Thunderbolts Forum

'12-02-23, 04:24 hertz	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient I think this is where one of the errors is being made, and once made, you can end up thinking that an external electric field...generates a current through the plasma filament, and then pinches it into solid matter. The next thing you know, planets and stars are popping out. But that just isn't correct. congrats charles, you're now smarter than birkeland, alfven, arp and peratt combined...wow
'12-02-23, 05:50 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient The Smartest * Hey, Hertz, I don't think you're making a strong argument by saying Charles thinks he's smarter than the EU pioneers, because a similar statement could be made about Thornhill, Scott, Juergens et al apparently thinking they're smarter than Einstein, Hawking and all the other physicists and astronomers who came up with the conventional model. I gather that you don't think Charles is smarter, but the most important thing seems to me to be whether the rest of us are smart enough to listen carefully to all of those who try to explain things for us and see for ourselves what seems to make the most sense. See how smart I am by listening to all sides? Pretty soon I'll be smarter than them, the experts, because most of them usually don't listen to each other enough. Of course, I get tired of listening to some of the experts too, when I don't hear much new or interesting, so I guess we don't need to listen to everyone all the time. Vacuum Is a Conductor? * Charles, your info on SNRs and galactic motions etc is very interesting and plausible to me. Your provocative statements are interesting to me too, but I need to question them a lot more. To me your most provocative statement is probably the one about the vacuum being the best conductor of electric current. If that were true, it seems that air should be a better conductor than solids or liquids, because there's a lot of vacuum between air molecules; isn't there? When reading Juergens long ago and maybe later, I had the impression that he and conventional scientists considered space to be an insulator, so he was talking about how planets can have so much charge that they break down the insulator of space similar to the insulators break down in the lab or the field under high voltage etc. NASA did a tethered satellite experiment back in the late 90s, I think. The tether was a thin wire 12 or 13 miles long and they were surprised that it glowed, due to conducting charge, I think, and I understand that the current was so strong that it burned the wire where it connected to the spacecraft. I don't remember for sure if it was a manned mission, but I think it was. I heard Richard Hoagland tell this story on the radio and it seems like he said the astronauts were lucky they weren't electrocuted. * I'd like to know of any significant evidence you have that empty space is a conductor. I'm inclined to think it's not, but, if you have persuasive evidence, I'll possibly be persuaded otherwise. * I plan to ask Brant if he knows of any evidence that z-pinches can actually cause ionized and or molten matter to accrete, as EU theorists, including him, assert. I just got word that another iron sun proponent will join in this discussion.
'12-02-23, 06:25 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient CharlesChandler wrote: There is really only one possibility here, that this is (somehow) a manifestation of EM forces. But what kind of forces could contain plasma in free space? Put in the simplest of terms, the Sun is obviously a bunch of plasma that is attracted to itself — far more so than gravity can explain — and there is a drop-off point, which defies the inverse square law of gravity. So what is the attractive force? Lloyd suggested that I might want to join a few of these discussions so I thought I'd start here. IMO the attractive force that you're looking for, along with the containment process is gravity, along with the various current carrying properties of each of the elements. This gravitational and EM differential between various elements results in "relative" separation of elements into plasma LAYERS based primarily upon the atomic weight of the elements. The sun is an active place so all the elements get mixed together a bit and all the elements are present in the layer of the photosphere. IMO the photosphere is a predominantly NEON plasma layer, as opposed to the mostly HELIUM layer of the chromosphere, and the predominantly hydrogen corona. Gravity acts to "separate" the elements by atomic weight IMO. The similar current carrying properties of the elements causes them to 'stick together', and gravity and EM fields act to separate the elements. FYI, I also believe there is a predominantly silicon plasma layer under the photosphere that is cooler and more dense than the photosphere and a solid surface under that.
'12-02-23, 07:02 hertz	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient before responding, might i recommend a quick look at this web site: http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html where you'll find a great deal of evidence to support what michael is saying above?
