Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles!

[WouldBe]

2. Donald Clayton, Michael Newman, and Raymond Talbot published a paper in the Astrophysics Journal 201, 489-493 (1975) suggesting that the Sun has a black hole at its core.

If the gravitaional pull of a black hole is so great that even light can't escape then how does the sun manage to shine and not collapse in on itself?

 

[fudgefactorfive]

To suggest that a system could form by gravitational aggregation and have the very lightest element in existence - hydrogen - settle to form the core while the heavier elements spin out towards the periphery is absurd. The Earth does not have an iron mantle with the atmosphere inside. Why? Because gravitation doesn't work like that, that's why.

am i missing something or doesn't this quote actually shoot down the entire thread

 

[WouldBe]

am i missing something or doesn't this quote actually shoot down the entire thread

Funny isn't it that when you centrifuge something the heaviest bits fly out from the center while the lighter stuff doesn't move as far.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I've just skimmed the pdf, that guy wouldn't know a scientific theory if it bit him on the nose.

It's interesting to see that he claims there's fusion happening in the core (ferrite core). Because if my knowledge of physics is up to scratch, fusion of iron elements or heavier atomic weight elements uses more energy than it releases...

Got to wonder where the heat is coming from...

 

[bigfish]

So, what holds the solid outer 'shell' in its place? This is a fairly major thing which goes unexplained.

Manuel, Hilton, and others working in the field, hypothesize that neutron repulsion prevents gravitational collapse.

 

[WouldBe]

Manuel, Hilton, and others working in the field, hypothesize that neutron repulsion prevents gravitational collapse.

Neutrons don't have a charge to repel each other hence the name.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yeah, so an iron core would be too dense, so let's go with neutronium instead!

 

[WouldBe]

Nice to know a few neutron can outdo a black hole.

 

[bigfish]

Neutrons don't have a charge to repel each other hence the name.

Professor Oliver Manuel explains matters thus:

According to Manuel, all of the “fragmentation” created by neutron stars and the fission of heavy elements at the centers of galaxies can be explained by “neutron repulsion.”

“Neutrons and protons in the nucleus work like the north and south ends of magnets,” Manuel explains. “Neutrons repel neutrons, protons repel protons, but neutrons attract protons. Neutron repulsion is the force that energizes neutron stars. This empirical fact was discovered by five graduate students working with me to decipher the nuclear mass data for the 2,850 known nuclides in the spring of 2000.”
http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html

If you're still not satisfied with Oliver Manuel's explanation, then I suggest you write a paper specifically rebutting his empirically supported argument and submit it to the appropriate journal for possible publication - should it by some miracle pass the peer review process.

Be sure to keep the forum informed of how you get on, wont you?

 

[bigfish]

am i missing something or doesn't this quote actually shoot down the entire thread

Yes, You're missing something.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yeah, the explanation of what is generating energy at the center of the sun. Reading the comments on that article are very enlightening. It'd be interesting to see the numbers on how fission of heavy atoms could power the sun and what effect that would have on the mass of the sun...

 

[bigfish]

If the gravitaional pull of a black hole is so great that even light can't escape then how does the sun manage to shine and not collapse in on itself?

Quick! Write to Nature and tell them they've made a terrible mistake!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Quick! Write to Nature and tell them they've made a terrible mistake!

It's a theory bigfish, not nessisarily fact...

 

[bigfish]

It's a theory bigfish, not nessisarily fact...

Well, quite, Bob. And so is the standard gas model, though you would never guess that from the responses here.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well, quite, Bob. And so is the standard gas model, though you would never guess that from the responses here.

But it's a theory that works and fits our understanding of physics. The one you're championing is not so well tested yet.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Yes, You're missing something.

Care to explain what, or just cut and paste contradictory fragments cherry-picked from the fringes that back up your agenda?

 

[bigfish]

But it's a theory that works and fits our understanding of physics. The one you're championing is not so well tested yet.

The gas model originated with Galileo and dates from the 16th century. Some modifications have been made to it since, but essentially it has remained the same for nearly 500 years. Galileo based his model on observations made through a primitive telescope. What Galileo noted was uneven rotation patterns in the Sun's photosphere and so not unreasonably, he concluded the Sun was a giant gas planet. However, science and technology have moved on a bit since Galileo's day. Nowadays, satellites loaded with some of the most advanced technology ever devised, are able to peer beneath the Sun's photosphere to reveal the hidden world below.

SOHO's Running Difference Images, made from lines of Fe (IX) and Fe (X), reveal a solid-like surface below the photosphere which does not rotate unevenly. I feel sure had Galileo been alive today, he would immediately appreciate the significance and implications of this marvelous discovery and join in the effort to revise the solar model accordingly. After all, Galileo was a genuine scientist and that's what genuine scientist do, don't they, revise old theories in light of new observational evidence?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You're not talking about revision, you're talking about a complete rewrite of much of physics. The only time that's needed is when something is seen that cannot be described by current theories. Give them a chance and the odds are they'll manage to explain this behaviour too.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm still fairly sure that I can see the face of Elvis in that picture.

