Calcium Ferrite Sun?

In tips, Scarlet Pumpernickel pointed to an article about the sun and it having a ‘calcium ferrite’ shell / layer to it. It’s the first time I’ve seen that combo, so it caught my eye. Perhaps it has always been part of the Iron Sun thesis and I just didn’t notice. Or perhaps it is a new refinement.

At any rate, the article was rather interesting:

and looks to be the top level intro to a lot of stuff at their site. I can’t really do a decent abstract of it in the time I have right now (and not sure I could do it justice in any amount of time), so I’m going to just put a pointer to it and a couple of ‘teaser’ quotes.

This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth’s oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun’s photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.

This leaves me with several ponderings. Neon layer? Silicon plasma layer? Calcium ferrite surface layer? Do we have evidence for that much stratification? Talk of a solid surface, but at the temperatures involved, is anything a solid? Or is the gravity sufficient to make it act as a solid? Interesting thoughts about an electrically driven neon sun…

It turns out however, that modern satellite images now lend very strong observational support to the electrical model of the sun originally described by Dr. Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900’s and later verified by Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel. Dr. Charles Bruce and a number of other scientists have already demonstrated the electrical nature of the sun’s activities and have put forth solid surface theories of the sun based on predictions that are supported by direct observation. These models simply never gained momentum and ultimately fell out of “style” in the field of astronomy in mid to late part of the 20th century in favor of a gas model theory of the sun. 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. In recent months, many of Dr. Manuel’s conclusions about our sun being composed of material from a supernova remnant have been confirmed by direct evidence. It turns out that these visual observations of an iron rich surface were predicted via the field of nuclear chemistry more than three decades earlier, while the experiments to support these ideas and many mathematical predictions had been verified over 50 years ago and were originally predicted by Birkeland almost 100 years ago! Studies of quasars in the early universe demonstrate the presence of large quantities of iron, casting serious doubt on the gas model in recent years.

I don’t know who made the site (not dug into it enough to find out, though the contact page lists a “Michael Mozina” in Mt. Shasta California – but it looks like rather a lot of quality work for just one person, though possible) but on the off chance that Dr. Oliver Manuel does not know, he has some supporters out there.

At any rate, many of the statements in those quotes are ‘links’ in the original article, so lead to other sites, supportive evidence, or elaborations on that site. You can spend hours checking the reference chain in depth if you like. In many cases, particular observations of NASA or particular satellites are referenced.

In general, it looks like an interesting way to start getting acquainted with the Iron Sun and the Electric Universe ideas; and from a source I’d not seen before.

There are lots of pictures and ‘eye candy’ on the site. (The ‘production values’ are rather good). All in all, a decent place to spend some time. Especially on this page:

where Hubble images abound amid discussions of how large amounts of iron are found in the very early universe (and what that implies for us, now, and for the hydrogen model).

I wish that right now I had the time to ‘work through the site’ and figure out if all of it was as well supported as it looks. Perhaps someone here can take on that bit and report back on it…

At any rate, I’m still pondering to what extent a 2 minute ‘solid surface’ image is really a solid, and to what extent it could be one of those magnetic stabilized fluids as are used in some shock absorbers these days… (They have two images a couple of minutes offset in time and assert this is evidence of a solid surface; and I’m just thinking of other ways a ‘liquid’ might not move much in 2 minutes… perhaps just due to the large distances involved…). So while not committed to the evidence so far, it does cause some interesting wonderings…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Science Bits and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Calcium Ferrite Sun?

  1. Thanks for having the courage to question consensus science, the scientific form of “political correctness.”

    Michael Mozina was one of those great coincidences and unmerited acts of human kindness that I met along the way in my fifty-one year journey to the core of the Sun.

    The conclusion to my journey, summarized below, would be frightening, if I had not also learned along the way that the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us is benevolent and far more powerful than all the world’s political leaders put together, . . .

    Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Chairman Mao, Barack Obama, the UN, the World Bank, Al Gore, an army of government paid scientists, the UN’s IPCC, and George Orwell’s Big Brother, too!

    Fear not, the journey confirms that these folks are totally powerless, too:

    Click to access 20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. Pascvaks says:

    First impression… we’re using caveman terms to discuss something we don’t comprehend. What’s a wiggle on a graph? What’s a picture with a 171 angstrom filter? Tell me there’s a “solid” layer under the photosphere and it doesn’t compute; have problems getting my imagination to see that one while we’re sitting at the cave mouth, looking backwards at the reflections bouncing on the back of the cave walls. Nope. From this old stodgy caveman, sitting here in the dark as the sun goes down, looking at the pretty shapes and lights of the fire and the setting Sun on the dark walls of the back of the cave, it sure seems we’re a little lacking in imagination and understanding and need to down a few more stone-cups of beer before we say something someone in the next cave may laugh at. Pass the fire water, Flintstone!

