Surface of the Sun

On heavens-above came across this link
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
and wondered about it's veracity. Sorry if this has been dicussed
here before - but it seems a little unbelievable to me!

Eugene L Griessel

Intuition (n): an uncanny sixth sense which tells people
that they are right, whether they are or not.

"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message
...
On heavens-above came across this link
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
and wondered about it's veracity. Sorry if this has been dicussed
here before - but it seems a little unbelievable to me!

Eugene L Griessel

Intuition (n): an uncanny sixth sense which tells people
that they are right, whether they are or not.

I came across that a couple of weeks ago and asked about it in a.b.p.a, and
they all agreed it was bonk.

George

"George" wrote:


"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message
...
On heavens-above came across this link
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
and wondered about it's veracity. Sorry if this has been dicussed
here before - but it seems a little unbelievable to me!

Eugene L Griessel

Intuition (n): an uncanny sixth sense which tells people
that they are right, whether they are or not.

I came across that a couple of weeks ago and asked about it in a.b.p.a, and
they all agreed it was bonk.

Unfortunately (fortunately?) my service provider no longer carries any
of the binary groups. But thanks for the answer - confirms what I
suspected.

Eugene L Griessel

Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:42:08 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

On heavens-above came across this link
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
and wondered about it's veracity. Sorry if this has been dicussed
here before - but it seems a little unbelievable to me!

Your intuition is sound. The site is into major crackpot territory-
right up there with cities on Venus and Mars, Planet X, and other
doozies.

The general concept that the Sun has an iron core (Manuel's theory) is
itself pretty out there (Manuel is an Arp like character, hanging on to
ideas in spite of a large weight of contradictory evidence). Then this
site goes on to extend those already tenuous ideas into a "theory" of
the surface of the Sun without any rational basis.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:00:04 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

The general concept that the Sun has an iron core (Manuel's theory) is
itself pretty out there (Manuel is an Arp like character, hanging on to
ideas in spite of a large weight of contradictory evidence). Then this
site goes on to extend those already tenuous ideas into a "theory" of
the surface of the Sun without any rational basis.

I agree the site in question goes way too far with the concept of a
"iron surface" and makes wild leaps with various observational data.
However, I think _Manuel's_ ideas have some merit.

For one thing, it doesn't seem intuitive to me as to why such iron
rich objects as the solar system's inner planets would form and yet
the Sun be so iron poor. So far, I've not seen an explanation that
makes sense to me as to why heavier elements would not be present in
the Sun's core with the hydrogen fusion layer appearing at some depth
above these elements.

Obviously the Sun doesn't have the size to burn such heavier elements,
but that would not preclude the elements from being present at the
center would it? That doesn't mean I buy into Manuel's assertion that
the Sun actually formed on the iron core of a past supernova -- but
the Sun very well could have a rich collection of heavier elements at
the center including iron.

Furthermore, Manuel's idea of "shells", i.e. stratification of
elements by weight within stars, makes a lot of sense when you observe
the complex planetary nebulas that Sun-like stars eject during the
last stages of life.

---
Michael McCulloch

First of all the sun does have some iron within the whole thing, but only
enough to show lines in a spec.graph, the iron will be made during the red
stage of it's life just before the white dwarft is formed. Many stars show
more metal than ours and there's ones with even less than ours. And what
there is is not in the core itself, that is where the fusion of H1 to H1 is
taking place. To say our sun has a iron core with the fusion going on above
it is about as stupid of an idea as ... The mothership hidding behind
Hale-bopp.


--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/




"Michael McCulloch" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, Manuel's idea of "shells", i.e. stratification of
elements by weight within stars, makes a lot of sense when you observe
the complex planetary nebulas that Sun-like stars eject during the
last stages of life.

Michael McCulloch wrote:
For one thing, it doesn't seem intuitive to me as to why such iron
rich objects as the solar system's inner planets would form and yet
the Sun be so iron poor. So far, I've not seen an explanation that
makes sense to me as to why heavier elements would not be present in
the Sun's core with the hydrogen fusion layer appearing at some depth
above these elements.

How much iron does Manuel say is in the Sun? I don't think anyone
seriously denies that some iron must be there; witness coronium, which
is, what, like triskaidectuply ionized iron? The question would be,
again, how much iron?

