jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

April 2009
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Quiet Sun Shouldn’t Baffle Astronomers

THE Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.  There are no sunspots, very few solar flares – and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time. 

That’s according to a BBC report by Pallab Ghosh, which goes on to explain these observations are baffling astronomers … the Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period…  Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.

According to Oliver K. Manuel, Professor of Nuclear Chemistry at the University of Missouri-Rolla, writing to Benny Peiser from Liverpool University who compiles the e-newsletter CCNet:

“Astronomers – especially those associated with NASA – are baffled because they chose to ignore cycles of solar activity and all other observations and space-age measurements over the past five decades that were unexplained by the Standard Solar Model (SSM) of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

“Angular momentum changes in the Sun cause deep-seated magnetic fields from the dense, energetic solar core to penetrate the visible solar surface (the photosphere) and produce cycles of sunspots and solar eruptions. 

“Earth’s climate is closely linked to this cycle of angular momentum changes and to the number of sunspots at the solar surface.

“CCNet readers can see the Landscheidt solar cycles here: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/04/11/new-angular-momentum-graph/

“Astronomers are baffled by the quiet Sun precisely because they continued to claim that our Sun is nothing but a homogeneous ball of Hydrogen, despite precise, space-age experimental data that directly falsify this claim.  Some of the data are summarized here.

1. Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios, Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology, European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pages 345-348 : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410717 

2. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856; Yadernaya Fizika 69 (Russian), number 11 (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X ; http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509 ”

According to Professor Manual, astronomers need to address the experimental data, whether or not they agree with his interpretations. 

******************************

Notes and Links

‘QUIET SUN’ BAFFLING ASTRONOMERS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm   

Information about Oliver K. Manuel can be found at
http://www.omatumr.com/ 

CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (“subscribe cambridge-conference”)

The image is of the sun without sunspots from http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Advertisement

44 Responses to “Quiet Sun Shouldn’t Baffle Astronomers”

  1. Comment from: RW


    I don’t know whether you are simply ignorant, or if you are deliberately pushing anti-science. These papers are uncited, unreviewed, unmitigated nonsense, and would get you laughed out of the room if you asked any astronomers about them. I can only hope that you simply didn’t read them before promoting them; if you did, then you’ve got no scientific credibility whatsoever. If you did read them, and you don’t understand why they are wrong, then you should get yourself an astronomy textbook, and start reading the chapter on the Sun.

  2. Comment from: Jabba the Cat


    Oooo a human hissy fit ready to make up the difference in solar emissions. A moment please whilst I get my solar panels aligned correctly in your direction.

  3. Comment from: Tom Brannon


    Arrogance is a fool’s telescope. Your’s has been well polished by over-use.

  4. Comment from: Oliver K. Manuel


    Thanks, RW, for your comments.

    Here is my research profile: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

    Please post yours so readers can know with what authority you speak.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

  5. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    RW,

    The standard model of the Sun seems to be incomplete – this observed decrease or absence of sunspot activity is not predicted by the standard model. In fact sunspots are not predicted at all, come to think of it.

    The plasma model can explain it, however.

    “There is also the Plasma Model, first proposed by Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Hannes Alfvén in 1965. It is rapidly gaining wide international support from the scientific community, due in no small measure to it’s rock solid empirical base and the weight of observational evidence on it’s side. The predictions of Plasma Cosmology have passed every single test that has come from empirical evidence over a period of forty years. Makes you think, doesn’t it?” — Hilton Ratcliffe, astronomer, 2007

    But why the Sun seems to be decreasing in output is another matter.

  6. Comment from: Phillip Bratby


    RW would seem to be another ignorant, anonynmous person, of the kind it is best to ignore. Any bets on whether he will come back with his profile?

  7. Comment from: RW


    Dr. Manuel – your work seems to be fundamentally inconsistent with helioseismological observations of the interior of the sun, with all our understanding of stellar evolution, and also with the physics of neutrino oscillation. My research record has no bearing at all on whether your theories are consistent or inconsistent with observations.