  3. There’s a rigid layer under the photosphere that is rich in elements made near the core of a supernova.

    Solid? Or made rigid by powerful magnetic fields from the solar core? Who knows? But the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun is absolutely wrong and consensus science is crumbling today, together with the careers of world leaders and the economy that they undermined since 1972 !


    1. O. K. Manuel and Golden Hwaung, “Solar abundances of the elements”,
    Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983):

    2. O. K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham and Stig E. Friberg, “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002):

    3. O. K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011):

  4. Jeff Alberts says:

    No offense to the designer of the site, but it looks pretty simplistic to me. Not very well laid out, IMHO as someone who runs several sites. It looks very late 90s… I’m sure that the images and video were culled from elsewhere, and not created by the person who made the site.

  5. Pascvaks says:

    @Jeff Alberts
    From one caveman to another, why don’t you step outside and howl at the moon for a few minutes, you must have drank something you found at the back of the cave. You really need to be careful back there, last night I got real sick and… well you figure it out… Oh yeah, there’s a Big Red Hairy Guy that lives here that did all the hard work setting the place up, don’t make him mad, please… (think Bozo: red hair, bad temper, big teeth, etc., etc.)

  6. Jeff Alberts says:

    @pascvaks, lol. Not following you. I was talking about the site to which EM linked, not this one.

  7. Pascvaks says:

    @Jeff Alberts
    Oooooooooooooops.. thought you were out of your tree and picking a fight with ‘You-Know-Who’…

    x’cuse me, gotta go back to the deep dark wall a minute.. must’a been something in that dead rat I ate a few days back at McRock’s..

  8. Pascvaks says:

    I guess I’ve worn all the humor off the caveman anology and appologize for being too too and diverting spacetime from the conversation. Dr.Manuel, I have no personal knowledge of what the Sun is made of or how it was done or the structure of it all, I’m just a modern mensch who’s brain sometimes absorbs things and who eats and sleeps on a fairly regular basis; luckier than many I know. Whenever you post I get the impression you’re an El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha and the windmills you’re fighting have nearly won. I don’t detect much movement to your side of the line you’ve drawn in the sand. But, and I think this is a little of the problem we all have, I don’t see much movement up the Mountain of Knowledge; our education system is static, putrid, and killing many who swim in it. I’ll try to be more receptive to your science and your views on politics; only ask that you not mix the two in the same discussion.

  9. Jeff Alberts says:

    “Oooooooooooooops.. thought you were out of your tree and picking a fight with ‘You-Know-Who’… ”

    I kinda thought that’s where you were going, but wasn’t sure. I usually know better than to pick a fight with The Dragon ;)

  10. R. Shearer says:

    Just dried off from my cold Epsom salt bath after mowing the lawn. I feel great. Thanks for posting this stuff.

  11. tckev says:

    Two other interesting observations to how the sun works and it’s constitution are at
    this is concerned with the way plasma rapidly wells up – not so much here but asks more questions about that “standard” model of the sun.

    This PDF file is an in-depth look at how waves propagate through the sun’s surface using Doppler measurement. I noted that they assume heavier elements in the Sun’s interior at some point of it’s existence, and that the deeper interior is likely to be solid.

  12. UninterestingConnections says:

    I don’t know nuffink about the Calcium Ferrite sun, but it has been a very cool summer so far here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

  13. adolfogiurfa says:

    In order to surprise the cavemen visiting this site, I must say that, according to the law of the octave, the diameter of such a solid sun, it must be a little smaller than the earth´s :

    Sun´s Diameter
    8477.301266 km

  14. Thanks, tckev.

    Solar science was compromised by agreements to use global climate change as the common enemy to unite nations and avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation.

    Experimental data and observations that falsified the SSM (standard solar model of a hydrogen-filled sun) have been manipulated, ignored or hidden as the modern global climate scandal grew – undetected – out of sight, in funds intended for the popular space science program.

    The US space program was used, and then abandoned.

    Important findings by astronomers and solar physicists were also ignored along the way, e.g., those of Peter Toth [1] Carl Rouse [2] and the Galileo probe of Jupiter [3].