'12-02-23, 07:27 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient * Thanks for that link, Hertz. * Hi Michael. Thanks for joining us. We may be able to have our Iron Sun discussion here primarily, for a while at least. I posted to the Aether Battery Iron Sun thread last night in order to make it a bit more accessible for reference, although anyone can post there too, if inclined. This is Charles' thread, I guess you noticed, but he says he now thinks the Sun's density gradient suggests that it contains substantial iron, apparently. (Charles, can you post a diagram or explanation of your model of the solar interior and what data source/s you base it on?) Solid Surface under Photosphere? * Michael, you say there's silicon plasma under the photosphere, with a solid shell under that. Brant said the solid surface is 1500 km or miles under the photosphere. Do you agree? He seems to say that the solid surface is visible via IR light and is mostly iron. Do you differ with him about the iron? I guess he would say there's silicon etc mixed in with the iron at the surface at least. You say gravity accounts for the Sun's density gradient, but Brant said he thinks gravity is only a surface effect. I guess he means down to the solid iron surface. I'll try to ask him what evidence he bases his idea of surface-only gravity on. That may agree with Miles Mathis, who says gravity affects volume, while E/M affects mass. He says the equation for gravity actually contains also the E/M force. I guess that would simply mean that the density gradient could be just the way you and Charles view it, but that it's caused by the E/M part of the force field, rather than by the gravity portion. Does that seem plausible? Brant's evidence that the solar surface under the photosphere is solid is that running difference images show very little if any change in the shapes of the "solar moss", or whatever the surface bumps are called. Do you know the amount of time during which such surface features are known to remain unchanged? I'll try to ask him that too. He said, if it were plasma, it would be expected to change shape quickly. I guess that would hold for liquid too. * Can you give us references or quotes for your statements about the levels of the solar interior and composition?
'12-02-23, 07:57 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: * Thanks for that link, Hertz. * Hi Michael. Thanks for joining us. We may be able to have our Iron Sun discussion here primarily, for a while at least. I posted to the Aether Battery Iron Sun thread last night in order to make it a bit more accessible for reference, although anyone can post there too, if inclined. This is Charles' thread, I guess you noticed, but he says he now thinks the Sun's density gradient suggests that it contains substantial iron, apparently. (Charles, can you post a diagram or explanation of your model of the solar interior and what data source(s) you base it on?) Solid Surface under Photosphere? * Michael, you say there's silicon plasma under the photosphere, with a solid shell under that. Brant said the solid surface is 1500 km or miles under the photosphere. Do you agree? I believe the surface is located 4800KM +- 1200KM under the surface of the photosphere, based on Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data, and the first SDO composite images released by NASA. They both arrive at identical numbers. That just can't be a coincidence IMO. He seems to say that the solid surface is visible via IR light and is mostly iron. Do you differ with him about the iron? I think Brant and I agree upon it's basic composition based on Manuel's numbers. I think it's mostly iron and nickel but it's a crust like the crust of Mercury with lots of other elements present. I guess he would say there's silicon etc mixed in with the iron at the surface at least. Sure. I also believe there is a silicon plasma layer sitting right under the neon photosphere. That's why the areas directly around the bottom of the sunspot are dark. The area under the photosphere is composed of a different material IMO, specifically silicon. You say gravity accounts for the Sun's density gradient, but Brant said he thinks gravity is only a surface effect. Well, it's a "full effect" IMO, although I do believe that EM forces of the universe have an influence on how gravity manifests itself in spheres in space as is the case in this NASA video. The water shell doesn't collapse. It "contains" the lighter air inside the shell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU Brant suggests (as I recall) that there could be a "wireless transfer of energy" into the "less dense" center. I think that's possible as well, although I personally prefer an INTERNAL power system mostly due to the neutrino counts. Perhaps the wireless transfer triggers an internal reaction? I guess he means down to the solid iron surface. I'll try to ask him what evidence he bases his idea of surface-only gravity on. That may agree with Miles Mathis, who says gravity affects volume, while E/M affects mass. He says the equation for gravity actually contains also the E/M force. I guess that would simply mean that the density gradient could be just the way you and Charles view it, but that it's caused by the E/M part of the force field, rather than by the gravity portion. Does that seem plausible? Yes. For all we know gravity itself is a manifestation of the EM field on objects in space. Brant's evidence that the solar surface under the photosphere is solid is that running difference images show very little if any change in the shapes of the "solar moss", or whatever the surface bumps are called. Do you know the amount of time during which such surface features are known to remain unchanged? It depends on the cycle, but I've seen "some" features remain over a full solar rotation cycle (27.3 days), but rarely two cycles. Its important to remember it is a highly volcanic environment and it's also experiencing considerable amounts of surface "erosion' due to the constant electrical discharges that traverse the surface. It's an active environment. Compared to the 8 or so minute lifetimes of structures located in the photosphere, the structures seen in iron line RD images last FOREVER (hours and days and weeks). It could be due to a MORE DENSE PLASMA, but IMO it's a volcanic (solid) crust. * Can you give us references or quotes for your statements about the levels of the solar interior and composition? I would say I remain open to MANY ideas, but I tend to favor a predominantly fusion driven process in the core caused by high temps and high pressures. I do think the whole system is "layered" with lighter atomic elements in the core and heavier elements arranged in a ring, not unlike the water shell of that video I cited about the formation of water shells around air. The surface tension and internal core pressures keep the whole thing from imploding and drive a fusion/fission sparked? process in the core IMO. I do think that MORE than fusion is likely to occur in the core, and Brant may be right about it picking up external energy as well. I do at the moment however favor a predominantly fusion driven process in the core with a mostly hydrogen core, a helium layer around it, a heavier layer, etc.