  8. Comment from: Cruster


    Hmmm… sounds as if RW is just full of hot air? Come along RW don’t be shy, publish your “credentials” so we can all have a laugh ;-)

  9. Comment from: Oliver K. Manuel


    Thanks, RW.

    This paper was presented before experts on helioseismology and published after peer review:

    1. Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios, Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology, European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pages 345-348 : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410717

    This paper was presented before experts on nuclear physics at Dubna, Russia and published after peer review:

    2. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856; Yadernaya Fizika 69 (Russian), number 11 (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X ; http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    I do not claim to be an expert on anything except growing old.

    Here is a picture of me and Willie Fowler 33 years ago at the 1976 Gregynog Workshop on Isotopic Anomalies:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Photo1976GregynogWorkshop.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  10. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    RW “I don’t know whether you are simply ignorant, or if you are deliberately pushing anti-science”.

    There’s nothing unscientific about making observations and asking questions. What is unscientific is waiting around for peer-review before you have the guts to digest a paper and think for yourself. Peer-review is not a requisite of science and is not mentioned in the scientific method.

    The Journal of Climate is stacked with AGW/IPCC-based reviewers like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann of realclimate. One is a mathematician and the other a discredited geologist. A decent climate scientist like Roy Spencer, who collects real temperature data from satellites, can’t get published in that rag because people like Schmidt and Mann don’t like him and don’t have the education to understand climate science.

  11. Comment from: gavin


    Today I googled ‘Ian Pilmer science fiction’ and found several pages of results outlining the debate downunder

    Were overdue for something hey

    http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=259447

  12. Comment from: Marcus


    rw,
    “My research record has no bearing at all ”
    In other words you are nothing more that an opinionated, Google jock!

  13. Comment from: SJT


    I hope this topic, whatever the rights or wrong of it, are not seen as ‘debunking’ AGW theory.

  14. Comment from: bill-tb


    After using the Internet since it was born, I find it best to totally ignore trolls.

    Anyone who is serious about the climate of the earth cannot make arm waving assumptions like, ignore the sun it’s constant, ignore the earth’s orbit wobble, it doesn’t happen … Or the totality of other extra planetary influences that effect the earth and it’s climate. Since earth is still part of the universe it is unwise to ignore the influence of same on earth. Just common sense.

    And with the correlation of earth’s climate and the sunspot cycle at about 80%, you just got to go hmmm.

    I suppose the next thing we will hear, and the last thing said, will be ignore that asteroid headed towards earth, it’s man caused global warming don’t you know. Just kidding about the asteroid bit, does anyone really know…

    I have a suggestion, lets super glue the lips and noses of all the hoaxers together, two problems solved at once. Offered only half in jest.

    Great article, BTW …

  15. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    Why would they be baffled? I’m baffled that they are baffled. And I’m skeptical that they are baffled as well.

    I’ve recently come around to agreeing that Louis paradigm of how the sun works, is at an ON-POINTS advantage. It looks more convincing. But from the traditional paradigm PARTICULARLY this turn of events ought not have been surprising.

    We are talking about solar cycle 24. Now it was predicted unambiguously by the experts that solar cycle 25 would be the coldest deadest thing on record. But the predictions about solar cycle 24 were ambiguous. 23 was already small by 20th century standards. And the projections for 24 were either side of that but these predictions were unambiguous that 24 was going to be a smaller level of activity then 18,19,21, 22 and some others that were truly outstanding in history.

    So in fact there is something a little ODD about the headlines. Since the experts already agreed totally that 25 was to be a dead fish. And 24 was likely going to be pretty feeble as well.

    Reasonable people in the know who follow the actual evidence rate these three factors in THIS order in terms of relevance for the heating effect of the sun….

    1. The force of the solar winds.

    2. The length of the solar cycle. (The shorter being far more powerful as a tendency).

    3. By counting sunspots.

    So I think the on-points evidence is there that the solar winds are the best barometer but we don’t have good records of this and so number 2 and number 3 are used in preference.