    In 2005 I was in Europe (Russia and Portugal) when I first learned that Michael Mozina noticed iron-rich, rigid structures beneath the Sun’s fluid photosphere in “running difference images” of a solar eruption filmed by the TRACE satellite:

    I invited him to join me as co-author and we published the above movie in two reports [4,5].

    Today the link is broken. Can someone find the problem?

    Anyway, there is little or no doubt: Earth’s heat source is a neutron star hidden from view by the glowing ball of waste products that emits photons – the photosphere.

    Neutron-emission and neutron-decay generate 65% of the Sun’s energy.

    Hydrogen-fusion generates 35% of its energy and 100% of its neutrinos.

    I personally abhor politics and conspiracy plots. But the global climate scandal, the seriously flawed IPCC Reports, and the response of leaders of our scientific community to those and to Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” finally revealed why it took fifty-one years (2011-1960) to decipher the Sun.


    1. “Is the Sun a pulsar?”, Nature 270, 159 – 160 (1977):

    2. “Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core”, Astronomy & Astrophysics 149, 65-72 (1985).

    3. “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”,
    Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, 5011 (1998):

    Click to access 5011.pdf

    4. “”Isotopes tell origin and operation of the Sun,” AIP Conference Proceedings 822, 206-225 (2006):

    5. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, 1847-1856 (2006):

  15. This link will show you the rigid, iron-rich structures revealed by the Trace satellite recording of a solar eruption:

  16. I, Vladimir F. Vlasov, made the discovery related to thermonuclear fusion in the Sun. Explanatory comments can be found at and at It is the nature of solar nuclear fusion seen from a new perspective. The proposed invention is “Method of Controlled Nuclear Fusion and Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor for Controlled Nuclear Fusion”, patent pending No. 2005123095/06(026016). The said discovery offers answers to all theoretical challenges of thermonuclear fusion in the Sun, and – which is more important – technical solution to design of controlled thermonuclear reactor capable of running for a long time. Owing to this discovery even TOKAMAKs could be operable soon, provided they are supplemented with apparatus maintaining the necessary physical conditions for controlled nuclear fusion.