'12-02-23, 08:14 Michael V	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Michael, Brant, If there is a "solid" surface 1000-6000km below the visible surface, then that means that basically almost the entire globe in below a solid surface, and that in turn implies that the interior (mantle/core) has a mean density of 1400kg m-3. So gravity has built a body with the density of neon/magnesium - highly unlikely in my opinion. Do you suppose then that Jupiter and Saturn are similarly constructed? Also, how much hot would this supposed solid surface be only a few thousand kilometres from searing hot upper/outer atmosphere? Michael
'12-02-23, 09:06 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Michael V wrote: Michael, Brant, If there is a "solid" surface 1000-6000km below the visible surface, then that means that basically almost the entire globe in below a solid surface, and that in turn means implies that the core has a mean density of 1400kg m-3. So gravity has built a body with the density of neon/magnesium - highly unlikely in my opinion. Do you suppose then that Jupiter and Saturn are similarly constructed? Michael I'm not sure where you got your density estimates, but the last time I estimated the average density for Nereid, even with a SMALL neutron core ended up being close to water as I recall. I think there's still the spreadsheet.jpg on the website somewhere. It would almost NECESSARILY be layered on the inside much like that water bubble video, but the average density of the sun doesn't change all the much from the standard model simply by virtue of a "crust".
'12-02-23, 10:24 Michael V	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Michael, even with a SMALL neutron core What? Neutron core???? I'm not sure where you got your density estimates The wikipedia page for the Sun gives 1408 kg m-3 - I was simply rounding to 1400. It would almost NECESSARILY be layered OK, I'll give you some degree of layering, but you still gonna have a lot of hydrogen, helium, oxygen, nitrogen and possibly molecular gases that will not be entirely happy being before a crust formed just below the outer atmosphere. Also, most of the heavier elements will be nearer the centre. How will such a crust maintain any kind of structural stability sitting on top of an interior that just below it will almost certainly be less dense than water. There must surely be a much deeper atmosphere than 5000km on a body of that size, that power output and that mean density. What do you suggest the crust be made of? How thick to you suppose the crust might be? What temperature do you suggest is at 5000km from the photosphere? Michael
'12-02-23, 14:42 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient * Michael V, the Aether Battery Iron Sun thread at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=~ has Brant's version of the Iron Sun model. Michael Mozina linked to a video that shows how water forms a blob in space which can have a hollow core, i.e. filled with air. On Earth geodes are found to be hollow and it's theorized that anything formed by Marklund convection and the like can be hollow. Brant thinks the Sun was formed that way. Michael M. uses a lot of Oliver Manuel's data, and Oliver's model is based on a neutron star powering the Sun. I don't know if Michael considers that a likely scenario, but that seems to be what he means by a neutron core. Brant and I differ with that version. Here's a copy of parts of Brant's model from the other thread. I copied his statements from the Randi forum last year and used the post numbers before each statement. My purpose here is to see which parts of Brant's model Charles agrees and disagrees with and why and then to see what Brant says in return and to get other inputs as well, to see if we can develop a rather thoroughly evidence-based model. Brant's Iron Sun Model - Intro #1- An aether powered iron sun is necessary to explain the activity that we see on the solar surface. #27- The Aether model I use is a hybrid of the observations of Karl Von Reichenbach and experimental Aetherometry. #4255- They are the empirical data sets that I use. IRON STAR FORMATION #4401- Supernovae are known to have iron cores and iron rich plasma. #4401- The hypothesis is that supernovae are large plasma pinches that nucleosynthesize iron cores that get ejected. #4401- Plasma pinches are not only hot enough (>2 billion K) but also use Marklund convection to synthesize new metals. #4428- The pinch is hot enough to go through the nucleosynthesis process by repeated pinching. #4428- Eventually an iron core pops out, which sometimes is seen as a lone star racing across space. #82- The sun was formed in a supernova, which is really just a large filamental pinch (involving a flux rope). #82- See "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane" here: http://www.astron.nl/other/documents/conf/science/sci33w.pdf; or here: http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~sbhatnag/Thesis/HTLATEX/.../thesis~; etc. #117- In a high current z-pinch you have "instabilities" along the column that form "knots", which are the precursor to stars. #117- In the case of a supernova, theres only one knot. #82- This is where the iron sphere came from. #82- Fusion (nucleosynthesis) as a process of nature happens in filamental or Bennett pinches. #82- Temperatures high enough for the CNO cycle have been observed on the sun in pinches. #82- The elements are gathered by a process called Marklund Convection and converted by a pinching process, forming heavier and heavier elements until iron forms. #82- In experiments with arcs, hollow spherules are formed in intense arc explosions with metals. <<Brant says the Sun's iron shell is probably 1/3 of its radius, which would be about 144,000 miles thick.