    Now if we are dealing with number 3 which is only the third best indicator…. Any one solar cycle will not necessarily give you the tie-up between average air temperature and the number of sun spots. At first I was disappointed trying to make that link having been so enthusiastic about it.

    I cannot prove what I’m about to tell you. And its partly because for some reason I cannot track down the records anymore on the net. It used to be that you could look for these correlations and you would find some good stuff. I cannot even find this report that Sami Solanki had out. All this gear gets taken off the net. And I think if the righteous scientist even finds one mistake he’s made in the past he tends to pull the whole study. Either that or the leftist science maffia gets round to the report sooner or later and takes it off air. I have no opinion as to why I can’t find stuff I was looking at only 3-4 years ago.

    In any case when the graphs were made, sunspots against air temperature, no one solar cycle would necessarily seem to make a difference BUT TWO WEAK SOLAR CYCLES IN A ROW WERE ALWAYS DECISIVE. Some of the stuff was regional but Solanki has this three-proxy study that devolved into a two-proxy affair as you went back. And the error-bars got wider with the lesser convergence. But it was a marvelous thing. I suppose I didn’t have nearly enough data but though you’d be disappointed at the effect of any one solar cycle two cold ones in a row never let you down.

    Now we already had a pretty feeble 23. And we were waiting on the outcome of 24. There was no dispute that 25 would be weak. So I would tell people categorically that the 2030′s would be really cold. (Because air temperature was correlated even better with the solar cycle prior than the current one) That you could bet all your money on it. But I didn’t feel I could rightly make a prediction on the twenty-teens or twenty-twenties. Not that categorical. I thought it would be cold sure but I wouldn’t have bet my super on it.

    But we now know that 24 is a cold one. And 23 was feeble. So there really is no doubt that we are headed in to a new little ice age. And with a greater than 50% chance that it will be more severe than the last one.

  16. Comment from: Jabba the Cat


    @ bill-tb

    “I have a suggestion, lets super glue the lips and noses of all the hoaxers together, two problems solved at once.”

    An eminently sensible suggestion.

  17. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    By the way David Archibald has explained what the actual core solar-cycle scientists have been saying in great detail. And you check it out and its all there. I really don’t know what the controversy is about. Its just leftists lying. Archibald is a fellow that really delivers. Notice how he was totally pilloried for making quite sweeping statements on the basis of a very small survey of weather station records. And yet within a couple of years he had been basically proven totally right when McIntyre forced an update of the official records bringing up the 30′s as a very hot decade.

    So when you get rid of the liars and you get properly commercially proven free enterprise scientists on the case it might be that they can come up with the goods without having to drain the treasury.

  18. Comment from: kuhnkat


    SJT,

    of course this post isn’t meant to debunk AGW theory. AGW theory is only a figment of real believers imagination. Why would they waste time on that??

  19. Comment from: Geoff Sharp


    I think some more respect could be paid by some…..this might encourage others in the scientific community to come forward. We are on the brink of some radical changes in the way we think about the Sun, some suggestions might go against the scientific consensus of the day.

    The current dynamo theory is on its last legs, but that doesn’t mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  20. Comment from: Jimmock


    Its not always necessary to ‘debunk’ a theory. Some theories turn out to be true but trivial. Of course, attempts to claim undue significance for such theories must be given a good spanking (like that administered to RW by the good professor, above.)

  21. Comment from: SJT


    “Anyone who is serious about the climate of the earth cannot make arm waving assumptions like, ignore the sun it’s constant, ignore the earth’s orbit wobble, it doesn’t happen … Or the totality of other extra planetary influences that effect the earth and it’s climate. Since earth is still part of the universe it is unwise to ignore the influence of same on earth. Just common sense.”

    The idea that the climate scientists ignore the Milankovich cycles or solar output is just sheer ignorance. Of course they are aware of these influences. But currently, they aren’t making a significant differece.