    Vlasov’s Discovery
    The main concept of the invention is based on the assumption that thermonuclear reactions take place within solar corona. There’s where physical conditions requisite for fusion reaction exist. Corona with plasma temperature of about 2 000 000 К provides for heating of solar surface up to 6 000 K, whereafter fuel mixture from boiling solar face evaporates towards the corona. The temperature of 6 000 K is sufficient for fuel vapors to cope with Sun gravitation. This protects the solar surface from overheating and maintains the surface temperature. Physical conditions encouraging thermonuclear fusion prevail close to combustion zone, i.e. corona. Contacting atoms of fuel mixture merge and synthesize new elements with simultaneous huge heat release. This combustion zone actually makes solar corona wherefrom the energy enters cosmic space as radiation and matter. Fusion of deuterium and tritium is assisted by magnetic field of rotating Sun, where they are mixed and pick up speed. Also, thermonuclear reaction zone promotes generation and high-energy movement towards evaporating fuel of fast electrically charged particles, as well as photons – electromagnetic field quantums; all these form essential physical environment for nuclear fusion.
    Similar physical conditions, suitably close in parameters were used as the foundation of design of controlled thermonuclear reactor. Brief description and functional diagram of the invention are submitted in patent application No. 2005123095/06(026016) – “Method of Controlled Nuclear Fusion and Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor for Controlled Nuclear Fusion”.
    Simulated reproduction of physical setting of solar nuclear fusion is the essence of the proposed invention.
    It has been over 60 years that physicists fail to produce controlled thermonuclear reactor. Novel perception of thermonuclear fusion provides solution for every technical and theoretical problem conundrum related to creation of controlled thermonuclear reactor. This is weighty proof of inconsistency of current outlook to thermonuclear fusion in the Sun.
    Vlasov’s discovery could be submitted for expert review to the specialists in the field and competent authorities. Although it might resemble the stance of defendant deciding a case instead of a judge. Vlasov’s discovery goes against the grain of mainstream beliefs. Is it conceivable for the defendant to endorse the plaintiff’s claim and admit to being in the wrong? Whenever there is a disagreement between the two, the third party is to resolve the dispute, i.e. the judge who is expected to sort the matter out, gain an insight into heart of the problem, and resolve the issue in favorem veritatis.
    It has become a globally adopted practice for government agencies and officers allocate funds for research and development. In other words, consummation of scientific concept financing rests with bureaucracy, and it is only natural to require proper awareness of scientific and technical essence of the concept. I assume that my application pertaining to ‘nuclear fusion in the Sun’ must be adequately understood by an independent official reviewer having no interests or connections in academic circles. Even a rank-and-file engineer can comprehend the core of Vlasov’s discovery.
    The activities of typical physicists are constrained by the ideas of opinion leaders of the past. Rutherford and Eddington were the first to put forward the assumption of nuclear and thermonuclear reactions inside the Sun. Tamm and Sakharov proposed to make a magnetically insulated thermonuclear reactor. Lawson set up criteria for commencement conditions of controlled thermonuclear fusion. To speak up in a research community and oppose these giants will be the end of a learned career for any author.
    It is easy to foresee the response of scientific experts. It won’t be so much the reaction of conservative researchers, but rather the retort of dogmatic readers:
    «Controlled Nuclear Fusion is achievable at concurrent fulfillment of two prerequisites:
    • plasma temperature must exceed 100 000 000 К;
    • Lawson criterion should be met: n • t > 5•1019 sec/m3 (for D-T fusion), where n – ion density, t – confinement time.
    They would say that ‘in Vlasov’s concept of thermonuclear fusion in the Sun, in solar corona these criteria cannot be met’. They would definitely mention most blatant desecration of well-established physical notions.
    That is the approximate response of scientific experts. However, when you see it, please bear in mind that for over 60 years these very experts have not succeeded in producing controlled thermonuclear reactor, and no operating reactor is being promised before 30 to 40 years in the future. That is, despite observing Lawson criterion in experimental thermonuclear facilities, and multitude of thermonuclear fusion design equations, living race will not see the positive outcome, namely running reactor. Scholars of authority fail to see and understand how thermonuclear fusion in the Sun should be going.
    In theory, the following condition should be observed for thermonuclear fusion to generate energy: Nt > approx. 1020 where N – particle concentration (particle number in a cubic meter), and t – time (in seconds). This is Lawson criterion that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition.
    The point is that once ignition temperature is achieved a compromise is necessary between particle concentration (or particle density) and the time of their confinement within the volume providing the required density. It is possible to ‘ignite’ thermonuclear fusion at lower particle density through longer plasma confinement, alternatively it could be achieved with lower confinement time yet higher particle density. Why no physicist has ever supposed that in addition to ion density and confinement time there are more criteria, physical parameters and conditions of thermonuclear fusion in the Sun? Why no physicist tries to understand that the value of particle confinement time on solar surface is much higher than that of ТОКАМАКs? For instance, none of the giants of today’s physics know for certain about solar flares or their physical nature? And what is going on in solar depths? No physicist can describe the dynamics of whatever is taking place there, however roughly, to say nothing of simulate these processes and come up with plausible calculations, even less so to provide solid evidence.
    Physicists make assumptions towards the events inside the Sun, but they have to face many insurmountable theoretical [contrived] barriers. For instance, it is generally accepted that the temperature inside the Sun is in the range of 16 to 100 million degrees, while surface temperature is 5800 degrees, with up to а 2 million degrees in the corona!? None of the researchers has ever been able to provide coherent and unambiguous definition of this theoretical temperature inconsistency. Conventional rationalizations have serious weak points and fail to offer clear and thorough concept of the reasons for violation of laws of thermodynamics in the Sun. There are no natural physical phenomena to prove the probability of such temperature [leapfrog] sequence. That fact should have made the scientists to consider a different theory to explain solar thermonuclear fusion. However, thermonuclear bomb stereotype and assumptions of authorities in science do not license such a step.
    To give the physicists their due, one cannot but acknowledge the fact that nuclear fusion bomb has been made and successfully tested, still controlled thermonuclear reactor will not run on the same principles as a bomb does. In the Sun thermonuclear fusion is going on in a different way. ITER-TOKAMAK Project in France is yet nonviable. If controlled thermonuclear reactor would not operate as a small-scale model, why should a bigger reactor model make it?
    The present discovery is a novel insight into the nature of thermonuclear fusion in the Sun. Not a single scientist succeeded in disproving my innovative hypothesis. More than that, I enjoy approval and moral support of several dozens in physical science. Complete information on the discovery related to thermonuclear fusion in the Sun is in my exclusive possession! As soon as a deal or contract is concluded with me on transfer of know-how or technical matter, I submit to the other party the data pertaining to technical substance of the invention. The cost of concluding a contract is negligible, valuable commercial information will be handed over to the customer free of charge.