>> #82- A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron formed in a supernova. #82- The hollow iron shell accounts for solar density measurements, although it requires a slightly different model of gravity. #82- All stars are different with differing trace metals, but they ALL have metals. <<Let's ask him if this applies to red and brown dwarf stars, like Saturn seems to have been.>> #82- There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model. <<Ask him to explain.>> #117- To stabilize an iron shell, you would need a new theory of gravity, that takes into account experimental evidence, as well as accounting for the shell. #117- Its not as radical as you would think; and gravity may be a surface effect! #117- See Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction: 4. Cycloids and gravity: http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm#g4. #117- From the outside, if you do spectroscopic measurements, some stars [deceptively] seem to have almost no metal. #117- You would never see the metallicity of a black body [solid], only the spectrum of the surrounding plasma. #4401- Why must a solid iron surface exist on the Sun? -- Because the standard solar model has failed and this model fits every parameter for the sun. -- It explains: the structure of the sun perfectly; -- Why there is a temperature gradient from <5,000 to >2,000,000 K; -- Why there is a "convection" layer; -- The metals problem; -- Helioseismologically why the sun is more like a bounded sphere, than a decreasing density plasma ball; -- X-rays, gamma rays, neutrinos. -- New experimental data and methodology's; -- It completes the description of "energy" in the most basic sense.
'12-02-23, 15:38 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Michael V wrote: Michael, even with a SMALL neutron core What? Neutron core???? It's a long story. Suffice to say that I actually "prefer" a relatively "standard" solar power explanation involving fusion, and maybe some fission. As I said, I entertain a variety of options as it relates to the core. I can only actually "see/observe" the solar atmosphere and the surface, not what's under that surface. I like Brant's ideas in terms of proving wireless power, but I suspect it helps sustain the fusion reactions of the core if that is the case. I'm not sure where you got your density estimates The wikipedia page for the Sun gives 1408 kg m-3 - I was simply rounding to 1400.[/QUOTE] Ok. OK, I'll give you some degree of layering, but you still gonna have a lot of hydrogen, That rises into the corona for the most part, although protons run through all the layers, as do electrons. helium, He+2 is the second most abundant particle in the solar wind, and He+1 is the next most abundant element. The HE layer is what we call the "chromosphere" IMO. Anything with a high charge to mass ratio is more likely to be carried away into the solar wind, and anything with a low charge to mass ratio is likely to stay in the layer. oxygen, If you study plasma physics, plasma has a way of selectively ejecting oxygen atoms. I don't think it forms an actual layer. I think it tends to combine with carbon and other hydrogen and tends to collect around planets. The various ionization states of oxygen are present in the spectral (SERTS) data however. I suspect most of that activity is related to coronal loop activity where "chunks" of the surface are ionized by the current in the discharge loops. nitrogen and possibly molecular gases that will not be entirely happy being before a crust formed just below the outer atmosphere. Also, most of the heavier elements will be nearer the centre. How will such a crust maintain any kind of structural stability sitting on top of an interior that just below it will almost certainly be less dense than water. There must surely be a much deeper atmosphere than 5000km on a body of that size, that power output and that mean density. The core would have to be a very hot, very pressurized place to be sure. What do you suggest the crust be made of? I would say it's probably very much like the crust of Mercury. It's not uniform in composition and the entire surface is highly volcanic. In terms of composition however, I think it's mostly iron and nickel and metals. How thick to you suppose the crust might be? That's hard to tell from the heliosiesmology data IMO. I would have to say however that it's a relatively "thin" crust, and highly volcanic crust. Every "active region" we observe in iron ion images is an erupting area of the surface IMO. What temperature do you suggest is at 5000km from the photosphere? Well, it has to be cool enough for solids to form IMO. I would say the surface is will over 1000K and probably closer to 1200K. Keep in mind that there is a silicon layer under the photosphere IMO that is MUCH deeper than the neon photosphere. The photosphere is thought to be about 300-500KM thick and based on sunspot observations, I would agree with that number. Most of the plasma is UNDER that layer, it's far more dense than the photosphere and it cools considerably by the time it meets up with the "surface" 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere.
