Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles!
- Thread starter bigfish
- Start date
But regardless, heat will flow from the hotter to the cooler. In the case of the air, it just takes longer.Crispy said:
You should have seen what oven air did to my prawn curry the other night when I forgot to take it out!
e2a: and indeed, it's oven air that heats up the walls, not the other way around, innit.
Oliver Manuel said:
WouldBe said:
You are confounding electrical charge with magnetic charge. Protons and neutrons are held together by the strong nuclear force. The strong nuclear force is mediated by particles without electrical charge called gluons.
A Proton consists of three quarks and numerous gluons. The quarks in the proton are two "up" and one "down". Conversely, A neutron consists of three quarks and numerous gluons. The quarks in the neutrons are two "down" and one "up".
Gluons bind quarks into particles like protons or neutrons. Here, three quarks — two ups and a down — are
depicted forming a proton, held together by the exchange of (invisible) gluons. (Illustration courtesy Jefferson Lab)
The strong nuclear force overcomes the repulsion among protons. Protons are not electrically attracted to neutrons, except when neutrons posses a magnetic charge, which has to do with electrical momentum, not with electrical charges.
Neutrons have no electrical charge. However, this does not mean that neutrons don't have a magnetic pole or a magnetic moment different from zero, but that a positive electrical charge in the neutron is nullified by a negative electrical charge in the same particle and vice versa.
Neutrons do not lack spin. The neutron spin is always half of an integer of intrinsic spin. Consequently, there is always a residual intrinsic spin which allows neutrons to have a magnetic moment different from zero.
This is basic nuclear chemistry.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Where did I say electrical chargebigfish said:
Your 'expert' says neutrons repel neutrons. Heavier elements have more neutrons than protons. So if neutrons repel neutrons then heavier elements should fall apart.So in other words you don't need neutrons to cancel out the repulsion of protons and you've just proved your 'expert' wrong.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
bigfish said:
it still completely fails to explain how the strong nuclear force, which only has the range to stop an atomic nucleus flying apart and doesn't really extend beyond the atom's "outermost" electron shell, magically creates a shell of solid iron that floats on a sea of exploding hydrogen under a sky of cryogenic neon
there's a whole world of stuff tacked on to the so-called Iron Sun debate apparently - an entire universe that runs on, let's say, unorthodox principles - where the electric field reigns supreme in space, being chiefly responsible for "creation" - apparently, the gravitational collapse of the materials that became the wider solar system only began after the star starts nuclear burning - how did the sun get kick-started, then, I hear you cry? massive electric discharges trailing along a huge (ie. light years long) electromagnetic phenomenon observed in some nebulae called a "plasma pinch".
meanwhile our sun is actually a neutron star remnant from a previous supernova surrounded by a (conventionally inside-out) shell of matter undergoing nuclear fusion, right up into the iron range usually associated with supergiant blue and red stars.
that's why there's no such thing as global warming!
wheeee! welcome to the electric universe and holoscience! who better to introduce it than that cheerful science person H.P. Lovecraft:
omg i am going to go mad with revelation
this is a slightly more balanced analysis of the pros and cons of the ideas, noting that it was formulated in the 1960s, but that the data against it had already been verified by 1925 - Manuel is basically a long-term "lone maverick" slightly valued by the scientific community as a tolerably bloodyminded person who does stimulate the constant re-assessment of "well established" ideas, which is always good
Manuel and Hilton Ratcliffe are best buddies apparently, and rather keen to prove there was no such thing as the Big Bang.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I still say that's actually the face of Elvis in bigfish's pictures
bigfish said:
Just looking at other sources on the web, they don't seem to accord with Mr. Ratcliffe, wikipedia claims the temperature of the sun's core to be 13,600,000 kelvin and confidently describes a model whereby the sun is cooler the further away from the core it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Are you really sure about this bigfish?