    V.F. Vlasov, mob. +79129250035, e-mail:
    P.S. I have discovered a remarkable physical phenomenon. I have detected the means of energy release similar to nuclear reaction, yet free of residual radioactivity of reaction products. Power output is three times lower than that of nuclear decay. The equipment will be more sophisticated than the one for nuclear power station. Still it would be a safer and environmentally friendly method of power generation.
    Some physicists consider solar neutrino emission the key proof of thermonuclear fusion inside the Sun. the issue of solar neutrino has been under scrutiny for a long time, yet in vain. «In 1968 Bruno М. Pontecorvo was the first to observe that oscillation could have explained the thinning of solar neutrino flow upon Earth». That is to say, he made a convenient empirical but unfounded and ‘tailored’ assumption.
    I am cognizant of the works by А.А. Komar and А.V. Kopylov, that were published in Priroda (Nature), Russian Academy of Science magazine. The said publication only quoted the postulation that ‘within the solar neutrino flux en route from the core of the Sun to detectors on Earth electron-type constitutes no more than one-third of calculated values, the rest are non-electron neutrino (muonic and/or tau). Electron-type neutrino transformation into the latter by all appearances (?) should be due to oscillations**’. All conclusions are stochastic mathematical simulations. One cannot seriously believe them! The same publication mentions that in the course of researching the issue of solar neutrino various Sun model revisions have got prominent coverage, expressly those more or less dissimilar to the SSM (standard solar model). In other words, we are talking about farfetched premise of neutrino oscillations.
    SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory), after 30 years of unproductive experiments allegedly came to the following conclusions:
    «— Solar neutrino problem is no longer the issue;
    — Electron neutrino oscillations have been positively proved (ever since 1998 there have been formidable indications that muon neutrino oscillate while in transit through Earth);
    — Existence of oscillations definitely signifies that neutrinos have mass ».
    This experiment is not fit to qualify for authenticity and soundness.
    Any such experiment should not be conducted in the deep of the Earth, rather as close to the Sun as possible so that neutrino oscillations could be measured, not determined by way of mathematical apparatus, without through-Earth transit to avoid foreign emittance impact.
    It is generally known that neutrinos can only be observed in an indirect manner, and basically any outcome of such experiments would be a theoretical assumption.
    For the purpose of construction of thermonuclear reactor, solar neutrino problem is not the most critical in understanding of the nature of solar thermonuclear fusion. Thermonuclear reactor per se has numerous built-in theoretical and technological problems unsolved for over 60 years, such as temperature conundrum. The reason lies in the erroneous perception of solar nuclear fusion.
    V.F. Vlasov

  17. Jason Calley says:

    @ Dr. Manuel

    If the running difference images that were posted from the TRACE satellite truly show surface features, can the same regions be imaged on successive rotations of the Sun (or over similar longish periods of time) and again show the same surface features? Maybe I am looking at it too simplistically, but it seems like once we have a technique to show surface features, we just wait a bit and look again to reproduce what we have seen — or is the photosphere so obscuring that repeat views cannot be likely done?

    Pardon me if I am missing something obvious here.

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, an interesting if rather ‘wandering’ set of comments…

    Oh, and Pascvaks: The big Neanderthal Caveman with hairy arms and big teeth only eats the ones that toss rocks at him and his friends.. If they want to toss rocks at each other, he pours the rock cups of beer and passes the popcorn… Oh, and he likes to watch magicians put on shows, then tries to explain their tricks…

    @Jeff Alberts:

    Well, I like “simple and clean” design. I don’t need dancing Java Crapletts to entertain me; just some ‘eye candy’ pictures (the good ones all come from NASA and similar gear… few folks have their own personal Hubble… ) and a layout that puts readable ideas together. I found that there. YMMV.

    Oh, and I liked the ’90s… So far the 201x have been pretty crappy…

    @Oliver K Manual:

    It probably would be better to divide your message into 2 parts and deliver the does in sizes easier for some folks to swallow… (preserving the ‘gestalt’ blend for a final coupe de grass… )

    OTOH, I clearly don’t have a problem mixing political and technical issues… then again, The Government started doing it first ;-)


    Music of the spheres?…

  19. @Jason Calley

    Figures in papers [4,5] show rigid iron-rich structures during solar rotation.

    Michael Mozina may have other images.