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Perhaps you would be better served to consider your own deficiencies
before taking others to task on this matter.

Common sense ,and there is not much of it here,dictates that the plasma
of the Sun rotates through different periods in bands that straddle the
Equator and move to the poles

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD...1/rotation.gif

Then you consider the resulting deviation from a perfect sphere due to
differential rotation in the plasma and then consider that all rotating
celestial objects with a molten and flexible interior display a
deviation from a perfect sphere due to the same causes.

When you consider the molten rotating interior of the Earth and the
differential rotation perpendicular to the rotational axis you are then
seeing for the first time,the dynamics of the astronomical mechanism
which generates the Equatorial bulge and moves the surface fractured
crust.

Your deficiencies are thus, you have no correlation between the
dynamics which generate the planetary deviation from a perfect sphere
and the mechanism for crustal motion.The sooner that differential
rotation in the molten interior is adopted the better for
all,astronomically,geologically and bottom line.


Starlord wrote:
First of all the sun does have some iron within the whole thing, but only
enough to show lines in a spec.graph, the iron will be made during the red
stage of it's life just before the white dwarft is formed. Many stars show
more metal than ours and there's ones with even less than ours. And what
there is is not in the core itself, that is where the fusion of H1 to H1 is
taking place. To say our sun has a iron core with the fusion going on above
it is about as stupid of an idea as ... The mothership hidding behind
Hale-bopp.


--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/




"Michael McCulloch" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, Manuel's idea of "shells", i.e. stratification of
elements by weight within stars, makes a lot of sense when you observe
the complex planetary nebulas that Sun-like stars eject during the
last stages of life.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:56:12 -0700 (PDT), (Brian Tung)
wrote:

Michael McCulloch wrote:
For one thing, it doesn't seem intuitive to me as to why such iron
rich objects as the solar system's inner planets would form and yet
the Sun be so iron poor. So far, I've not seen an explanation that
makes sense to me as to why heavier elements would not be present in
the Sun's core with the hydrogen fusion layer appearing at some depth
above these elements.

How much iron does Manuel say is in the Sun? I don't think anyone
seriously denies that some iron must be there; witness coronium, which
is, what, like triskaidectuply ionized iron? The question would be,
again, how much iron?

Well, you'd have to refer to Manuel's site to get his complete
argument. But keep in mind that as I understand it, Manuel uses his
argument that the Sun formed on the iron core of a past supernova as a
springboard to arguing against the standard gaseous model of the
evolution of the Universe (that only light elements were initially
present and that stars made all the rest).

I don't agree with Manuel's assertion that the Sun accreted on the
past core of a supernova, nor do I agree with his attacks on standard
evolutionary ideas about the Universe.

However, are we so sure that we know the exact composition of the core
of the Sun? Do the spectral emission/absorption lines alone reveal the
full nature of the composition near the center? These are honest
questions.

I would agree that the theoretical models of hydrogen fusion for the
Sun are mostly consistent with observations (such as the neutrino flux
calculations, etc.), however the Sun as such an active magnetic dynamo
hasn't been adequately explained as Manuel suggests. I would also
argue there may much we don't know yet about the inner workings of our
Sun. I just don't buy the common textbook model that shows a
homogenous mix of hydrogen/helium with traces of heavier elements all
the way down to the core with fusion occuring at the very center as
THE last word.

---
Michael McCulloch

Michael McCulloch wrote:
[uninformed speculation]

Do you have degrees in Astrophysics? If not, why do you have the hubris
to believe that those degrees mean nothing? Do you really think there
is nothing more to this than what you read in a popular science article?

The biggest mistake anybody can make with regard to science is to assume
that just because *they* don't fully understand something then *nobody*
does.

You want to learn something, just ask someone who understands it!
Believe it or not, the vast majority of educated people are happy to
share their knowledge.

You aren't going to learn anything worthwhile from some kook web site.
It's been tried by others and at best it's a needlessly confrontational
way to learn something (by spewing their bunk here and waiting for it to
be shown wrong). At worst, you are going to convince yourself that the
kooks are right, just because people don't agree with your uninformed
arguments.

Sigh.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye