What is Digg?118 Comments
- sniper6121, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39Now thats hot.
- DGioiello, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17IAAA (I Am An Astrophysicist), and the comments made are complete BS. The sun is through and through Plasma (which in some ways is similar to a gas, but is a distinct phase of matter) and Gas. In addition, the sun is primarily composed of Hydrogen a little Hydrogen and tiny, tiny traces of the metals (In Astronomy, anything that is not Hydrogen or Helium is considered a metal).
There is no "Iron Alloy Transitional Layer" Iron, though present in tiny traces (>>>>>1%) Iron does not permit any sort of exothermic nuclear reactions (once you make Iron, you're done), which is why Supergiants end up building it up in their cores, but the sun is not nearly massive enough to permit the reactions that would create Iron. This article is complete BS. There is no "surface to the sun", the photosphere is made of of Hydrogen, not Neon, etc etc. - NadeChaser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@DeezNutz420
You, my son, are an idiot.
I pray that your comments were some form of sarcasm. - yoda17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I thought that
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees
It is so hot that everything on it is a gas: iron, copper, aluminum, and many others. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Yup, REAL hot. At work, we have an instrument called an Inductively Coupled Plasma, or ICP for short. The "flame" is about 7,000K, which is about the temperature of the surface of the sun. It really is amazing.
http://ewr.cee.vt.edu/environmental/teach/smprimer/icp/icp.html - TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Most of the photos are real. The surface of the sun doesn't have mountains nor a fixed structure. Since the temperature is so high its in a perpetual state of plasma, a solid which acts like a liquid. Think of the sun's surface like superheated jello. Flares are burst of plasma which escape from the surface of the sun and follow the bands of magnetic lines encircling the sun. Sometimes these flares are so powerful that they break loose of the sun's magnetic field and fly off into space at near the speed of light. When flares reach the Earth our magnet field protects us from the worst of it. A short distruiption of communications and a brighter than usual Northern Lights are the only result. Immensely powerful flares though could in theory plow through our defensive magnet field and scorch the surface of the Earth in lethal radiation. A theory I heard about suggests that this is what caused the Permian Extinction which ushered in the Age of the Dinosaurs billions of years ago, but don't quote me on that.
As for there being iron on the sun. A spectrograph of the sun's light could solve that argument quickly. - blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The more I read this, the less I like. This article is filled with pseudoscience. It maintains that there is an iron alloy layer beneath the photosphere and states:
"There are a whole host of unexplained phenomena related to the sun's activities that still baffle gas model theorists to this day because they FAIL TO RECOGNIZE the existence of an iron alloy transitional layer that rests beneath the visible photosphere." (emphasis added)
So this web page apparently is able to make this claim while acknowledging that science as of this moment is not?
"Fortunately science still enjoys a small minority of dedicated scientists and maverick thinkers that have long promoted a very different, very iron rich model of the sun based on many decades of sound sweat equity, solid scientific research, and careful observation."
Sorry, but as with the the veracity of global warming, I'm going to side with the scientific concensus here and believe that the sun's surface is mostly helium, as opposed to iron, which this article claims.
Do yourself a favor and visit this site instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
PS to swanny: Sorry, plasma is disassociated subatomic particles. Free electrons and protons are plasma, but an atom of neon is an atom of neon. Hmm I think you were supposed to learn this in your middle school chemistry class. - Danoz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13I don't think this article should be taken as fact, even though thats how its written. I've never read of a solid surface sun before and even wikipedia states "The Sun does not have a definite boundary as rocky planets do; the density of its gases drops approximately exponentially with increasing distance from the center of the Sun."
- pastasauce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I highly doubt, if it does have a crust made of iron, that the crust is solid. Considering that iron melts at 1811K and the sun's surface is 5785K hot...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
- Qeveren, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Good lord, why is there a front-page article on Digg linking to that website? Mozina's theory is complete and utter bunk. He claims the Sun has a solid, silicate surface only a few thousand kilometers thick, magically levitated over a high temperature plasma, and that the core of the Sun is a neutron star which is somehow, also magically, generating energy.