    @Scarlet Pumpernickel

    Fe is a trace element in the photosphere, but the most abundant element inside the Sun.

    There are suspicious indications that the abundance of Fe in the photosphere increases during a Maunder minimum, when sunspots disappear and the magnetic fields stop protruding through the photosphere.

  20. Jeff Alberts says:

    “Well, I like “simple and clean” design. I don’t need dancing Java Crapletts to entertain me; just some ‘eye candy’ pictures (the good ones all come from NASA and similar gear… few folks have their own personal Hubble… ) and a layout that puts readable ideas together. I found that there. YMMV.

    Oh, and I liked the ’90s… So far the 201x have been pretty crappy…”

    Well, that site isn’t simple, it’s simplistic, there’s a difference in my mind. And it’s far from clean. The background image isn’t centered under the nav buttons (which look like very ugly original FrontPage buttons) and the text and images fall off to to the right of it. They would have done better with a basic WordPress or Blogspot site with immensely more functionality.

    I don’t care for a lot of animation on pages either. None of my sites have crap like that. I also like to keep it simple, but appealing. To me, there is nothing appealing about that site’s layout. The content is a different story.

  21. I’m with Pascvaks on this one. If we are going to discuss Oliver Manuel’s ideas, let’s start by separating his politics (I don’t buy his conspiracy theories) and his science which is weird but interesting.

    I don’t see a problem with postulating huge quantities of Iron in the sun or anywhere else given that it is the element at the bottom of the packing fraction curve. If iron undergoes fission or fusion the reaction is going to be endothermic so once Iron has been formed it is hard to convert it into anything else.

    My field is electro-optics related to the world’s brightest gamma ray source that started producing tuneable linearly polarised gamma rays at energies up to 16 MeV in 1997.

    Click to access gamma_ray_production_1997.pdf

    Following a series of upgrades the source can now produce circularly polarised gamma rays at up to 158 MeV.

    These energies are suited to studying nuclear reactions that take place within stars. Maybe Oliver Manuel could suggest some experiments to test his theories using gamma rays in the 2-158 MeV range?

  22. Sera says:

    I remember reading this

    and then it became interesting when I got to this line…

    “Self Organized Criticality (SOC) occurs in physics when a critical point is reached in a dynamic system in flux whereby the system radically alters its behavior or structure, for example, from being a solid to acting like a liquid.”

    @ O.M.

    I’ve always held some belief of an ‘iron rich’ sun based on emissions- I can’t figure out why some chose to ignore.

  23. Pascvaks says:

    Was under the impression that surface Fe (et al) was a solar waste product that tended to be ejected in CME’s. The more numerous and the bigger the CME’s the less waste matter in the Corona and the ‘cooler’ the same.

  24. Harry Costas says:

    Oliver within his work may have hit the nail on the head as to the origin and workings of our Sun.Regardless it is a better option than the hydrogen Sun that has no supporting evidence but for the known Fusion reactions.

  25. @Sera

    Why was experimental evidence of the ‘iron-rich’ sun ignored?

    The answer was finally revealed when leaders of the scientific community, including the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, aligned themselves with obviously fraudulent AGW “science” of Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC, etc.

    Clever politicians had learned to manipulate the greed of scientists for their own purpose – to unite nations and avoid the danger of nuclear annihilation.

    I agree with their goals, but not with the methods.

    Those will led us into servitude under a tyrannical government like George Orwell described in “1984.”


    I too wish that politics and science were separate issues.

    Unfortunately, they are not.

    Eisenhower warned that politics and government science might become entangled in 1961.

    They apparently became entangled in secret agreements to use global climate change as the “common enemy” to save the world from the threat of nuclear annihilation in 1972.

    Is there another explanation for ignoring these experimental observations?

    etc., etc, etc.

  26. gallopingcamel says:


    I agree that we are experiencing the new and more dangerous form of Lysenkoism that Ike warned us about in 1961.

    On reading Ike’s entire speech and some of his writings it is clear that he was warning us against the baneful influence of the “Military-Industrial Complex” in the USA. It might have been more helpful if he had warned us to beware of government bureaucracies around the world and especially supra-national organizations like the IPCC.

    Getting back to physics, what about testing your ideas on the reactions responsible for the sun’s heat output? That source I mentioned earlier can provide radiation corresponding to temperatures of up to 1,800,000 Mega-Kelvins. That should be hot enough to test your theories.

  27. Jason Calley says:

    @ Oliver Manuel “Figures in papers [4,5] show rigid iron-rich structures during solar rotation.”