'12-02-23, 15:47 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: See how smart I am by listening to all sides? Indeed, we should all take note that Lloyd has been simultaneously prodding along a number of discussions, on a variety of topics, and expending an enormous amount of labor trying to figure out what people are trying to say. Maybe he just selfishly thinks that he's going to learn something, but his inquisitiveness and patience with all of us is exemplary. My compliments. Lloyd wrote: To me your most provocative statement is probably the one about the vacuum being the best conductor of electric current. If that were true, it seems that air should be a better conductor than solids or liquids, because there's a lot of vacuum between air molecules; isn't there? The fact that air is an insulator comes not from the amount of free space between the molecules, but rather, from the dielectric nature of nitrogen and oxygen. Even though air is a gas, the mean free path is measured in micrometers, and an electron trying to make its way through that maze is going to bounce off a lot of unreceptive molecules before finally getting where it wants to be. To highlight the point, consider how your body can hold onto a static charge on a dry winter day, and you can shock yourself when touching doorknobs. People who work on sensitive electronics have to wear grounding straps that eliminate these charges, or those little sparks will fry out the equipment they're working on. But on a humid days, you'll never develop any static electricity. This is because water vapor is a better conductor than nitrogen or oxygen, and even though it only constitutes 1% of the air at 100% relative humidity, and therefore does not alter the amount of "free space" in the air between molecules, the resistance of the air goes down dramatically. So it's not the free space that provides the resistance. It's the nature of the molecules, and the mean free path. At sea level, it's micrometers. For a satellite in a geostationary orbit, I think the mean free path is in millimeters. In interstellar space I think it's centimeters. In a perfect vacuum, it would be infinite. With nothing to bump into, the drift velocity is a simple function of the electric force minus the inertial force (not including any Lorentz forces from external magnetic fields). Michael Mozina wrote: IMO the attractive force that you're looking for, along with the containment process is gravity, along with the various current carrying properties of each of the elements. How do "current carrying properties" result in an attractive force? Michael Mozina wrote: IMO the photosphere is a predominantly NEON plasma layer, as opposed to the mostly HELIUM layer of the chromosphere, and the predominantly hydrogen corona. What causes the hydrogen-alpha emissions from the photosphere, if it's made of neon? Michael Mozina wrote: FYI, I also believe there is a predominantly silicon plasma layer under the photosphere that is cooler and more dense than the photosphere and a solid surface under that. Why silicon? Lloyd wrote: Charles, can you post a diagram or explanation of your model of the solar interior and what data source/s you base it on? First I'll address the density and elemental composition issues. You can go to Elementary Composition of the Sun if you want to see all of the calcs, but here's the summary. From the emission lines given off by the photosphere, we know that it is 74% hydrogen and 25% helium. The helioseismic data suggest that the entire convective zone is well-mixed, so we can guess that the whole convective zone has the same composition as the photosphere. From helioseismic data we know that the density of the convective zone averages 7.63 x 1010 kg/km3. From that I calculated the mass of the convective zone, and subtracted it from the total mass of the Sun, to get the mass of everything below the convective zone (i.e., the core + the radiative zone). I then divided that by the volume to get the density, and it worked out to 3.96 x 1012 kg/km3, which is 52 times the density of the convective zone. We have been told that the Sun is comprised entirely of hydrogen and helium, but compressing hydrogen and helium to 52x the density of liquid hydrogen would force the expulsion of all of the electrons, resulting in nothing but positive charge, and a Coulomb force of 1.13 x 1022 N/m3. I still haven't figured out how to calculate the pressure gradient (and I'm not going to just accept the "standard model" numbers), but I don't see where the force to offset the Coulomb force is going to come from. Gravity is 39 orders of magnitude less, so that isn't going to work. This leaves only one conclusion: that below the convective zone, those are heavier elements. Liquid iron is 55x heavier than liquid hydrogen, so the density averages that of liquid iron. We'd think that it might all be liquid iron, except that we're not seeing any sharp change in density at the