Crispy said:
Jazzz said: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?
even Jazzz thinks you are a bit confused
Bernie Gunther said:I still say that's actually the face of Elvis in bigfish's pictures
I believe he is theologising elvis as a great solar divinity.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
Bob_the_lost said:
From the neutronium collapsar buried at the centre of the sun, of course.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
What's, well, for want of a better word, interesting is that if you follow bigfish's picture links of the UV light emitted by Fe XI ions back to their source - NASA - there is no mention of it supporting any data about the sun's composition whatsoever. Just because I put red sunglasses on, doesn't mean the world is made of tomatoes. The people that actually run the SOHO telescope have pushed the well-established gas model forward, not backward: go and see for yourself - pages and pages of data illuminating the consequences of a gaseous sun with a core fusing hydrogen into helium.
Poor Professor Manuel doesn't have any backers in the entire scientific community - well, not living ones, anyway; all the scientists that believed in a sun mainly composed of iron died of old age in the early 20th century. His only friend is an amateur astronomer, Mr. Hilton Ratcliffe, of whom I can find absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he is a professor of anything - just pages and pages of anti-Big Bang diatribes, and a frankly almost obsessive horror of black holes.
Manuel even cites Marathi classical music:
Poor Professor Manuel doesn't have any backers in the entire scientific community - well, not living ones, anyway; all the scientists that believed in a sun mainly composed of iron died of old age in the early 20th century. His only friend is an amateur astronomer, Mr. Hilton Ratcliffe, of whom I can find absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he is a professor of anything - just pages and pages of anti-Big Bang diatribes, and a frankly almost obsessive horror of black holes.
Manuel even cites Marathi classical music:
fudgefactorfive
New Member
Manuel and Ratcliffe also favour a model of the universe in which it isn't expanding - well, if there was no Big Bang, why would it be?
what's all that apparent red-shift on distant objects, then, I hear you cry?
it's because galaxies fire quasars out of the central axis in both directions. the red shift denotes the speed the quasar is ejected at. oh, and the quasars aren't black holes. they're neutron stars as well. basically, all star-like objects are neutron stars. made of iron and not degenerate neutrons, mysteriously.
what's all that apparent red-shift on distant objects, then, I hear you cry?
it's because galaxies fire quasars out of the central axis in both directions. the red shift denotes the speed the quasar is ejected at. oh, and the quasars aren't black holes. they're neutron stars as well. basically, all star-like objects are neutron stars. made of iron and not degenerate neutrons, mysteriously.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
fudgefactorfive said:Manuel and Ratcliffe also favour a model of the universe in which it isn't expanding - well, if there was no Big Bang, why would it be?
what's all that apparent red-shift on distant objects, then, I hear you cry?
it's because galaxies fire quasars out of the central axis in both directions. the red shift denotes the speed the quasar is ejected at. oh, and the quasars aren't black holes. they're neutron stars as well. basically, all star-like objects are neutron stars. made of iron and not degenerate neutrons, mysteriously.
Acolytes of Hoyle, then.
Earth's Climate, Solar Cycle 23, and the Solar Oxygen Crisis
Oliver Manuel [omatumr@yahoo.com]
The recent "solar oxygen crisis" may offer new insight into the stability and internal composition of the Sun and its influence on Earth's climate. *Data collected now and over the next solar cycle may show if the Sun is:
a.) A benevolent ball of hydrogen with a steady, hydrogen-fusion reactor at its core, or
b.) The remnant of a supernova that acts as an erratic, magnetic plasma diffuser and emits hydrogen as smoke from its central neutron-rich furnace.
Sunspots and solar surface magnetic activity from the latest solar cycle, solar cycle 23, peaked in 2000-2002. *On 15 February 2001 NASA reported that the Sun's magnetic field had flipped. http://tinyurl.com/9kyo
Since then reports of a "solar oxygen crisis" have increased as solar surface magnetic activity decreased.