    The figures certainly indicate iron-rich structures, but I do not understand how they indicate “rigid” structures. Paper 4 shows images over a 2.5 day period and paper 5 shows images over a 5 day period. If it is true, as Mozina indicates, that the images show constant time of rotation (27.3 days) from equator to poles, then yes, I think you have a pretty open and shut case for a rigid surface, but as a layman looking at the papers, the resolution is too coarse to tell. I would guesstimate something on the order of 1000 miles per pixel. That still leaves a lot of chance that the structures, even though stable over a five day period, might be some sort of circulation pattern of iron rich gases. On the large scale which we are looking at, even if they were currents of gas moving at hundreds of miles per hour, the change of pattern would not be perceptible over the course of five days. Are the raw images much better resolution that the ones in the papers? Or, alternatively, are there enough images over a period of time longer than five days that show recurring structure? I would think that there are at least those three ways of more strongly confirming a rigid surface; 1) duplication of Mozina’s rotational calculations. 2) higher resolution images that show smaller structures with co-responding stability 3) image series over a longer time frame that show stability of large scale structure

    I have spent enough time at telescope eyepieces to know how difficult it is to discern the difference between solid surface and cloud tops. Many early astronomers thought that the Great Red Spot on Jupiter might be a mountain peak sticking up above the clouds. Based on what they could see, that was not unreasonable. Similarly, I do not think your ideas are unreasonable at all, just the opposite! I do, however, think that they are still in the “very interesting but not yet proven” category.

    Please understand that although you have had this discussion hundreds of times, I am still trying to give it newly reasoned consideration. I do not mean to be argumentative in any unkind way.

    By the way, as far as the “conspiracy” ideas — they are, in my opinion, completely plausible, perhaps even understated.

  28. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
  29. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Scarlet Pumpernickel…though, in that article, think of the magnetic “lines” as real and not what they are: imaginary. The “pebbles universe” conception, a la Fred Flinstone, it is hard to leave.

  30. Vladimir says:

    Vlasov, made the discovery related to thermonuclear fusion in the Sun. Explanatory comments can be found at and at It is the nature of solar nuclear fusion seen from a new perspective. The proposed invention is “Method of Controlled Nuclear Fusion and Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor for Controlled Nuclear Fusion”, patent pending No. 2005123095/06(026016). The said discovery offers answers to all theoretical challenges of thermonuclear fusion in the Sun, and – which is more important – technical solution to design of controlled thermonuclear reactor capable of running for a long time. Owing to this discovery even TOKAMAKs could be operable soon, provided they are supplemented with apparatus maintaining the necessary physical conditions for controlled nuclear fusion.

  31. @Jason Calley
    1 August 2011 at 6:08 pm

    “Rigid” is not necessarily solid, nor permanent.

    The iron-rich structures are “more rigid” than the disperse, “more fluid” hydrogen-rich material of the photosphere.

    The greatest danger to life on this beautiful planet today is not global warming, but a tyrannical government – so enamored by its own propaganda that it fails to make rational plans to deal with climate changes caused by the Sun and to develop neutron repulsion in reliable, safe nuclear reactors to meet future energy needs of the world’s people.

    See the updated “Bilderberg Sun, Climategate & Economic Crisis”

    Click to access 20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    Reference #1 was a leader of post-modern, consensus science and the Climategate scandal:

    1. O. Gingerich and C. De Jager, “The Bilderberg solar model,” Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968):….3….5G

  32. Jason Calley says:

    @ Oliver K. Manuel ““Rigid” is not necessarily solid, nor permanent. The iron-rich structures are “more rigid” than the disperse, “more fluid” hydrogen-rich material of the photosphere.”

    Dr. Manuel, first, thanks for the reply. I am trying to get an accurate conceptual model of this. Would a good analogy be something like the layer of floating stone bergs that one sees on top of a lava lake? There is a solid surface, but it is a surface that is in continual flux and change, with bits melting, reforming and moving about.

    If I understand correctly, then below the calcium ferrite is a layer of hydrogen and helium where we do have fusion taking place, but only about one third of total solar output. Deeper still, we find a neutron core where the remaining two thirds of energy production take place.

    Is that pretty much the structure you propose?

    Is the solar magnetic field produced by the neutron core? Are sunspots due to modulation of the magnetic field by turbulent cells within the hydrogen fusion layer? If so, is that turbulence caused by forces induced from solar motion around the barycenter?