Just... auuugh. - swanny89, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Plasma is a state of matter. Any element can be plasma.
- EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Jesus, Full of yourself much?
"I'm more openminded than you because I'll consider that ANYTHING is true"...
well dude, there is no spoon... congrats, feel good about yourself- the rest of us got over that little sophomoric philosophical high when we came down from our cannaboid-induced highs while driving home from the Matrix... May I suggest you do the same.
I read this article... Then I opened up Google, read the currently 'accepted' theories and a few rebuttles... then I went back and read the article again- and I realized that indeed- for all the plethora of random images and studies he uses to support his argument, he never even begins to approach some of the fundamental logic that was used when determining the makeup of the Sun. Then- faced with many logical voices against, and only one, clearly persecution-minded voice INSISTING the opposite, I came to the conclusion that this individual is PROBABLY mistaken... That isn't to say he Is- I am not a solar physicist- I am not qualified to make that judgment... But I have little inclination to believe him.
"Dogmatic Scientific Beliefs" have indeed been successfully challenged in the past, but rarely by the means that this individual is choosing to do so... Simply put - his obscene arrogance and lack of tact has virtually assured that he will not be taken particularly seriously... And I maintain that is no fault but his own, not the big, bad "establishment's"... - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5blahblah: plasma is not *necessarily* dissociated elementary particles. It is ionized gas, i.e. a gas in which one or more electrons have been dissociated (which makes it electrically conductive).
So what you say is true of hydrogen plasma, since the hydrogen atom is a single proton/electron pair. However, it wouldn't be true of any heavier gases... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Not at all. Go watch the BBC documentary 'the planets' or even that ***** IMAX thing 'solar max' and you'll see exactly the same types of images, and not computer generated at all except that they are generally 'false color images', but apart from that they are accurate.
I'm not sure about the iron core stuff though. - rkolter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Sun does not have a solid surface under a plasma layer. Period. There's overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise. There is NO evidence that suggests the sun is a solid object in the sense that it has mountain ranges and the like.
Gah. Pseudoscience. Someone hit these people with the Mallet of Innacurate Scientific Thought - goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@blahblah: "Sorry, plasma is disassociated subatomic particles. Free electrons and protons are plasma, but an atom of neon is an atom of neon. Hmm I think you were supposed to learn this in your middle school chemistry class."
You were, weren't you? No, plasma isn't just made up of disassociated subatomic particles, but the atoms they disassociate from as well. In other words, it's ionized gas, which means you *can* have neon plasma.
EDIT: archiesteel beat me to it. - alivenumber5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dugg because it spiked my interest for a minute or two. Other than that there's some pseudoscience in there.
- drscience, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8This site is using images from the SOHO and TRACE spacecraft to somehow argue that the sun has a solid surface. This is completely inaccurate. Using statements like: "the surface crust of the sun" in completely ludicrous.
This site appears to be using running subtraction images (these are subtractions done with images taken in sequence. It's like subtracting the previous frame in a movie from the current one.) as proof that the sun has a solid surface. I'll leave it to you to decide how accurate that sounds.
This site presents highly inaccurate information. Usually, I don't digg anything down but in this case I feel compelled to. - epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it does ...it is...it will...later...much later
- Ulrika, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3THE LINKED WEBSITE IS PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Reported as inaccurate. - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hannes Alfven *was* a real scientist but he died in 1995 so I don't think he's in much of a position to object when some psuedo-scientific ***** uses his name.
And, oh by the way, if Alfven was interested in this crock of ***** maybe the author of the site could point to a source supporting that little tidbit? More likely Alfven would have had campus security escort this nutball off campus and Alfven's "interest" in the "solid sun theory" consisted of mentioning it on the police report.
