much more confident that you, CC, ran an independent check on the Model S table (which you copied onto your website), right? I mean, being a computer programmer, you know better than to make assumptions about what is fed in, so you independently checked that Model S contains only the ideal gas laws, right? Exactly! I actually found it difficult to determine how, exactly, Dalsgaard was getting his numbers. There are plenty of vague references to hydrostatic equilibria and temperature/pressure/density relationships. But he didn't exactly lay it out. So I decided to crunch the numbers for myself, to see what I'd get. I'm still working on it, but here's what I've done so far. (See Stellar Model Checker for more info.) This is a finite element analysis (FEA) engine that I'm developing, for double-checking existing solar models, and for toying with new ideas. The basic idea is to use the golden spiral method to find a relatively well-distributed set of points on a sphere (like this). Those are then taken as the centers of the bases of pyramids, with their apexes at the center of the sphere. It doesn't matter that the square-sided pyramids don't form a perfect polyhedron that blankets the surface of the sphere without overlaps — I'm just looking for equal-volume pyramids that total the volume of the sphere, and that are equally spaced. Then I subdivide the pyramids into discrete parcels, assign the model densities to the parcels, and calculate the gravity from each parcel, to each parcel. This gives me the force developed by gravity (i.e., the pressure). Then, given the model temperatures, I can double-check that the model densities are correct. The code that does all of this is here. And here are the results. (The red line shows the calculated densities, while the black line shows the input densities.) Note that it isn't an exact match — the calculated densities are roughly 1/3 of an order of magnitude greater than the input densities. The nature of the discrepancy has not been determined. For one thing, I'm starting at 1.0 SR, while the Dalsgaard model has a bit of mass above the surface. The calcs also return an inordinate mass at the center, because of how it handles the innermost parcel. With more mass around the outside, and less in the center, the gravitational pressure would be less. Would it be 1/3 of an order of magnitude less? Only fixing the inaccuracies will tell for sure. I'll let you know when I have that done. Good. Now comparisons with MM can cease ; this is something he would never even think of doing, much less attempt to do. Suggestion: why not find a standard textbook, one in which the SSM is derived from first principles? If your code cannot replicate the simplest of SSMs, it is unlikely to be able to do so with Model S, is it?
'13-07-30, 06:50 Cuddles	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler The thrust of a rocket engine comes from the fact that the exhaust is moving faster than the ambient air Wait, what? Rocket thrust depends on behaviour of ambient air and not just on Newton's third law? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But when you start attacking anybody who challenges mainstream views, you've made a very big mistake. You're basically saying that we already have all of the knowledge and understanding that we'll ever need, and anybody who doesn't go along with it is just plain wrong. No, we're saying you are just plain wrong. You are not everyone. Just because people can see serious problems with your claims does not mean they will treat all other claims the same way. The c-word has already been mentioned here a few times, and attempting to dismiss criticism because you believe people just blindly criticise everything with no regard for its merit is absolutely classic crackpot behaviour. It's not quite the Galileo gambit, but it's very closely related.
'13-07-30, 08:49 Hellbound	Originally Posted by Cuddles Wait, what? Rocket thrust depends on behaviour of ambient air and not just on Newton's third law? Of course. Didn't you know? That's why they don't work in vacuum, like space... Wait a minute...
'13-07-30, 10:04 Dancing David	In further news: bullets in a gun work in no atmosphere as well...
'13-07-30, 11:26 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa As CC is wont to say, this is getting ridiculous. CC: The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. (source) me: The Dalsgaard model does not take what I ate for lunch yesterday into account either, therefore the Dalsgaard model is wrong. So, I agree with you. (source) I had prepared the bulk of my post offline, and when converting it to a JREF post, I left out one line ... and discovered the mistake too late to edit the post. Here's what this part should be: As CC is wont to say, this is getting ridiculous. CC: The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. (source) CC: The Dalsgaard model doesn't take this into account, therefore the Dalsgaard model is wrong. (source) me: The Dalsgaard model does not take what I ate for lunch yesterday into account either, therefore the Dalsgaard model is wrong. So, I agree with you. (source)
'13-07-30, 11:46 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Dancing David Your theory seems based upon the premise that plasma is incompressible past a certain level, and I don't believe I have seen you establish that as yet. I "thought" that everybody was taking for granted that everything is compressible, but when electron shells begin to conflict, it takes additional pressure to continue to increase the density, because it takes force to liberate the electrons (i.e., pressure ionization). (See Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100) Thus the compressibility limits are a function of the pre-existing degree of ionization. If the electrons have already been liberated by high temperatures, those shell conflicts aren't there, and the compression continues past that limit, obeying the ideal gas laws. But if there are still bound electrons at the given temperature, there will be a limit there. Can anyone else confirm/deny that this is established laboratory science? Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa CC: The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. (source) me: The Dalsgaard model does not take what I ate for lunch yesterday into account either, therefore the Dalsgaard model is wrong. So, I agree with you. (source) You're right that the Dalsgaard model is a "spherically symmetric quasi-static model of a star". As such, it doesn't have things like granules, sunspots, coronal loops, or yesterday's lunch. But it does state that the density is an equilibrium between gravity and hydrostatic pressure, and I'm saying that this is incomplete, and cannot account for evidence of a sharp increase in density at the top of the photosphere. ben cited simulations of solar granulation, but the authors used a non-Dalsgaard density gradient to get the surface hydrodynamics right. I want to know what forces are responsible for that non-Dalsgaard density gradient. Originally Posted by Reality Check? That image is not raw data. That movie is not raw data. Those movies of granules on this page are not raw data. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa This points to a key failing in CC's ideas (per his website); namely, that "observations" (or "raw data") are nearly always deeply reliant on quite a lot of physics ... of the standard, textbook kind. Estimates of elemental composition of a plasma/gas from its spectrum, for example, are pure gibberish if you throw out thermodynamics, atomic theory and some basic quantum mechanics, for example (MM never understood this). I have to disagree with both of you, on very fundamental grounds. The data are the data. The interpretation of the data is inevitably theory-dependent, and you might as well say that if you're going to make a mistake in a scientific endeavor, it's because you used the wrong construct to marshal the data into something that made sense to you. But not drawing a distinct line between the data and the interpretation is a big mistake. We need to be able to get all of the way back to our very first assumptions in order to spot errors in our paradigms. If we say that data don't become legitimate until we have post-processed them into quantities acknowledged by our paradigms, we lose the ability to see what the paradigms are missing. Originally Posted by ben m The density gradient looks fine to me. There is a difference between the Dalsgaard and the Stein-Nordlund density gradients. You find the discrepancy to be boring. I don't care — I find it interesting. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But the central assertions about hydrodynamic behaviors on the surface of the Sun, which shouldn't be there because in a smooth density gradient there is no boundary to support such behaviors, have not been addressed head-on. Originally Posted by godless dave You have yet to even support the assertion in bold. OK, I can work on a more detailed explanation of that. Give me a few days. I thought that it could be taken for granted that surface waves require a surface, but I guess not.