    Pardon the stream of questions, but as I say, I want to have a clear conceptual model.

    Manuel: “The greatest danger to life on this beautiful planet today is not global warming, but a tyrannical government ”

    At this point in our history, I think so. The good thing is that the main change strengthening tyrannical government is the growth in digital information technology, and that technology is an even greater force toward decentralization and individual power. What we are watching is Gutenberg v2.0, and as more and more people begin to get a glimpse behind the curtain that hides The Powers That Be, those in power struggle to force an adaptation that allows them to remain seated at the feet of the money tree. Just as proponents of CAGW or of any conviction will make absurd ad hoc changes to their theories to keep from changing paradigms, the power structure is doing its best to change in such a way that they continue to rule. I suspect that we here in the US are in for some very unpleasant times, but long term and large scale, I suspect that humans on this planet will be better off in fifty years than they are now.

  33. Thanks, Jason, for your excellent comments.

    First please understand: I am an experimentalist. I have been forced into many conclusions that I didn’t want – including recent ones that scare me.

    My conclusions are always temporary. New data may require a change in any on the conclusions tomorrow!

    Tentative conclusions:

    1. A single supernova gave birth to the entire solar system (Tentative since 1975; Reinforced by 1979 report of supernova products trapped in the Allende meteorite; 1992 discovery of pulsar planets; and 2006 NASA admission that planets form directly from supernova debris)

    2. The Sun reformed on the remains of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system. (Tentative since 1975: Reinforced by 1977 report on pulsar Sun; and 2001 discovery of neutron repulsion as most powerful source of nuclear energy)

    3. Iron cores of the inner planets formed directly out of Fe-Ni produced near the supernova core. (Tentative since 1975; Reinforced by 1980 analysis of noble gases in the Earth; and by 1991 analysis of iron meteorites)

    Click to access Noble_Gas_Anomalies.pdf

    3. The most abundant elements inside the bulk Sun are Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca – like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets close to the Sun. (Tentative since 1983; Evolved into the concept of “rigid” solar structures (mantle?) surrounding the solar neutron star after seeing Mozina’s 2005 images of “rigid” Fe-rich structures beneath the “fluid” solar photosphere; Reinforced by discoveries that the O/C ratio and the ratios of s-products in the photosphere confirm the same solar mass fractionation)

    4. Jupiter and gaseous planets formed from lightweight elements like H, He, C and N of the outer supernova layer (Tentative since 1975: Reinforced by 1995 data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter)


  34. Jason Calley says:

    @ Oliver K Manuel Thanks for the information and clarifications. Looks like I have some reading and assimilation to do. :)

    One reason why I am interested in your ideas is because of a very simple question that I asked a few times as a grade school student. I was told that our solar system was formed by the condensation of elements created in a supernova explosion. I was told that the inner planets — and presumably the outer planets as well — had large amounts of iron in them, but that the solar wind had blown away much of the lighter elements that had initially agglomerated around the inner planets. At the same time, I was told that our Sun was almost completely hydrogen and helium with only a scattering of other elements. My question was “Where’s the iron in the Sun? If there was so much iron and other heavy elements floating around during the planet’s formation, shouldn’t there also be a lot of heavy elements inside the Sun? Shouldn’t it have a heavy core?”

    None of my teachers seemed to think it was much of a serious question, and none of them had any answer, but it seemed to me like a reasonable thing to wonder about.

  35. Jason Calley 10 August 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Your question was excellent. Unfortunately teachers are trained to spout official dogma – whether or not it makes sense.

    A life of continuous discovery and tentative conclusions is a much more joyful and meaningful way to live. I highly recommend it, although close-minded people like your teacher will not appreciate it.

    This video summary of my 50-year research career may be helpful:

    1. Science vs. Propaganda
(1961) – Eisenhower’s farewell address:

    2. Origin of the Solar System (1975)

    3. The Iron Sun (1983)

    4. Neutron Repulsion

    5. Global Warming Scam (2011)

    The best indicators that a conclusion has validity are:

    a.) Attempts by “consensus scientists” to hide, avoid, misrepresent or manipulate the experimental observations, and

    b.) The fitting together of new tentative conclusions into the same mosaic with earlier, tentative conclusions.

    All of these conclusions are summarized in “The Bilderberg Sun, Climategate and Economic Crisis”

    Click to access 20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I am pleased to report that I have been richly blessed and

    Today all is well,
    Oliver K. Manuel

Comments are closed.