  22. Comment from: sod


    most scientist actually are baffled by the theories of Mr. Manuel:

    But Manuel has had little luck so far in convincing most of his scientific peers.

    “This cannot be correct. I can think of at least half a dozen different lines of evidence that say that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium with only a tiny amount of iron,” said David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshal Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/

  23. Comment from: J.Hansford


    When cosmologists fumble around with “dark matter” and “dark energy” to explain things that can’t be explained by the observations or theory…. Iron rich suns aren’t that much of a leap for me to at least listen to the scientist and his observations that would support that idea.

    At least with an Iron rich sun hypothesis….. We aren’t going to destroy economies and doom third world people to famine and energy deprivation…..

    I wish you well on your theory Prof. Manuel…. Hopefully in the fullness of time, the knowledge base of Cosmology will be enriched by your years of diligent endeavour.

    As long as the scientific method is applied….. What possible harm can arise from the enquiring mind?

  24. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “Trivial”? Jimmock? That to me appears to be an unscientific word. In that when people are proved wrong they say “Well ho ho thats trivially true……” Something is true or it isn’t. Its never trivially true, except for people who view truth as trivial.

    And theories are not significant for their “SIGNIFICANCE.” They are significant for their veracity or plausibility. You don’t want to be picking up bad habits and lingo from these people Jimmock. Else next me might expect you to go native. Or start talking about studies that “validate” a thesis (which seems to mean a study that “fails to falsify” a thesis without vindicating it either. Or in other word a study that wasted money).

    The matter with the sun is pretty important I would have thought. The proponents of the idea that most of the energy is coming from the centre, via fusion, have not been able to explain why the Corona is so much hotter than the surface. Thats a lingering problem with their theory. And for this and other reasons the electric universe version of what is going on has to be considered a serious starter and possibly the leading paradigm.

  25. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “The idea that the climate scientists ignore the Milankovich cycles or solar output is just sheer ignorance. Of course they are aware of these influences. But currently, they aren’t making a significant difference.”

    Stop calling them scientists you idiot. Global warming alarmists are not scientists and they don’t represent any scientific consensus. They are idiots. You are just a liar SJT. And the alarmists flat earth watts per square metre model does in fact seek to play down the suns variability, and orbital variability as the driving force for change. They claim that “CO2-forcing” ( a very stupid and presumptuous term) already vastly dwarfs any orbital changes. Thats is to say the “CO2-forcing” allegedly attributable to the human race. You are just a liar SJT. If they took the orbital business seriously they would be talking about cooling only. They’d hardly be giving us this idiots harebrained story about excessive warming and driving forward with the Cap-And-Kill.

  26. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    “This cannot be correct. I can think of at least half a dozen different lines of evidence that say that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium with only a tiny amount of iron,” said David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshal Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.”

    You are just pathetic sod. Why quote someone agreeing with you instead of finding the alleged evidence? Proof that idiots like you put sentiment ahead of all other things and aren’t interested in evidence. You quote is not evidence you pedophile. Its just someone whose agreeing with you by way of bluff.

    Sod you moron. If you are endorsing this dozens story how about give us six then. And then compare that to the competing paradigm. Dummy.

  27. Comment from: sod


    look Bird, i know that you don t recognise the fringes of science if you see them, as you live far beyond them.

    but Manuel s assumptions about the sun seem to find similar support like claims that the moon is made of cheese.

    Jennifer unfortunetly decided not to mention the controversy over his results…

  28. Comment from: SJT


    “but Manuel s assumptions about the sun seem to find similar support like claims that the moon is made of cheese. ”

    It is? And Al Gore is fat.

  29. Comment from: maxie


    I shall continue to take an interest in the information provided by eminent astrophysicist, Nigel Weiss, who has advised that any solar activity will be nothing compared to what will happen if we continue pumping out fossil fuels. Weiss’ more recent quote was reported in the Guardian press in the UK:

    “Those who claim the rise in temperatures we’ve seen over the last century are predominantly the result of intense solar activity might argue that we should, but they’re in the minority.

