A Crusty Sun ??

I've just indulged an hour reading through the following website, which
purports that the image archives from the SOHO satellite show that the sun
has a rigid surface beneath the chromosphere/photosphere. As ludicrous as
this notion appears, the 27 day time-lapse images do show what appears to be
a fixed topography of mountains, valleys and fault lines. Close-ups reveal
what appear to be 'starquakes' in a solid crust generating 'tsunamis' of
staggering magnitude.
Having only the most basic of physics, I am somewhat overwhelmed by what
seems to be evidence of an entirely new model of our local star ... one rich
in heavier elements that it should have, unless it was formed from an
ancient supernova remant that gathered sufficient dust and gas to 'have
another go'.
Someone please tell me what I'm actually looking at here ... the
iron/calcium/silicon/neon spectra don't lie surely?

The URL:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

The videos (see these and other links embedded in the left hand text on the
site):

highly defined surface which rotates (uniformly) every 27.3 days.

hard and rigid ferrite surface

calcium ferrite surface of the sun

* TeaTime :

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22415 and, to some
degree, URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22919 might
contain some stuff you'll find interesting.

--
Dave Pearson
http://www.davep.org/

"Dave Pearson" wrote in message
.. .
* TeaTime :

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22415 and, to some
degree, URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22919
might
contain some stuff you'll find interesting.

--
Dave Pearson
http://www.davep.org/

Yes, seems to be a lot of facetious responses by people who haven't read the
whole site and viewed the videos in the rather subtle links on the left.
The views through the atmosphere are apparently obtained using selective
filters. The movie shows a fixed topography throughout which doesn't
visibly change throughout the 27 day period. How does that add up for a
chaotic plasma?

TeaTime wrote:

"Dave Pearson" wrote in message
.. .

* TeaTime :

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22415 and, to some
degree, URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22919
might
contain some stuff you'll find interesting.

Yes, seems to be a lot of facetious responses by people who haven't read the
whole site and viewed the videos in the rather subtle links on the left.
The views through the atmosphere are apparently obtained using selective
filters. The movie shows a fixed topography throughout which doesn't
visibly change throughout the 27 day period. How does that add up for a
chaotic plasma?

Teatime you are completely out to lunch. That whole site is a total con.
Would you like to buy London bridge?

It is easily within the abilities of any high school student that can be
bothered to observe sunspots for a couple of months as a function of
solar latitude to show that the sun does *NOT* rotate as a solid body.

Netkooks and B-ark candidates may believe anything they like, but should
leave the Earth before the mutant star goat arrives on 06/06/06.
(Golgafrinchams of the world unite!)

Regards,
Martin Brown

"TeaTime" wrote in message
...
I've just indulged an hour reading through the following website, which
purports that the image archives from the SOHO satellite show that the sun
has a rigid surface beneath the chromosphere/photosphere. As ludicrous as
this notion appears, the 27 day time-lapse images do show what appears to
be a fixed topography of mountains, valleys and fault lines. Close-ups
reveal what appear to be 'starquakes' in a solid crust generating
'tsunamis' of staggering magnitude.
Having only the most basic of physics, I am somewhat overwhelmed by what
seems to be evidence of an entirely new model of our local star ... one
rich in heavier elements that it should have, unless it was formed from an
ancient supernova remant that gathered sufficient dust and gas to 'have
another go'.
Someone please tell me what I'm actually looking at here ... the
iron/calcium/silicon/neon spectra don't lie surely?

The URL:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

The videos (see these and other links embedded in the left hand text on
the site):

highly defined surface which rotates (uniformly) every 27.3 days.

hard and rigid ferrite surface

calcium ferrite surface of the sun


Although not an answer to your query that site kept me occupied for nearly 2
hours, makes for a really riviting read

Teatime you are completely out to lunch. That whole site is a total con.
Would you like to buy London bridge?

It is easily within the abilities of any high school student that can be
bothered to observe sunspots for a couple of months as a function of solar
latitude to show that the sun does *NOT* rotate as a solid body.

Netkooks and B-ark candidates may believe anything they like, but should
leave the Earth before the mutant star goat arrives on 06/06/06.
(Golgafrinchams of the world unite!)

Regards,
Martin Brown

Out to lunch in what regard, you rude individual? Did you actually read my
post? I asked what I was looking at .. I didn't suggest it was all gospel
truth. The SOHO time-lapse video is interesting by itself and I asked
others' opinions about what it amounted to. What an unpleasant arse you
are, sir.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
TeaTime wrote:
It is easily within the abilities of any high school student that can be
bothered to observe sunspots for a couple of months as a function of solar
latitude to show that the sun does *NOT* rotate as a solid body.

Yes, but hold on, the Earth's winds and clouds also move at different rates
to the land and tides ... SOHO uses differential filters to look through the
cloud layer (yes, millions of dollars well spent) so what is it showing us
in the apparently rigid topography beneath the upper layers? Will a high
school student be able to explain to me what those 190nM filter shots reveal
in their 27 day constant shapes?

What an unpleasant arse you are, sir.

This construction ("[insult], sir") is both vainly pretentious and irritating,
and only acts to demonstrate the author's lack of education. It is
inconsistent to insult someone, and then refer to them as "sir" in the same
sentence.

Res ipsa loquitur.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

* TeaTime :

"Dave Pearson" wrote in message
.. .

URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22415 and, to
some degree,
URL:http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22919 might
contain some stuff you'll find interesting.

Yes, seems to be a lot of facetious responses by people who haven't read
the whole site and viewed the videos in the rather subtle links on the
left. [SNIP]

"Facetious" or not, you should also find some useful objections and the
outlining of some outright errors (even the creator of the site you
mentioned acknowledged an error or two outlined in those threads).

--
Dave Pearson
http://www.davep.org/

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
What an unpleasant arse you are, sir.

This construction ("[insult], sir") is both vainly pretentious and
irritating,
and only acts to demonstrate the author's lack of education. It is
inconsistent to insult someone, and then refer to them as "sir" in the
same
sentence.

Res ipsa loquitur.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
110890
Manchester, U.K.
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

Sir,
You are as entitled to your own ill-found, crass and off-topic opinions,
just as that other comedian was. However,I asked a perfectly sane and
reasonable question, highlighted in my penultimate phrase: "Someone please
tell me what I'm actually looking at here ..." In response to that
legitimate query, I did not expect to see "Teatime you are completely out to
lunch. That whole site is a total con. Would you like to buy London
bridge?" I did not say I agreed with all the site's findings, or that I
though the author had reinvented solar astronomy. I asked a question. So
which part of my original post gave that cretin the right to such an
aggressive response?

If you run a quick reality/manners check, I think you will find that was not
only 'pretentious and irritating', but also demonstrated the beauty of
things like the killfile. It is utter bloody-minded rudeness on both your
parts and neither of you is qualified to wipe my backside or sweep my
garden, to be perfectly frank. The sum total of your 'helpful replies' was
to insult, offend and not offer one shred of useful explanation either way,
except to point out a link filled with equally rude and facile childish
drivel, much of it from North America.

Go suck and egg - come back when you've grown up and have something
constructive and helful to contribute. Meanwhile, I've no further interest
in anything you have to say nor in your bloated egoes.

I have not posted many times since I first entered this newsgroup. On each
of those few occasions, my contributions have been well meant. On each
occasion they have been met with scorn, belligerence and contempt. I've no
idea who you people think you are, or indeed who you think I am. Since it
appears you don't give a toss either way, it is hardly worth pursuing. What
a bloody shame.