July 14, 2005

• Well I'm sold. Elvis says he is too.
• How many times do we have to go over this? The sun is a mass of incandescent gas. A gigantic nuclear furnace.
• Scientists have found that the sun is a huge, atom-smashing machine. So I'm told.
• The "sun" is really just a thin layer of bright, outward heat producing magic fire. The inside of this is a giant casino run by God.
• It must be true. His site is too well-designed to be kook.
• At least he provides a nice collection of beautiful photos and videos.
• Well, at least we know where Osama is hiding out now. Phew! WTF! I thought the earth was flat??
• This comes as good news to the ghost octopus that lives under my desk.
• Bah! Here in Goonland we know the sun is a giant egg and we must crack its shell!
• Well, what the hell do YOU guys know? Have you ever BEEN to the sun? Well, HAVE you? (taps foot) I thought as much. Jeez, site like this, you'd think at least SOME of you people would be in contact with the Sun Monkeys...
• But here on Earth, there's be no life without the light it gives.
• I have say -- for a pseudoscience website it looks so much better than the archetypical pseudoscience page. You know the kind I'm talking about.... Geocities, black background, giant red bold Times Roman font, and poor grammar.
• i am in favor of a hard and rigid sun, as opposed to a flaccid and gaseous one.
• The Sun has got a hat on, hip hip hip hooray!
• Anybody in here interested in this as more than a joke? We should remember not to confuse science with consensus. While I don't think that the sun is "mostly" iron, I would not be surprised if there was iron at the core. Iron is supposed to be the "seeds" blown into space by a sun that goes supernova. What do those seeds become? The earth has a magnetic field and is postulated to have a molten liquid iron core. The sun has a magnetic field, why would it not have an iron core? The iron can't go anywhere unless the sun has the mass to go supernova itself. Extensive discussion of this subject: Physlink.com PS: It seems that it is actually THIS guy's reckoning.
• The site is fascinating; he's clearly put a great deal of thought and effort into this. Mecurious, I always did think the sun had a solid core. Never questioned it. Don't know where I got that idea -- I assume it was what I was taught.
• While I don't think that the sun is "mostly" iron, I would not be surprised if there was iron at the core. Iron is supposed to be the "seeds" blown into space by a sun that goes supernova. What do those seeds become? I'm pretty far-removed from my college physics days, but I think the sun is too energetic for the existence of anything heavier than helium. Like, heavier atoms just can't be stable in that environment. Supernovae produce iron (and heavier elements) because they're a lot cooler; and even then, i think the heavy-element production happens towards the surface. As for what those seeds become, you're soaking in it.
• We know the sun is hydrogen because we can measure its mass, and therefore its density, and it pretty much can't be made of anything else. Secondly, the iron would show itself in the chromatic spectrum of the sun. It doesn't, therefore there's no iron.
• If the sun were iron, it would stop fusing (not smashing) atoms, transforming it into a small red dwarf. This bloke is 5- and 10 billion years ahead of his time.
• First, the sun is so hot that everything on it is a gas. Iron, copper, aluminum, and many others. Second, if the core is iron or liquid, and it doesn't contribute to the wavelength of the light by being burnt off, then it wouldn't show up in the chromatic spectrum. Third, there is noooo...number 3. Fourth, I really haven't studied the sun, at all, from a physical standpoint. However, hypothetically, it's possible that the pressure from the gravity of the sun keeps the boiling point of the core high enough that it doesn't release as gas, and the hydrogen and helium are the "atmosphere" of the sun, hence the lack of iron in the chromatic spectrum. If I read the article, I suspect that's more or less what it says, but really, I have no time for reading articles. Fifth, I have no response to the mass argument, nor to Skrik's. I just type so I can read myself writing, really.
• The earth is hollow, and the mole people live there. The sun is also hollow, and giant winged beings live there. The moon is hollow too and that's where all the kidnapped scientists live. I actually read a book about this in the early 80s.
• Secondly, the iron would show itself in the chromatic spectrum of the sun. Only if it's emitting light, which most liquids and solids don't do.
• We know the sun is hydrogen because we can measure its mass, and therefore its density That would be average density, which isn't saying anything about its matter distribution. But, since the sun is so light (ha!) relative to its size (like relative to an earth rock), it's probably a safe bet to guess it's mostly hydrogen :)
• Only if it's emitting light, which most liquids and solids don't do. Even if it was held into a solid or liquid state by gravitational pressure, at the temp it'd be emitting light like a mofo. And believe me, mofos can really light up a room.
• at that temp.
• Yeah, that's true. I was obviously not thinking.
• Sorry if you think I was unduly frivolous, mecurious, but in point of fact, you aren't discussing the 'visible ferrite surface' theory which was the subject of the fpp either - are you? Now, it's not bonkers to think that the Sun might have a large iron component - that was once an orthodox theory - it's just a slightly tiresome resurrection of a view which more sophisticated spectroscopy ruled out a while ago. This is the view I subscribe to. If you want to give the ferrite surface theory a serious discussion, I await it with interest.