    “Most scientists believe humans are the main culprit when it comes to global warming, and Weiss is no exception. He points out that the ice remained in Europe long after solar activity picked up from the Maunder minimum. Even if we had another, similar low, he says, it would probably only cause temperatures on Earth to drop by the order of a tenth of a degree Celsius – peanuts compared to recent hikes. So don’t pack your suncream away just yet.”

  30. Comment from: Oliver K. Manuel


    Please e-mail me at omatumr@yahoo.com if you want to see the experimental data and observations that underlie the conclusion of an Iron-rich Sun encasing a Neutron-Rich Solar Core.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    omatumr@yahoo.com
    http://www.omatumr.com

  31. Comment from: Jabba the Cat


    @ maxie

    “Most scientists believe humans are the main culprit when it comes to global warming, and Weiss is no exception. He points out that the ice remained in Europe long after solar activity picked up from the Maunder minimum. Even if we had another, similar low, he says, it would probably only cause temperatures on Earth to drop by the order of a tenth of a degree Celsius – peanuts compared to recent hikes. So don’t pack your suncream away just yet.”

    Obviously someones reasearch grant is coming up for renewal…

  32. Comment from: cohenite


    sod mentions Hathaway; he should also look at H’s mate, Taping’s feelings about the sun written some time ago; note the rather forlorn prediction at the bottom of the spray;

    http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2008/04/22/ken-tapping-the-current-solar-minimum/

  33. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    Sod you don’t have the evidence. Now the man himself has shown up and he can give you HIS evidence on demand. Whereas you will not and never have. Controversies don’t matter only evidence does. Get your act together boy.

    Now just to give everyone a good laugh at how stupid the alarmist side of the argument is we have this from Bald-Barry over at the Deltoid-Dwarfs blog.

    “It’s true that methane is >20 times more potent than CO2 in terms of radiative forcing over a 100 year period (72 times over a 20 year period).”

    He couldn’t justify such claims in a blue fit. Now notice he affects to have this knowledge, and further to that he makes the fakery of such claims more brazen by way of fraudulent mathematical exactitude.

    This is what I told him:

    “Barry you have nothing backing these wild claims. Faking up some sort of mathematical exactitude isn’t any sort of evidence.”

    I don’t know how these people can live with themselves. He won’t be backing up these claims. Rather he’ll filibuster or make reference to some mathematical model not co-incident with any features of the real world. I’ll give it to him that mostly he’s an ethical idiot. Being as how he’s a booster for nuclear power. But he’s an idiot nonetheless and he could never be a scientists enslaved servant since he’d only get in the way.

    “but Manuel s assumptions about the sun seem to find similar support like claims that the moon is made of cheese.”

    No sod you are LYING. And you don’t have the capacity to make such a judgement. I don’t have the capacity to know-for-sure that he’s right beyond all doubt. But I can at least judge plausibility. You cannot. You lack that capacity. You are just a dumb-left-winger.

    “Please e-mail me at omatumr@yahoo.com if you want to see the experimental data and observations that underlie the conclusion of an Iron-rich Sun encasing a Neutron-Rich Solar Core.”

    There is his address again if you want to get hold of his evidence in order to lie some more and misrepresent him. Show up under your own name Nazi. And then perhaps you’ll learn not to insult people mindlessly and to lift your game a little bit.

  34. Comment from: eric adler


    I can’t claim to be any kind of expert on the sun, but I can read news articles about Manuel’s theory and what scientists say when interviewed. The quote a lot of evidence which says why the theory is wrong.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/

    From their reactions one has to be very skeptical of Manuel’s theory and any conclusions that are drawn from it.

  35. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    No they don’t quote a lot of evidence. And if they did how about make that case with the evidence itself. Rather than just saying that some people agree with you. You go on EVIDENCE. Not on the basis of peoples reactions. For the love of dumb blondes man, pull yourself together. What an embarrassing post you’ve just made. Here you actually advocate mindlessness.

