Solar vibrations and Simulations

Helioseismology is the study of rhythmic oscillations observed on the 'surface' of the Sun.

In order further our understanding about what is going on, laboratory experiments are being performed on models, in an attempt to create on a smaller scale as to how the Sun might be propagating these oscillations. Most of the oscillation research that pertains to helioseismology interprets the origin as a single oscillating source, namely a fusion core, and so much of the research only considers one oscillation source, to mimic the proposed fusion core. But what if the Sun were merely a sphere of hydrogen with a non-space interior, as proposed in "Can Gravity be Induced?"

What would happen if we were instead to consider two oscillating sources, one originating from the North pole using a hollow, partially vacated sphere, and another source of oscillation placed at the South pole? (See Illustration)

Imagine if we could generate waves from the North and South poles. Tweak them so they are slightly out of sync so they create wave interference in the equatorial region, much like the momentary vibration caused by two ship propellers slipping in and out of sync. Would that not look a lot like the 11.11 year solar sunspot cycle?

It is difficult for the trained solar scientist to consider a non-space Sun, because it transgresses our pre-conceived conception of gravitational behavior, basic tenants that have unfortunately become entrenched dogma, holding that gravity and mass are inviolate. Indeed, experiments demonstrate this to be true for solids, liquids and gasses - but little to no experimentation has been performed in this realm on the 4th state of matter, namely super-hot plasmas. This is a shame, because over 90% of the Universe is in this state.
Imagine a scientist listening to a live symphony in an orchestral hall. The scientist is now blindfolded and we switch out the orchestra and replace it with a high quality reproduction. The scientist cannot tell the difference. In the same manner, how does a scientist know if the object is a Sun with a dense interior or a empty shell? All the scientist has to go on is past experience, and I suggest that in this case the experience is faulty.

What is left to us is to attempt to infer by experimentation if we are observing vibrations welling up from a dense hydrogen/fusion solar interior, or are we looking at a maintained solar plasma shell crushing in on sustained subterranean magnetic fields?

Interview with a learned solar neutrino physicist

Summary of visit with an eminent solar neutrino physicist at the University of Michigan:
My first and immediate impression of this learned man is an individual in the last days of his professional glory, finishing up his life's work. However, I find it intriguing that he believes neutrinos can be manipulated by microwave radiation - he is proposing that this is the reason there is a drop in neutrinos arriving from the Sun during sunspot activity. In this sense, he has faith in the Lead Dakota results, put forth by the late Raymond Davis. He exhibits daring and imagination, hardly the product of an ailing mind.
What I find problematic with his idea is that it lends itself to an ever-increasing complexity which becomes necessary to explain the observed phenomenon. Instead of considering the simple notion of a solar shell producing less neutrinos during high sunspot activity, we are expected to accept even more exotic behavior exhibited by elementary particles, new-found behaviors that need necessarily be discovered to explain events that may have their roots in an inability to re-check the basic precepts.

He writes,
"The angular size of the sun is 0.53 degree, so one needs the accuracy of 1 in 10^5 for cos(angle), in order to detect the variation of your effect. (The x axis of Fig. 11 that is mentioned in my previous communication is cos( angle).) It is impossible for some time. It would be another story if one improves the method of neutrino detection significantly. I believe that that may be possible in the near future, but I can’t tell you now."

And so I wait.

He seems to have little awareness of plasma physics, but it is not entirely his fault. In this sense he has dwelled his whole life in the cosmological cocoon concocted by an entire discipline locked in the mindset that plasma science is of little note and more importantly, gravity and mass are inviolate.
Consequently, it was a little like having a discussion with a Ptolemaic astrologer from a bygone age. He was very kind to see me, and had the consideration to follow up on my questions. A lesser man would have dismissed any thought of me once I left the room.

Here are the questions I took along with me:

1. The solar neutrino angle of incidence. I am presuming the collision between the neutrino and nucleus in the detector is traced backwards by a program in order to find the source of origin. Is this so?
2. How accurate is it? With better understanding, more data and better programming can one expect a smaller margin of error? (Not accurate enough for my needs, but this could change with time.)
   
3. Roughly, how many solar neutrino strikes have been detected to date? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? (Answer: Average, 20 per day.)
4. I have read that sunspot activity might be lowering the neutrino output. What is your opinion on this? (He believes the data is correct - which surprised me)
   
5. Also, neutrino strikes in detectors is lower while on the night side. Is this so? (The question didn't come up)
   
6. Neutrino oscillation, from Wikipedia:
   Caveats "The crux of the solar neutrino problem, and its resolution, lies in the fact that both the interior of the Sun and the behavior of traveling neutrinos is unknown to begin with. One may assume knowledge of one and determine the other by experiment here on Earth. If one assumes the Standard Solar Model is valid, one can derive the propagation properties of neutrinos, such as neutrino oscillations, given data from solar neutrino experiments. Likewise, if one presumes something about the propagation of solar neutrinos, one may derive some conclusions about the validity of solar models."
   Does this mean that the conclusions drawn are dependent on the hydrogen-fusion core model? (This was a tough question and I didn't expect a concise answer. I didn't get one.)
   
7. Have all three solar neutrino particles turned up, including Tau? (He said Tau turns up in laboratory experiments, but these solar neutrino flavors are changed when they his the earth's atmosphere)