• We know the sun is hydrogen because we can measure its mass Please return my kitchen scales pronto. I'm upset that you would use them for measuring the mass of the sun when you told me that you were only go to weigh out "a small quantity of baked goods or meat products".
• ..also your pet ferrite died and it wasn't my fault.
• ob "I got a couple ferrites here... they come from a place of light"
• This bloke is 5- and 10 billion years ahead of his time. I know *exactly* how he feels.
• i'm compelled to wonder how many of you have taken into account the possibility that your preferred theory is way off or slightly off. not that i think surface of the sun person is right; i'm just a bit concerned that y'all have the constitution of the sun down pat already. just as we all did mars a few years back.
• middleclasstool: Where hydrogen is made into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees?
• (an aside: I had my 4th and 5th grade music students sing "The Sun Is A Mass of Incandescent Gas" [as well as other TMBG things] last year, and they thought it was the greatest song ever. OK, derail over)
• I have say -- for a pseudoscience website it looks so much better than the archetypical pseudoscience page. Well, here's another of his pages. Nothing to do with pseudoscience but beautifully crappy.
• Sigh... Pseudo-science, it gets tiresome after a while.... The Sun is made mostly of Hydrogen, with traces of other "elements". All are mostly in a plasma form (i.e. ionised, where some or all of the electrons are stripped off, rather than "gas", which is non-ionized). While the electrons are stripped off , the nuclei remain intact, save through nuclear reactions (making "heavier" nuclei from lighter ones, the lightest being the proton [nucleus of Hydrogen] which excess energy eventually reach us, mostly as Sunlight. The Sun's energy comes from well understood nuclear reactions, that can and have been replicated in the laboratory. Up until a few years ago, there appeared to be a relatively small discrepancy[1] between Solar models (i.e. theoretical models that could be used to predict the Sun's energy output as well as neutrino emissions, given its observed composition) and the observations (mostly the neutrino emission). This has all been settled mostly due to experiments made by multi-national teams of scientists in Japan (Super-Kamiokande) and Canada (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory). The Sun's composition (mostly Hydrogen, with traces of other elements) is consistent with current cosmological models, with the Sun being a second generation star (containing trace elements created in the huge first generations stars that went supernova very early on, prior to the Sun's birth). As it stands, observations and theoretical models agree. So-called "models" with a solid iron core could not even come close to matching the energy output observed as well as the neutrino emission. Light output gives us a view of what's happening in the higher layer (photosphere) of the Sun. The neutrino energy spectrum gives us a view of what's happening deep inside the Sun, where nuclear reactions occur. ("Sunquakes" give us confirmation data on a bit of both; google for it, or for "helioseismology"). If you don't believe me, do a search for the various terms (e.g. Solar models, sunquakes, helioseismology, super-Kamiokande, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory); after a bit of reading ;-)... you might form your own opinion! =========== [1] regarding the "small" discrepancy: while the neutrino output might have been hundreds if not thousands of times off or more, for many years, it was found to be off by approximately a factor of 3. It turns out that there are three different kinds of neutrinos, one of which is produced by nuclear reactions. What Super-K. and SNO demonstrated was that neutrinos could "oscillate" between the three different kinds, so that only 1/3 of those produced were detected on Earth as being from the "normal" kind. ... Apologies for this becoming quite technical :-)
• I think we'll find out what the sun's made off in about 5 billion years. Maybe we'll even manage to save that woodchick from the Forest of Cheem and the Moxx of Balhoon this time.
• I certainly don't have all the answers. Heck, on this subject, I don't have even one. But those of you that put your faith in everything that science currently understands on a given subject aren't paying attention to history. Einstein's paper on the nature of light was considered a crackpot idea at the time - that light could be act as both particle and wave. The sun still contains many mysteries, including this one from January: "Proton storms normally develop hours or even days after a flare." This one began in minutes."
• that woodchick was hot. Even before she caught fire.
• I have another crazy theory about the sun that I thought up a few years ago while I was tripping: the Sun is Sentient!
• But those of you that put your faith in everything that science currently understands on a given subject aren't paying attention to history. Einstein's paper on the nature of light was considered a crackpot idea at the time - that light could be act as both particle and wave. Yeah, but there's a wide, wide gulf between A) blindly swallowing everything just because current science says so, and B)recognizing that, although there are certainly some things that we've got wrong and other things that are yet unknown, the mass/gravitational analysis, spectroscopy, and piles and piles of other evidence in favor of the sun being made of light elements looks pretty convincing. I mean, of course current science doesn't have everything right. But it's got a lot right.
• Certainly agreed COBRA! (gee, your username make me sound so excited when I address you). My only point is to not dismiss something "out of hand" just because it might set the current understanding on its ear. It has happened before. On a separate, but related point, I find that thinking "outside the box" - even including completely bizarre possibilities can (at the very least) stimulate other ideas that are less bizarre. Science (conventional wisdom) is pushed forward by both conventional and unconventional ideas - the bottom line is which ones does the evidence support. Many of the implications of Einstein's theories have been supported by "evidence" only decades later, when the technological means for the experiments or observations were possible.