    So I take it that you are a CO2-bedwetter as well? On the basis of the same anti-reasoning?

  36. Comment from: eric adler


    Comment from: Graeme Bird April 25th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    No they don’t quote a lot of evidence. And if they did how about make that case with the evidence itself. Rather than just saying that some people agree with you. You go on EVIDENCE. Not on the basis of peoples reactions. For the love of dumb blondes man, pull yourself together. What an embarrassing post you’ve just made. Here you actually advocate mindlessness.

    So I take it that you are a CO2-bedwetter as well? On the basis of the same anti-reasoning?

    I have not read extensively on the subject, and don’t claim to be an expert. If a new scientific theory is contrary to what is understood about the subject, as Manuel’s is, the burden of proof is on the scientist to provide evidence which convinces other scientists in the field. That is how science works. This system has served society well. We don’t submit scientific theories to the ignorant sods like you to vote on them.

    It seems that you believe that invective and name calling are a substitute for intelligent discussion.

  37. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    You haven’t made a substantive argument to respond to. So the only way to deal with such unreason is to shame a case out of you by abuse. So far it hasn’t worked.

    No thats wrong. There is no burden of proof. Two paradigms come together in open competition without any one of them getting a special handicap. The concept of the burden of proof in this regard is quite wrong. Why would you give the conventional view a special handicap if the idea was any good? On what basis would they get that handicap? To suggest this is occult-epistemology.

    In fact the idea of it all being Hydrogen is no good. Because they cannot thereby explain the extreme heat of the corona, the darkness of the black spots, the lack of neutrinos and so forth. Always we have this request for a burden-of-proof handicap. Its always and everywhere, at least in science, a confession of a weak case.

  38. Comment from: eric adler


    Comment from: Graeme Bird April 26th, 2009 at 1:18 am


    You haven’t made a substantive argument to respond to. So the only way to deal with such unreason is to shame a case out of you by abuse. So far it hasn’t worked.

    No thats wrong. There is no burden of proof. Two paradigms come together in open competition without any one of them getting a special handicap. The concept of the burden of proof in this regard is quite wrong. Why would you give the conventional view a special handicap if the idea was any good? On what basis would they get that handicap? To suggest this is occult-epistemology.

    In fact the idea of it all being Hydrogen is no good. Because they cannot thereby explain the extreme heat of the corona, the darkness of the black spots, the lack of neutrinos and so forth. Always we have this request for a burden-of-proof handicap. Its always and everywhere, at least in science, a confession of a weak case.

    Why should I believe what you say about the lack of explanation of coronal temperature and the color of sunspots and the lack of nutrinos and so forth? There seems to be a perfectly good explanation for the properties of the sun which you claim are unexplained on the Wikipedia entry.

    The Sun is a Population I, or heavy element-rich,[note 1] star.[17] The formation of the Sun may have been triggered by shockwaves from one or more nearby supernovae.[18] This is suggested by a high abundance of heavy elements such as gold and uranium in the Solar System relative to the abundances of these elements in so-called Population II (heavy element-poor) stars. These elements could most plausibly have been produced by endergonic nuclear reactions during a supernova, or by transmutation via neutron absorption inside a massive second-generation star

    The Sun is about halfway through its main-sequence evolution, during which nuclear fusion reactions in its core fuse hydrogen into helium. Each second, more than 4 million tonnes of matter are converted into energy within the Sun’s core, producing neutrinos and solar radiation; at this rate, the Sun will have so far converted around 100 Earth-masses of matter into energy. The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main sequence star.
    ….
    Moreover, in 2001 the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory was able to detect all three types of neutrinos directly, and found that theSun’s total neutrino emission rate agreed with the Standard Solar Model,
    although depending on the neutrino energy as few as one-third of the neutrinos seen at Earth are of the electron type. This proportion agrees with that predicted by the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect (also known as the matter effect), which describes neutrino oscillation in matter. Hence, the problem is now resolved.

