I have speculated as to whats inside but I dont know.
All I have to go on is helioseismology.
What you cannot do is understand what you read.
(emphasis added)
But see, you DON'T know NEARLY as much as you imagine you do; you need to go back and cover all the basics before you will have any idea how far wrong you are.
Which, sadly for you, only emphasizes how pitifully out of your depth you have wandered.
Hang on to your seat, Perpetual Student. This is going to be good. Michael is going to show us all, finally, exactly how a running difference image/video is made. He will start with one of the 171Å or 195Å videos from the STEREO, TRACE, or SOHO program, apply his process, and the result will be very much the same as those created by the professionals who create those graphs for NASA and LMSAL.
Then he will explain how the finished graph shows features on a surface he claims exists below the photosphere even though the data used to create his image/video was gathered from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.
You see, he claims to be qualified to analyze running difference images. He claims to understand their construction and what they represent. He claims that these images and videos are evidence of his crackpot notion because, as he claims, they show a solid surface. His claim to be qualified has been challenged, not just here but years ago on the BAUT forum and others. He has boldly asserted his claims to be true, but not once in all these years has he demonstrated the truth of his claims.
I'm sure that if he considers himself a legitimate scientist he will now be more than happy to put aside our concerns about his qualifications and actually show us that he is right and we are wrong. Maybe he can go to this page at the STEREO web site and download this video (171profile_zm_best.mov), for example. Then he can process it into a running difference video.
The result of his effort will of course show features thousands of kilometers below any of the data shown in the original video itself. His running difference video will look very much like the ones made by LMSAL and NASA, and not like a piece of crap made by applying the "Difference Clouds", contrast, and brightness filters in PhotoShop like the ones he tried to pass off as running difference images already...
I see you brought some, Perpetual Student. You might want to pull up a comfortable chair. There's a prospective Nobel Prize winning scientist just about to come in here, finally after 5 years of people asking him to, and after 5 years of him badgering and taunting other people to do it, finally he's going to explain this stuff so we can see that he's not just hallucinating when he claims to see surface features in those running difference images on the front page of his web site!
Or not...
Yeah, I can imagine an iron shell which was too big to be stable might crush itself; the iron flowing rather like squashed clay. It seems to me that, as its radius decreased, the thickness of the shell must increase, so the pressure would increase as it shrank. So if it started to fail, it wouldn't stop - the shell would compress down to a solid sphere. (Am I missing something obvious there?)
There is nothing at all in the paper you cite which supports your erroneous interpretation. This paper is fully consistent in all respects with open flowing convection.
Indeed so, I said that all wrong. I meant to say something more like ... "whether or not Newtonian gravity is the correct weak field limit of gravity". The point of studies like the one I cited is that they find no evidence in cosmological data that there is any deviation from general relativity, meaning no deviation from Newtonian gravity, as the weak field limit of physical gravity. This favors the dark matter hypothesis over the modified gravity hypothesis.
Hogwash. Once again you just invent fake facts out of thin nothing. We have discussed this before, and you are being just as obstinately stupid now as you were then. The 2.223 Mev line observed by RHESSI is a well known signature of neutron capture and has nothing at all to do with discharge processes, which do not generate line emission, aside from the obvious fact the neutral neutrons do not take part in electrical discharge events. Likewise, the neutron capture has nothing at all to do with solar powering nuclear fusion events, which involve charged particles (e.g., the proton-proton & CNO cycles), require far higher energies to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and generate neutrinos with energies specific to the particular reaction. To the best of my knowledge, neutron capture reactions do not generate any neutrinos at all, so there is no way these gamma rays can have anything to do with the falsely claimed lack of fusion power in the sun.
What you cannot do is understand what you read.
Helioseismology
(emphasis added)
The web page is very careful to state that the Sun acts as a resonant cavity. In other words it can be modelled as if is was a a resonant cavity.
This is a symptom that we often see from cranks. Their ignorance leads them to think that a model is the thing itself. So you are just deluding yourself that using a resonant cavity model means that teh Sun is an actual resonant cavity as in electronic devices.
I also see that you are imitating Micheal Mozina's delusion about running difference images being actual picures.
I thought that you were smarter but obviously I was wrong
Making something up and tuning it to observations is real science.
. !
Do you mean by this that the sun could be either a hollow region surrounded by a rigid shell of solid iron or fully solid sphere of iron?
Sunspots are not "holes" in the photosphere. They are more analogous to "bubbles" of enclosed in a magnetic field than they are to "holes". Furthermore, helioseismology reveals the 3D structure of sunspots (e.g., Duvall, et al., 1996; Zhao, Kosovichev & Duvall, 2001; Gizon, et al., 2009 and citations thereto).
The page you quoted talks about heat flowing back from the corona to the photosphere, which is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Coronal maximum particle densities range from about 109 e-/cm3 at the base (1.003 solar radii) to about 103.2 e-/cm3 at 20 solar radii. But at optical depth of 1.0 the particle density of the photosphere is about 7.7x1013 e-/cm3, 1.2x1017 H/cm3, a total mass density about 4 gm/cm3 for the photosphere, compared to about 10-20 gm/cm3 for the corona. So the actual energy density of the photosphere is many orders of magnitude greater than that of the corona, even if the temperature of the corona is orders of magnitude grater than the temperature of the photosphere.
By no wild stretch of the imagination is the photosphere a "thin" plasma. It is an optically thick plasma and we can clearly see that it emits easily recognized, Planck Law, blackbody radiation, with absorption lines superimposed on it. Only the very thin regions (chromosphere, corona & etc) exhibit line emission. If your solid & rigid iron shell is below the photosphere, then it will be directly impacted by bolometric thermal emission from the overlying photosphere. And remember my earlier post ...
So there is no getting around the key point: Your solid & rigid iron shell is staring at least 9400 Kelvins (probably more) right in the face. Under these circumstances, physics as we know it to be makes both "solid & rigid" physical impossibilities.
You seem to be under the impression that only objects with rigid boundaries can resonate. That is quite wrong. Anything that exists can resonate. It is easy for the sun, with, no rigid surface at all, to act as a resonator. I have already referenced the appropriate sources of knowledge ...
The kind of boundary you are thinking of is not at all required by helioseismology, so there is no positive reason to assume such a boundary exists. Furthermore, other areas of physics, such as thermodynamics, argue very convincingly that such a rigid boundary cannot exist. Remember, one cannot pick & choose the bits & pieces of physics we like and then discard & ignore the rest. Physics is an all or nothing affair. If helioseismology says yes, but thermodynamics says no, then clearly our interpretation of one or the other must be wrong. I choose my (correct) interpretation of thermodynamics over your (erroneous) interpretation of helioseismology every time.
was answered by
.