Oh, and let's not overlook this little gem:
This is a formal manuscript of the solid surface model that has been offered for web peer review.
Pardon me all to hell but what's "web peer review"? If it's review by this guy's peers then it's not much of a recommendation. My guess is that the dufus is invoking a corruption of phrase that might mean something. "Peer review" means just that; your peers take a look at your work to try to catch the goofy mistakes before they hit paper and you embarrass yourself and waste the reader's time. This guy's peers are either medicated, confined or peering out through the gun-slits of their well-camouflaged bunkers deep in the woods. - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, and he died in 1995. So where's the the evidence that he ever gave the author of this web site the time of day?
If you're going to invoke random names how about hitting for the fences? Hey, maybe Stephen Hawking thinks "the solid sun" is a pretty spiffy idea. I'm pretty sure Tycho Brahe thought the sun had a solid surface. And how about Arno A. Penzias? Didn't he once claim that the standard model of the sun doesn't explain everything and that the solid sun was worth a hard, second look? Hmmm, maybe mentioning Penzias' name isn't such a good idea. He's still alive and in a position to do something about some shmuck using his name to lend some credibility to a steaming pile of *****. - Iterion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4They do suspect that Jupiter has a rocky or at least icy core, so yes I do believe it does. Jupiter has lots of gas followed by layers of molecular hydrogen and then metallic hydrogen. In the core there is possibly just gas, but there is a chance it is solid.
As for the sun, No, it definitely doesn't have a solid surface, or a solid anything for that matter. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is total crap. It's pseudoscience at its "finest". The author of this crackpot theory goes by the name of Michael Mozina, who is a kook of the Nth degree...
Read on for a lengthy debunking/ribbing of this masterpiece: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18969
He's also seems to be a supporter of the Electric Universe theory. - EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes, real science follows the evidence. Not a sophomoric understanding there-of.
Or more bluntly put - don't think that coming in and looking at a few carefully selected pieces of evidence about ANY topic makes you somehow wiser and smarter than people who make it their job and their obsession to study all aspects of a particular topic... (this works as much for creationists as it does for most other 'alternate' theories.
Science is an iterative process, and well established conclusions and theories thereof generally become well established because they fit all available evidence at the time. Thus - if you come up with a competing theory, it isn't simply the conclusion you must challenge, but the entire body of supporting work that lead up to it. THAT is science.
Doing so requires humility... 'hey guys, I know this doesn't match the generally accepted model... but I've got some evidence X and Y, which suggest that PERHAPS Z is actually a more accurate model... here - I'll lay out everything I have for you, what do you think?'... Not "I KNOW WHATS RIGHT! I'M RIGHT! YOU'RE ALL JUST PERSECUTING ME... BECAUSE I KNOW X AND Y, THEREFORE Z HAS TO BE TRUE!"...
And yes - All scientists, and I'll say indeed all professionals get a little miffed when someone who hasn't dedicated their life to their cause comes in and attempts to 're-write the book' so to speak. such incidents are EXCEEDINGLY rare... You'd get pissed if some random guy read one or two articles in a magazine and came in and INSISTED he knew how to do your profession better than you- wouldn't you? I know I would- especially when those who insist on telling me how I'm doing my job poorly don't even have the basic education necessary to properly express their idea, let alone argue its merits)...
Its the same deal here...
We all want to feel like we're an Einstein... The fact is we're not. - EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3After Very Seriously looking at this article, I think we've fallen into the 'someone really wants to feel special and have "THE" answer' part of lameness...
Don't get me wrong, I'd be fascinated and tremendously interested if something like this came out in Scientific American or some other Reputable source... but this guy is way too busy citing obscure random studies that MIGHT support his point, while not bothering to address "simple" fundamental questions of thermodynamics and even simple linear algebra (the equasion to determine the composition of the sun based on the properties of the plasma's involved and its mass and volume is not a particularly complicated one... if you don't mind 26 Dimensions;))
It looks like a classic case of 'only seeing what you want to see'...