'13-07-30, 12:10 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I'm seeking rational, physical explanations for how things work. I'm not always right, but I am using a critical process, which is immune to rhetoric, and which insists on clarity. There are plenty of fine examples of the value that such a method has yielded, and there's no mistaking the process. So this is what I'm doing. [...] In my mind, that always was, and always will be, the mentality of a scam artist, which I am not, and without learning to focus just on credibility, never will be. (my bold) As I said earlier, sentiments which across as noble, even admirable. Now for some fact checking. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler The Dalsgaard model gets the density right, [...] I didn't read textbooks — I read journals, because they're more current. So here are the citations that I'm using so far. Note that this isn't just a reading list — all of these are cited in the text somewhere. So I had a specific reason for citing all of these. Now I suppose you'll ask me if I read all of them, and if not, why not? Anders, E.; Grevesse, N., 1989: Abundances of the elements: Meteoritic and solar. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53 (1): 197-214 Alfvén, H., 1941: Remarks on the Rotation of a Magnetized Sphere with Application to Solar Radiation. Arkiv för Matematik, Astronomioch Fysik, 28A (6): 1-9 Alfvén, H., 1990: Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 18: 5-10 Arp, H.; Fulton, C.; Carosati, D., 2013: Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies. Aspden, H., 2003: The Physics of Creation. Southampton, England: Sabberton Publications Basu, S.; Antia, H. M., 2003: Changes in Solar Dynamics from 1995 to 2002. The Astrophysical Journal, 585: 553-565 Beck, J. G., 2000: A comparison of differential rotation measurements – (Invited Review). Solar Physics, 191 (1): 47 Beck, R., 2000: Magnetic fields in normal galaxies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 358 (1767): 777-796 Bergman, D. L., 2001: The Universe in Motion. Common Sense Science, 4 (3) Bhatnagar, S., 2001: Radio Study of Galactic Supernova Remnants and the Interstellar Medium. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Pune, India Birkeland, K., 1908: The Norwegian aurora polaris expedition, 1902-1903. H. Aschehoug & Co. Bohr, N., 1913: On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules. Philosophical Magazine, 26: 1-25 Borrero, J. M.; Ichimoto, K., 2011: Magnetic Structure of Sunspots. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8 Borrero, J. M.; Lites, B. W.; Solanki, S. K., 2008: Evidence of magnetic field wrapping around penumbral filaments. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 481 (1): L13-L16 Brusa, M.; Gilli, R.; Comastri, A., 2005: The Iron Line Background. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 621: L5-L8 Caflisch, R. et al., 2008: Accelerated Monte Carlo Methods for Coulomb Collisions. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 53 (14) Cameron, A. G., 1988: The World Book Encyclopedia. Field Enterprises Educational Corp. Carlqvist, P., 1988: Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation. Astrophysics and Space Science, 144 (1-2): 73-84 Chandrasekhar, S., 1960: The stability of non-dissipative Couette flow in hydromagnetics. Proceedings of the NAS-USA, 46 (2):253-257 Charbonneau, P. et al., 1999: Helioseismic Constraints on the Structure of the Solar Tachocline. The Astrophysical Journal, 527: 445-460 Compton, K. T.; Langmuir, I., 1930: Electrical Discharges in Gases. Part I. Survey of Fundamental Processes. Reviews of Modern Physics, 2 (2): 123-242 Cranmer, S. R., 2009: Testing and Refining Models of Slow Solar Wind Acceleration. SHINE 2009 Workshop de Felice, F., 1971: On the gravitational field acting as an optical medium. General Relativity and Gravitation, 2: 347-357 Delgado-Serrano, R. et al., 2010: How was the Hubble sequence 6 Gyr ago? Astronomy and Astrophysics, 509 (A78): 1-11 Dobbin, R. A.; Fulton, C. C., 1859: The Aurora Borealis. Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, 120 (19,654): pg. 2, col. 2 Dowdye, E. H., Jr., 2007: Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity. Astronomische Nachrichten, 328: 186 Eddington, A. S., 1920: Space, time and gravitation: an outline of the general relativity theory. Cambridge University Press Einstein, A., 1905: Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt. Annalen der Physik, 322 (6): 132-148 Erdélyi, R.; Ballai, I., 2007: Heating of the solar and stellar coronae: a review. Astronomische Nachrichten, 328 (8): 726-733 Fälthammar, C., 2004: Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas — a brief review. Geofísica Internacional, 43 (2): 225-239 Fernie, J. D., 1967: The intrinsic colors of classical Cepheids in the galaxy. Astronomical Journal, 72 (3): 422-428 Feynman, R.; Leighton, R.; Sands, M., 1970: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Fleck, B., 2001: SOHO’s latest surprise: Gas near the Sun heading the wrong way. Foukal, P.; Hinata, S., 1991: Electric fields in the solar atmosphere: A review. Solar Physics, 132 (2): 307-334 Freedman, R. A.; Kaufmann, W. J., 2008: Universe, Chapter 16 (8th Edition). W. H. Freeman & Company, 414-428 Fröhlich, C.; Lean, J., 2004: Solar Radiative Output and its Variability: Evidence and Mechanisms. Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12: 273-320 Gaensler, B. M., 1999: Morphological Studies of Extragalactic Supernova Remnants. Perspectives on Radio Astronomy: Science with Large Antenna Arrays, 271-274 Gizon, L.; Birch, A. C., 2005: Local Helioseismology. Living Reviews in Solar Physics Gizon, L.; Duvall, T. L., Jr.; Schou, J., 2003: Wave-like properties of solar supergranulation. Nature, 421: 43-44 Gurevich, A. V. et al., 2012: Strong Flux of Low-Energy Neutrons Produced by Thunderstorms. Physical Review Letters, 108 (12): 125001 Hanasoge, S.; Duvall Jr, T. L.; Sreenivasan, K. R., 2012: Anomalously Weak Solar Convection. arxiv.org, 1206.3173 Hantzsche, E., 2003: Mysteries of the Arc Cathode Spot: A Retrospective Glance. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31 (5): 799-808 Hathaway, D. H., 2012: Photospheric Features. NASA/Marshall Solar Physics Henning, T.; Li, H., 2011: The alignment of molecular cloud magnetic fields with the spiral arms in M33. Nature, 479 (7374): 499-501 Hung, C.; Ebeling, H., 2012: Galaxy Alignments in Very X-ray Luminous Clusters at z>0.5. arXiv, 1201.2727v1 Iglesias, C. A.; Rogers, F. J., 1996: Updated Opal Opacities. The Astrophysical Journal, 464: 943 Israelevich, P. L. et al., 2001: MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 376: 288-291 Johnson, R., 2013: The Nature of the Sun Revisited. Electric Universe Conference (Albuquerque) Karlsson, K. G., 1971: Possible Discretization of Quasar Redshifts. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13: 333 Kennewell, J.; McDonald, A., 2012: The Solar Photosphere. IPS Radio and Space Services Kirchhoff, G., 1860: Ueber das Verhältniss zwischen dem Emissionsvermögen und dem Absorptionsvermögen der Körper für Wärme and Licht. Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 109: 275-301 Koester, D.; Chanmugam, G., 1990: Physics of white dwarf stars. Reports on Progress in Physics, 53 (7): 837-915 Korzennik, S.; Thompson, M. J.; Toomre, J., 1997: Internal rotation and dynamics of the Sun from GONG data. Proceedings of the 181st Symposium of the International Astronomical Union Koshiba, M., 2003: Nobel Lecture: Birth of neutrino astrophysics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75 (3): 1011-1020 Kosovichev, A. G., 2002: Subsurface structure of sunspots. Astronomische Nachrichten, 323 (3‐4): 186-191 Kosovichev, A. G.; Zharkova, V. V., 1998: X-ray flare sparks quake inside Sun. Nature, 393: 317-318 Kronberg, P. P.; E. Lovelace, R. V.; Lapenta, G.; Colgate, S. A., 2011: Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet. arXiv, 1106.1397v3 Kuhn, J. R.; Bush, R.; Emilio, M.; Scholl, I. F., 2012: The Precise Solar Shape and Its Variability. Science, 337 (6102): 1638-1640 Kuhn, T. S., 1987: Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Langmuir, I.; Compton, K. T., 1931: Electrical Discharges in Gases Part II. Fundamental Phenomena in Electrical Discharges. Reviews of Modern Physics, 3 (2): 191-257 Lanza, A. F., 2007: Angular momentum conservation and torsional oscillations in the Sun and solar-like stars. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 471 (3): 1011-1022 Lee, T. N., 1974: Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena. Astrophysical Journal, 190: 467-479 Li, K. L. et al., 2012: A Luminous Be+White Dwarf Supersoft Source in the Wing of the SMC: MAXI J0158-744. arxiv, 1207.5023 Lin, C. C.; Shu, F. H., 1964: On the Spiral Structure of Disk Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal, 140: 646 Lin, R., 2005: A New Kind of Solar Storm. NASA Livio, M.; Soker, N., 2001: The "Twin Jet" Planetary Nebula M2-9. The Astrophysical Journal, 552: 685-691 Lockman, F. J.; Free, N. L.; Shields, J. C., 2012: The Neutral Hydrogen Bridge between M31 and M33. arXiv, 1205.5235 Lucas, C. W., 2003: A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei, Part 4: Blackbody Radiation and the Photoelectric Effect. Foundations of Science, 6 (3) Manuel, O.; Kamat, S. A.; Mozina, M., 2006: The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass. Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 69 (11): 1847-1856 May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879 McCook, G. P.; Sion, E. M., 1999: A Catalog of Spectroscopically Identified White Dwarfs. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 121: 1-130 McDonald, A. B.; Klein, J. R.; Wark, D. L., 2003: Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem. Scientific American, 288 (4): 40-49 Méndez, B., 2000: Stellar Life Cycle: Red Giants. Berkeley Michaud, G.; Richard, O.; Richer, J.; VandenBerg, D. A., 2004: Models for Solar Abundance Stars with Gravitational Settling and Radiative Accelerations: Application to M67 and NGC 188. The Astrophysical Journal, 606: 452-465 Miesch, M. S., 2005: Large-Scale Dynamics of the Convection Zone and Tachocline. Living Reviews in Solar Physics Mozina, M.; Ratcliffe, H.; Manuel, O., 2006: Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle. Journal of Fusion Energy, 25: 107-114 Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306 Narlikar, J. V.; Arp, H. C., 1997: Time Dilation in the Supernova Light Curve and the Variable Mass Hypothesis. The Astrophysical Journal, 482: L119-L120 Neckel, H.; Labs, D., 1994: Solar limb darkening 1986-1990 (lambda lambda 303 to 1099nm). Solar Physics, 153: 91-114 Nemmen, R. S. et al., 2012: A Universal Scaling for the Energetics of Relativistic Jets from Black Hole Systems. Science, 338 (6113): 1445-1448 Neslušan, L., 2001: On the global electrostatic charge of stars. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 372: 913-915 Peratt, A. L.; Verschuur, G. L., 2000: Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds: a speculation on the physical mechanism for their existence. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 28 (6): 2122-2127 Peretto, N. et al., 2012: The Pipe Nebula as seen with Herschel: Formation of filamentary structures by large-scale compression? Phillips, J. L. et al., 1995: Ulysses solar wind plasma observations from pole to pole. Geophysical Research Letters, 22 (23): 3301-3304 Picone, J. M.; E. Hedin, A.; Drob, D. P.; Aikin, A. C., 2002: NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107 (A12): 1468 Pintéra, T.; Dorotoviča, I.; Rybanský, M., 2009: The heliosphere mass variations: 1996–2006. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 4 (257): 291-293 Planck, M.; Masius, M., 1914: The theory of heat radiation. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston's Son & Co Pojoga, S.; Huang, T. S., 2003: On the sudden disappearances of solar filaments and their relationship with coronal mass ejections. Advances in Space Research, 32 (12): 2641-2646 Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419 Prialnik, D., 2000: An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution. Cambridge University Press Rezzolla, L. et al., 2011: The missing link: Merging neutron stars naturally produce jet-like structures and can power short Gamma-Ray Bursts. arXiv, 1101.4298 Richardson, J. D., 2000: The Solar Wind: Probing the Heliosphere with Multiple Spacecraft. COSPAR Colloquium on The Outer Heliosphere: The Next Frontier, Potsdam Rieutord, M.; Rincon, F., 2010: The Sun's Supergranulation. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7 Robitaille, P. M., 2003: On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31 (6): 1263-1267 Robitaille, P. M., 2007: A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun. Progress in Physics, 1: 70-81 Robitaille, P. M., 2008: Blackbody Radiation and the Carbon Particle. Progress in Physics, 3: 36-55 Robitaille, P. M., 2009: Blackbody Radiation and the Loss of Universality: Implications for Planck's Formulation and Boltzman's Constant. Progress in Physics, 4: 14-16 Robitaille, P. M., 2011: On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Hervé Faye. Progress in Physics, 3: 75-78 Robitaille, P. M., 2011: Stellar Opacity: The Achilles' Heel of the Gaseous Sun. Progress in Physics, 3: 93-99 Rosenberg, H., 1910: On the Relation Between Brightness and Spectral Type in the Pleiades. Astronomische Nachrichten, 186 (4445): 71 Ryutova, M. P.; Frank, Z.; Hagenaar, H.; Berger, T., 2011: Flares Producing Well-organized Post-flare Arcades (Slinkies) Have Early Precursors. The Astrophysical Journal, 733 (2): 125 Ryutova, M., 2006: Coupling effects throughout the solar atmosphere: 2. Model of energetically open circuit. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111 (A9): A09102 Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100 Sheeley, N. R., Jr.; Wang, Y., 2001: Coronal Inflows and Sector Magnetism. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 562 (1): L107 Shukurov, A.; Moss, D., 1996: Turbulence and magnetic fields in elliptical galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 279 (1): 229-239 Simon, G. W.; Leighton, R. B., 1964: Velocity Fields in the Solar Atmosphere. III. Large-Scale Motions, the Chromospheric Network, and Magnetic Fields. The Astrophysical Journal, 140: 1120-1149 Smid, T., 2010: Gravitational Energy of the Sun explains "Coronal Heating". Soru-Escaut, I.; Mouradian, Z., 1990: Sudden disappearance and reappearance of solar filaments by heating and cooling. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 230: 474-478 Swartz, M. et al., 1999: The SERTS–97 Rocket Experiment to Study Activity on the Sun: Flight 36.167–GS on 1997 November 18. NASA, 1999-208640 Taliashvili, L.; Mouradian, Z.; Páez, J., 2010: Dynamic disappearance of prominences and their geoeffectiveness. Geofísica Internacional, 47 (3) Thomas, H. et al., 1994: Plasma Crystal: Coulomb Crystallization in a Dusty Plasma. Physical Review Letters, 73: 652-655 Trujillo, I.; Carretero, C.; Patiri, S. G., 2006: Detection of the effect of cosmological large-scale structure on the orientation of galaxies. arxiv, L111-L114 Tsintsadze, L. N.; Callebaut, D. K.; Tsintsadze, N. L., 1996: Black-body radiation in plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics, 55: 407-413 Verschuur, G. L., 1995: Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes and the Bennett Pinch. Astrophysics and Space Science, 227 (1-2): 187-198 Veselovsky, I., 2008: Universal and important physical process in space plasmas: electric charge separation. 37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 37: 3332 Vorontsov, S. V. et al., 2002: Helioseismic Measurement of Solar Torsional Oscillations. Science, 296 (5565): 101-103 Watanabe, K. et al., 2010: G-band and Hard X-ray Emissions of the 2006 December 14 flare observed by Hinode/SOT and RHESSI. arXiv.org, 1004.4259 Wien, W.; Lummer, O., 1895: Methode zur Prüfung des Strahlungsgesetzes absolut schwarzer Körper. Annalen der Physik, 292 (11): 451-456 Williams, J. P.; Blitz, L.; McKee, C. F., 1999: The Structure and Evolution of Molecular Clouds: from Clumps to Cores to the IMF. arXiv:astro-ph Willson, R. C.; Hudson, H. S., 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature, 351 (6321): 42-44 Zhao, J.; Kosovichev, A. G., 2004: Torsional Oscillation, Meridional Flows, and Vorticity Inferred in the Upper Convection Zone of the Sun by Time-Distance Helioseismology. The Astrophysical Journal, 603: 776 Zhao, Q.; Coult, J.; Pollack, G. H., 2010: Long-range attraction in aqueous colloidal suspensions. Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation, 7376: 73761C1-73761C13 As we now know, by the "Dalsgaard model", CC is referring to Model S, as published in Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996. Which is not in this list. Gizon, L.; Birch, A. C., 2005: Local Helioseismology. Living Reviews in Solar Physics is one such reference in the list. One of the papers it references is Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 2002, “Helioseismology”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 1073–1129.. So what? Well, consider this: Originally Posted by Charles Chandler And how do the laws of fluid dynamics account for the non-Newtonian density gradient? Originally Posted by ben m There is no problem writing solutions to these ordinary, boring force laws that have the property of a convective photosphere and a tenuous chromosphere. Please send an email to Dr. Dalsgaard. (Try to be polite about it.) Consider that, since 1996, "Dr. Dalsgaard" is listed as an author of hundreds of papers, published in peer-reviewed journals. Consider that the term "Newtonian density gradient" does not appear in either the Gizon et al. (2005) or the Christensen-Dalsgaard (2003) one1. Consider that the Solar Dynamics Observatory was launched in 2010; the two STEREO spacecraft in 2006, Transition Region And Coronal Explorer in 1998, ... and that even the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory began normal operations in May, 19962. If CC is so keen to keep current, by reading journals (and not textbooks), how could he have so spectacularly failed to keep up with changes in the field, in the past decade or two? Is such a clear pattern indicative of "using a critical process"? Or is it, perhaps, the kind of cherry-picking and deliberately misleading selection that one so often sees employed by crackpots? Consider, too, the facts concerning CC's stated reasons for looking for 'an alternative' source of energy to power the Sun (I covered this in an earlier post). All this from looking at just two of CC's 'non-mainstream' claims; I wonder a more extensive critical review might turn up? 1 Indeed, not even a single instance of "Newtonian". 2 Why is this significant?