transition from the convective to the radiative zones. So we're not going straight from liquid hydrogen to liquid iron. If the helioseismic data are at least telling the truth that the density of the Sun increases steadily, then we're going from mainly hydrogen in the photosphere through a wide variety of elements. The upper end of the radiative zone is lighter than iron, then there is an iron layer, and then, core would have to be much heavier than iron to get the whole thing to average the density of iron. What, exactly, these elements actually are is a mystery to me, and I don't know how we would ever know. Then there is the electromagnetic structure. I'm saying that the core is positively charged. This is due mainly to the partial expulsion of electrons caused by the extreme pressures, and also partly due to the rapid rotation of the core, which generates magnetic fields capable of partially separating the charges. With a positively charged core, we then will get electrostatic double-layers, and the electric force is then the "glue" that actually holds the whole thing together. Michael Mozina wrote: I believe the surface is located 4800KM +- 1200KM under the surface of the photosphere, based on Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data, and the first SDO composite images released by NASA. They both arrive at identical numbers. That just can't be a coincidence IMO. Can you elaborate on this? Michael Mozina wrote: I think Brant and I agree upon it's basic composition based on Manuel's numbers. I think it's mostly iron and nickel but it's a crust like the crust of Mercury with lots of other elements present. Who is Manuel? Can you provide links to his works? Why do you think that there is a crust? Michael Mozina wrote: Compared to the 8 or so minute lifetimes of structures located in the photosphere, the structures seen in iron line RD images last FOREVER (hours and days and weeks). What is the "iron line RD"? Michael Mozina wrote: The last time I estimated the average density for Nereid, even with a SMALL neutron core ended up being close to water as I recall. I think there's still the spreadsheet.jpg on the website somewhere. Can you locate those calcs?
'12-02-24, 00:50 Solar	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Oliver Manuel's website is here and you can read some of his ArXiv papers directly : Prof. O. Manuel Utilized on The Surface of the Sun website are some software delineated "running "(sequential) TRACE and SOHO FE IX/X & FE XII iron line (Ion) emissions snapshots: Running Difference Imaging (RD). Also, for contrast, there is the Thunderbolts 2005-06 Iron Sun Debate series: Iron Sun Debate Iron Sun Debate Part 1 Iron Sun Debate Part 2 Iron Sun Debate Part 3 ... and a fond hello again to Michael Mozina.
'12-02-24, 03:37 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient * Thanks much for those links, Solar Ty. * Michael Mozina, the density calculations you mention were apparently at this post: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3~. But that was copied from the first forum that crashed, so the jpg doesn't work any more. Do you have the calculations somewhere on your website, or anywhere else? * Charles, RD means running difference. The THEMIS images had those, so one could see how much an area (apparently under the photosphere, as certain IR frequencies apparently can penetrate the photosphere) on the solid or liquid solar surface changed over time. Michael M. says many features last for weeks or more. He says areas do change due to vulcanism, but Brant says it's more like geysers or something, like what's on Jupiter's moon Io, where the geyser eruptions are where electrical forces strike the surface, as occurs on a number of rocky bodies, even Mars, I think. * An associate, who seems to be an expert, or otherwise well-informed, says a vacuum is a perfect electrical insulator, until ions are introduced. I'm waiting for permission to quote him.
'12-02-24, 05:41 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Sun Surface RD Images * The images below come from http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/running.htm, i.e. Michael Mozina's site. http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/Lkindr/TB/SunRD2.j~ These photos each shot one day apart, were taken on 5/27, 28, 29 & 30, 2005. * This shows fairly stable structures, which seem to be located in the hottest areas of the Sun's surface. That means the areas away from these hot spots, where "solar moss" occurs, should be even more solid. Michael M., do you have access to images of such areas away from these hot spots? Also, can you tell us what the diameter of this circular area is on the Sun? I imagine it's at least hundreds of miles, if not thousands. Does anyone doubt that these structures are semi-solid, since they're persisting for 4 days minimum? And Michael, you said there are structures that last for weeks or longer. Can you show us those?