    When observing the Sun with appropriate filtration, the most immediately visible features are usually its sunspots, which are well-defined surface areas that appear darker than their surroundings because of lower temperatures. Sunspots are regions of intense magnetic activity where convection is inhibited by strong magnetic fields, reducing energy transport from the hot interior to the surface. The magnetic field gives rise to strong heating in the corona, forming active regions that are the source of intense solar flares and coronal mass ejections. The largest sunspots can be tens of thousands of kilometers across.

    Furthermore, the fact that supernovae can’t have planets seems like a good argument against what Manuel is claiming.

    None of the blogging that takes place here cuts any ice with scientists for good reason. Neither of us has studied the sun and the physics behind it to a point where we can make independent scientific judgements about the nature of the sun. As the holder of a PhD degree in physics, I am aware of how much study it takes to really know something about a specialty so that one can judge the validity of research. When a person pretends to know more than he really does however, it is easy for me to sniff this out.

  39. Comment from: eric adler


    Sorry for not providing a link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

  40. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    You cannot trust Wiki once the issue is at controversy. You will have to do better than that. The lack of neutrinos hasn’t gone away. They nuance the theory. Find something from out of wiki and find the context. This pretty much amounts to only study out of many. If other studies are claiming something different the mystery still remains. But eric. What about the fact that the Corona is hotter than the surface?

    So no handicap for the mainstream. Their theory must stand on its own two feet. You haven’t explained the neutrino deficit unless that study is definitive and uncontested rather than clutching at straws. And you haven’t explained the excess heat of the corona which is a glaring big Gorrilla in the room. Not only that you are doing this on the basis of your refusal to take Oliver up on his own evidence.

    Which suggests you are going on your burden of proof theory which is straight occult-epistemology. No paradigm gets a handicap. In a local swimming race its the poorer swimmers who get the head start.

    The Corona is so hot that there will be some fusion going on there so a source of neutrinos. Its not that there is not neutrinos that is the problem. Its that there is far too few.

    “Furthermore, the fact that supernovae can’t have planets seems like a good argument against what Manuel is claiming.”

    Thats secondary speculation. Its neither here nor there. You see what Oliver has done is found evidence for the sun being made mostly of iron at the centre with a rich neutron core and hydrogen outside of that. But he’s still basically a mainstreamer. So he’s tried to figure out how that can be true within the mainstream paradigms. That side of it ought to be ignored for the time being because his primary evidence is supposed to be about the make-up of the sun.

    “When observing the Sun with appropriate filtration, the most immediately visible features are usually its sunspots, which are well-defined surface areas that appear darker than their surroundings because of lower temperatures. Sunspots are regions of intense magnetic activity where convection is inhibited by strong magnetic fields…”

    An absolutely feeble explanation. A bizzare explanation since radiation ought to be enhanced because close photography shows sunspots to be areas where you can look right inside. And when you can look right inside what you see is the darkness. When you look inside something and its dark you ought to assume that its dark inside.

    I mean I was not saying that they didn’t have these feeble explanations eric. They just cannot explain anything. But anyone can come up with one feeble excuse after another.

    Being as the surface is only 5000-6000 C and when you look inside you see darkness, this story of a magnetic field holding back convection is weak. Because the claim is that you open up a big hole and not only convection but radiation is held right back to such an extent that all you see is darkness. Well that dog just won’t hunt.

    “Moreover, in 2001 the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory was able to detect all three types of neutrinos directly….”

    This allegedly happened at one station at one time. What about the rest of the time? What about the rest of the observatories. The neutrino mystery is still there. Scientific experiments have to be repeatable and verifiable. Some crowd somewhere achieving something ONCE isn’t science. Its a good way to get a paper published but its hardly proves anything.

    “The magnetic field gives rise to strong heating in the corona, forming active regions that are the source of intense solar flares…..”