 

[bigfish]

I'm still fairly sure that I can see the face of Elvis in that picture.

yes, but that's only to be expected - after all you see "something terrible happening in the Sahel" when in fact the Sahel is greening. You see looming petroleum scarcity with a concomitant collapse of agriculture when in fact inventories are at an all time historical high. And last but by no means least, you see catastrophic man made global warming in a 0.6C temperature recovery from the Little Ice Age. Personally, I'm surprised Elvis is all you can see.

 

[Blagsta]

The gas model originated with Galileo and dates from the 16th century. Some modifications have been made to it since, but essentially it has remained the same for nearly 500 years.

Yes, that's right, Galileo knew all about nuclear fusion.

Nutter.

 

[Jazzz]

I have to say bigfish my incredulity is based on a more obvious objection - the sun is really fucking hot, so why wouldn't a solid surface, er, melt - or indeed evaporate?

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Care to explain what

that's a "no" then

so i'll just magically assume that you posting about iron shells one minute and then about iron cores the next is because you're a misunderstood genius.

while i'm at it, i'll just assume that neutron exclusion, which is driven by forces that range across the mighty distance of 10^-15 metres, can somehow support a star-sized shell of "solid" iron that's well above melting point.

 

[bigfish]

I have to say bigfish my incredulity is based on a more obvious objection - the sun is really fucking hot, so why wouldn't a solid surface, er, melt - or indeed evaporate?

That's a good question, Jazzz. Here's Hilton Ratcliffe answer to it:

The temperature of the Sun is somewhat mysterious. We have no idea what the temperature at the core is, but we do observe that temperature INCREASES with distance from the interior of the Sun (a phenomenon known as temperature inversion). Working backwards from the outer corona, we have a temp of 2 million K dropping to about 6,000 K at the upper surface of the H-He plasma layer (the photosphere). Sunspots are funnel-like depressions in the plasma, enabling a view deeper into the Sun. The dark umbra at the centre of sunspots is between 1,500 and 2,000 K cooler than the surrounding plasma. Briefly, then, thermodynamic conditions beneath the H-He plasma layer do allow for solid or semi solid ferrite structure.

Regards
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa
ratcliff(AT)iafrica.com


To add to what Professor Ratcliffe says:

The SERTS program lists ion abundances and records at least ten different types of materials from ten different source elements making up the Sun. Excluding hydrogen, ions from helium, neon, silicon, chromium, aluminum, manganese and magnesium, and ferrite are recorded. During more active phases nickel and sulfur also show up. The presence of neon and silicon raises the intriguing possibility that they form two plasma layers located between the photosphere and the ferrite surface below. Silicon being the heavier in all probability makes up the lower layer while the lighter neon makes up the upper layer region associated with light from the penumbral filaments. Calcium-ferrite and other metals make up the rigid lower “surface”. On top of the rigid ferrite surface sits the silicon layer, followed by the neon layer, followed by the helium layer, followed finally by the hydrogen layer. This model arrangement is intriguing because neon helps to explain the Sun in two very important ways: Firstly, it provides a source of visible light since neon lights up orange/white in an electrically charged vacuum. Secondly, neon just happens to be one of the most efficient refrigerants in the Universe. Liquid neon has over forty times the refrigerating capacity per volume unit than liquid helium, and more than three times that of liquid hydrogen. In other words, neon not only conducts heat away from the surface in a highly efficient manner, it also provides a logical and plausible mechanism which explains visible light. It would make a lot of sense if the penumbral filaments are composed of neon, since this layer is the layer of the photosphere typically associated with the light we see. This layer behaves like a neon light bulb and a refrigeration system both at the same time.

To recap: There are 3 major benefits to be gained from adding a neon plasma layer to our solid surface solar model.

1. We know from the SERTS program data that neon is present in the output spectrum and we need to specifically account for it if the new model is to be taken seriously.

2. Neon adds a major cooling element to the model, something we need if we are ever to explain a solid ferrite surface.

3. It provides a mechanism which explains visible light -- energized by electricity from the surface the neon plasma beams light around the solar system 648 hours a day.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

yes, but that's only to be expected - after all you see "something terrible happening in the Sahel" when in fact the Sahel is greening. You see looming petroleum scarcity with a concomitant collapse of agriculture when in fact inventories are at an all time historical high. And last but by no means least, you see catastrophic man made global warming in a 0.6C temperature recovery from the Little Ice Age. Personally, I'm surprised Elvis is all you can see.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

To recap: There are 3 major benefits to be gained from adding a neon plasma layer to our solid surface solar model.

So - we started with a solid iron surface. Then we suddenly had an iron core. Then we had a non-solid iron surface. And now, suddenly, we have a neon plasma surface.

*unsubscribes*

 

[Crispy]

The neon is on top of the iron. Pay attention
This neon somehow cools things down. I didn't get that bit.

 

[laptop]

This neon somehow cools things down. I didn't get that bit.

Is it 'cos it be black

 

[Crispy]

I seem to remember the word 'cryogenic'
In the sun. Cryogenic.
Right.

 

[Jazzz]

That's a good question, Jazzz. Here's Hilton Ratcliffe answer to it:

The temperature of the Sun is somewhat mysterious. We have no idea what the temperature at the core is, but we do observe that temperature INCREASES with distance from the interior of the Sun (a phenomenon known as temperature inversion).

How do we know this?

How can the temperature possibly get cooler as you go further in? What is there to cool it down? If you are completely surrounded by a constant 6 million K, you would surely heat up to that temperature yourself