'13-07-30, 12:17 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by ben m Um! You wrote an extensive Web page explaining that the core of the Sun has to be made of osmium, or something, because hydrogen plasma is incompressible. That's the first subpage on your Web site. You talked yourself into imagining an energy-conservation-violating perpetual motion machine that powers the Sun via electricity and gravity. That's the second and third pages of your website. How is this "chipping around the edges"? It seems to be the foundation of what you're hoping to say. (my bold) Actually, I think CC may have been onto something. If he ever produces an internally-consistent, quantitative model based on this machine, he may discover that the Sun is a pulsating variable, with a period rather longer than that of Cepheids (and a range of luminosity - from min to max - greater than any Cepheid too). Now that would be a truly exciting discovery, wouldn't it?
'13-07-30, 12:26 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by RC That image is not raw data. That movie is not raw data. Those movies of granules on this page are not raw data. Originally Posted by me This points to a key failing in CC's ideas (per his website); namely, that "observations" (or "raw data") are nearly always deeply reliant on quite a lot of physics ... of the standard, textbook kind. Estimates of elemental composition of a plasma/gas from its spectrum, for example, are pure gibberish if you throw out thermodynamics, atomic theory and some basic quantum mechanics, for example (MM never understood this). I have to disagree with both of you, on very fundamental grounds. The data are the data. The interpretation of the data is inevitably theory-dependent, and you might as well say that if you're going to make a mistake in a scientific endeavor, it's because you used the wrong construct to marshal the data into something that made sense to you. But not drawing a distinct line between the data and the interpretation is a big mistake. We need to be able to get all of the way back to our very first assumptions in order to spot errors in our paradigms. If we say that data don't become legitimate until we have post-processed them into quantities acknowledged by our paradigms, we lose the ability to see what the paradigms are missing. OK, let's take something really simple, the Fraunhofer linesWP. Please describe an observational setup which produces "data" (however you interpret that word) "showing the Fraunhofer lines" (however you interpret that statement). Does a spectrum "showing the Fraunhofer lines" also "show Balmer H-alpha in absorption"?
'13-07-30, 12:36 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I "thought" that everybody was taking for granted that everything is compressible, but when electron shells begin to conflict, it takes additional pressure to continue to increase the density, because it takes force to liberate the electrons (i.e., pressure ionization). (See Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100) Thus the compressibility limits are a function of the pre-existing degree of ionization. If the electrons have already been liberated by high temperatures, those shell conflicts aren't there, and the compression continues past that limit, obeying the ideal gas laws. But if there are still bound electrons at the given temperature, there will be a limit there. Can anyone else confirm/deny that this is established laboratory science? Excuse me Charles, but you asserted that a hydrogen/helium plasma is not compressible to the level that would exit at the core of the sun. I asked for your evidence, now you are shifting the goal post, I asked for your evidence that there are compression limits on plasma, which is one of your original assertions at the base of your whole model. Please answer my question, or admit that one part of your model is based upon an assumption that you made without evidence.