    But nowhere here is there an explanation as to why the corona is hotter than the surface. And the insides, when we look into a sunspot is COLDER than the surface. If this were the explanation the Corona would now be cooler than the surface since after all right now there are no sunspots. But the Corona is was and remains hotter than the surface. Since joules flow from hotter to colder areas we must assume some form of energy coming from the outside. We must assume that, for the most part, its the corona that heats the surface and not the other way around. This not being the whole story either. But the surface has to absorb heat energy from the corona or the laws of physics would have to be rewritten.

    So these are in no way explanations eric. They are merely excuses.

  41. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    See this:

    http://theradiokitchen.net/wp-content/uploads/image/sunspots.jpg

    A sunspot. Enlarge the picture you see the shape of the surrounding material so that you can easily see that the sun spot is an authentic window into the sun. And when you look into that window you see the suns interior darkness. Your not seeing any feeble inhibition of convection. That wouldn’t work at all since the radiation would still be there and it would presumably give you a brighter spot. Or at the very most only a mildly cooler region. But instead you see only darkness. Seeing is believing and you ought to assume that its dark below the surface.

  42. Comment from: eric adler


    Comment from: Graeme Bird April 26th, 2009 at 9:57 am
    Graeme wrote,

    See this:

    http://theradiokitchen.net/wp-content/uploads/image/sunspots.jpg

    A sunspot. Enlarge the picture you see the shape of the surrounding material so that you can easily see that the sun spot is an authentic window into the sun. And when you look into that window you see the suns interior darkness. Your not seeing any feeble inhibition of convection. That wouldn’t work at all since the radiation would still be there and it would presumably give you a brighter spot. Or at the very most only a mildly cooler region. But instead you see only darkness. Seeing is believing and you ought to assume that its dark below the surface.

    Wonderful rhetoric and imagination, but not science.

    In 1970, the reknowned astrophysicist, RH Dicke published a detailed 12 page paper in which he showed how the conventional theory of sunspots explained their temperature depended on the magnetic field. I don’t claim to have read it or fully understand his calculations. It would take way to much study and time to do that.

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1970ApJ…159…25D&db_key=AST&page_ind=12&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

    The calculation involves surface stress and magnetic fields and the motion of ionized particles in a magnetic field. He shows a detailed calculation of the temperature and brightness of sunspots and faculae. There appears to be good science behind this.

  43. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    RW “These papers are uncited, unreviewed, unmitigated nonsense…”

    You come on as a know-it-all in science but you reveal your lack of understanding of the scientific method by the statements above. The scientific method does not require peer-review or any kind of citation. It merely calls for a method, apparatus, observation and conclusion.

    You’re a snob, typical of todays pseudo-scientists. If a nine year old kid sets up an original experiment using the scientifc method it is as valid as any other peer-reviewed study. If he/she publishes his/her results on his/her own blog on the Internet, it is as valid as any peer-reviewed study. The proof is in the truth of the conclusions, not in the consensus of the reviewers.

  44. Comment from: eric adler


    Comment from: Gordon Robertson April 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am


    RW “These papers are uncited, unreviewed, unmitigated nonsense…”

    You come on as a know-it-all in science but you reveal your lack of understanding of the scientific method by the statements above. The scientific method does not require peer-review or any kind of citation. It merely calls for a method, apparatus, observation and conclusion.

    You’re a snob, typical of todays pseudo-scientists. If a nine year old kid sets up an original experiment using the scientifc method it is as valid as any other peer-reviewed study. If he/she publishes his/her results on his/her own blog on the Internet, it is as valid as any peer-reviewed study. The proof is in the truth of the conclusions, not in the consensus of the reviewers.

    The truth of the conclusions are only understood if the work is used as a basis for future work, and cited in papers written by scientists as valued references. If it isn’t used by scientists it is not useful or enduring science. In many cases new work is recognized immediately by scientists as valuable. In some cases, work contains errors that take time to uncover even if it initially passes peer review. In the final analysis, the scientific community is the judge of validity of the science.