And I say again - I'd be THRILLED to hear this from someone else... but this guys simple style and choice of evidence make it highly suspect IMHO. - rkeene0517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This article is a good example of Junk Science.
- EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The instinct and intellect of a shark... I see.
Vindication and primal urges have no place in serious scientific discussion. You are not participating in any form of discourse, you are merely beating a cliche, sophomoric point like a drum and ignoring any and all responses.
Of course, if this is truly explains your understanding of intelligent debate, then I believe we've hit on the root of some of your misconceptions. Not that it is particularly relevant at this point. - epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1communists probably....
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4vguard wrote: ". . .you really need to look at all the evidence these guys are presenting. . ."
Did you really suggest that we only look at the evidence *they* provide? That seems a sure-fire way of being convinced of exactly what *they* want you to be convinced of.
No, I'm not going to look at "all the evidence [they present]." I'm going to look at all the evidence. Period. And it all tells me this is Grade A *****. - notacceptable, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3TMBG ftw :D.
However even on this might be a wiki they admit the song was wrong in stating that.
"The song states that the sun is so hot that everything in it is a gas; however, this is incorrect. The sun is SO hot that all gases are ionized and turned into plasma, which is gas with the ability to conduct electricity. However, plasma is considered a completely separate state of matter, so the sun is not, in fact, gas." - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You also ought to be ashamed of sounding like Yoda.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pfft! Bury...
- AutoShovel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lets take one fusion device, say a hydrogen bomb and place an iron layer around it. Let us stand well back and ignite the bomb - whoa, not much iron layer left. Lets take something a little quieter like a Tomakak reactor. With much more efficient magnetic confinement than is possible now, we could even expect an iron shell to stay around the thing. At least for a while. The problem is that the output from the Fusion would 'cook' the iron, both thermally and by soaking it with radiation to the point where it would disintegrate.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fine. Maybe this is pseudo science but that also means the big bang and string theory are as well since neither work without made up things like dark energy and dark matter. They might as well have called it invisible pink unicorns and leprechauns.
- archemedes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Drscience, I got dugg down for saying it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1reminds me of "the fountain".
- Lane5slacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Be sure to put on your safety goggles...
- vguard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Actually, I have looked at the evidence. It's readily available for any who care to go look...and aren't afraid to think.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/
http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm
or just google "electric universe" - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, the point is to throw enough ***** at enough people that you find the few who are willing to take this garbage personally. Once they buy in they lose interest in evidence and start treating the "theory" as something that has to be defended from the infidels.
***** from start to finish. - EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How dare I that think! I guess I should be ashamed of myself..
No, you should be ashamed of your arrogant notion that you are the only one who does so. - yellowsnowcone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sing it with me ... the Sun is hot, the Sun is not a place for you or me ...
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Real movies of the surface of the Sun: http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/news_e/20061127_press_e/
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just because its a controversial theory does not mean it is or is not true.
I am not saying that... I am saying you wont find this taught in your science books anytime soon as it isnt accepted... i made no allusions to it's accuracy.
And that is why noone has heard that the sun has a crust. I am very interested in the iron sun theories but most of them seem to have been disproven already with thinks like radio waves and seeing the interior of the sun. which should have bounced back if there was an iron crust. I say seem because you cant disprove a throy with one test just like you cant prove one with one test. - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hear hear! Let's defend Digg against pseudoscience. The underdog is NOT always right, guys!
- vguard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4If electricity is NOT a MAJOR factor in whats happening in the solar system, why does NASA keep putting gear on their probes to measure electrical activity? If it's not important, why bother?
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's true. Tidal forces would rip apart any hollow, solid shell close enough to such a large rotating mass as the sun's.
- spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This implies that a giant ball of flaming gas has a surface...
- drscience, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I agree. Something's not right here. This site is just trying to get attention. Please digg it down.
The sun DOES NOT HAVE a solid surface! -
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is