Is this a coincidence? *Or is it confirmation that the Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that more selectively moves lightweight elements to its surface during periods of higher magnetic activity? http://tinyurl.com/3ydcql
On 7 June 2006 Tom Ayres presented a paper entitled "The Solar Oxygen Crisis" at the High Altitude Observatory in NSF's National Center for Atmospheric in Boulder, CO: http://tinyurl.com/2umqvt
Dr. Ayres' paper starts with these two revealing statements:
1. "In recent years, a number of studies of the solar oxygen abundance--based on detailed 3-D simulations of photospheric convection--have pointed to values nearly a factor of two smaller than recommended as recently as a decade ago. In fact, each new study seems to outdo the previous one in recommending a progressively lower oxygen abundance [EACH NEW STUDY SEEMS TO OUTDO THE PREVIOUS ONE IN RECOMMENDING A PROGRESSIVELY LOWER OXYGEN ABUNDANCE], most recently even below 400 ppm (parts per million relative to hydrogen; earlier recommended values were near 800 ppm)." [Caps inserted in parentheses for emphasis. OM]
2. "At the present rate, the Sun will be oxygen free in around 2015."
This sad fate for mother Sol may be averted if b.) is correct and our Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that more selectively moves lightweight elements to its surface during periods of higher magnetic activity. Between now and 2015, solar cycle 24 is expected to exhibit peak surface magnetic activity in 2011-2012.
Yesterday (2 May 2007) brought another intriguing news report of the impending "solar oxygen crisis." http://tinyurl.com/2mlhr3
According to this latest report the Sun contains about half as much oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and neon as previously thought. Might that measurement instead indicate the presence of twice as much iron as expected, instead of half as much oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and neon??
[The arXiv link to the paper to appear in The Astrophysical Journal 660:L153-L156, (10 May 2007), indicates that the oxygen/iron ratio (O/Fe) was measured. *See *http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702162 or http://tinyurl.com/35dtdd]
If the abundance of iron (Fe) increases at the Sun's surface during solar minimum, because the magnetic plasma diffuser is less effective then, this might be observed as a decrease in the O/Fe ratio and misinterpreted as an indication that oxygen is vanishing, i.e., the solar oxygen crisis.
Another study suggests that other sun-like stars also act as magnetic plasma diffusers.
Three years ago, UC Berkeley astronomers Jason Wright and Geoffrey Marcy completed a survey of other stars during periods of low surface magnetic activity, like the 70 year period from 1645 until 1714 AD. *This was
the coldest part of the Little Ice Age in Europe and North America, when early astronomers reported almost no sunspot activity. http://tinyurl.com/35q7g3
Although the survey was intended to be of "sun-like" stars, at the end of the survey the astronomers concluded that the stars were "not sun-like at all, but are either evolved stars or stars rich in metals like iron and nickel."
Continued measurements of the O/Fe ratio at the surface of the Sun during solar cycle 24 may explain the surprising findings of the UC Berkeley astronomers for distant stars and *the operation and internal composition of the Sun and its influence on Earth's climate.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Oliver Manuel [omatumr@yahoo.com]
The recent "solar oxygen crisis" may offer new insight into the stability and internal composition of the Sun and its influence on Earth's climate. *Data collected now and over the next solar cycle may show if the Sun is:
a.) A benevolent ball of hydrogen with a steady, hydrogen-fusion reactor at its core, or
b.) The remnant of a supernova that acts as an erratic, magnetic plasma diffuser and emits hydrogen as smoke from its central neutron-rich furnace.
Sunspots and solar surface magnetic activity from the latest solar cycle, solar cycle 23, peaked in 2000-2002. *On 15 February 2001 NASA reported that the Sun's magnetic field had flipped. http://tinyurl.com/9kyo
Since then reports of a "solar oxygen crisis" have increased as solar surface magnetic activity decreased.
Is this a coincidence? *Or is it confirmation that the Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that more selectively moves lightweight elements to its surface during periods of higher magnetic activity? http://tinyurl.com/3ydcql
On 7 June 2006 Tom Ayres presented a paper entitled "The Solar Oxygen Crisis" at the High Altitude Observatory in NSF's National Center for Atmospheric in Boulder, CO: http://tinyurl.com/2umqvt
Dr. Ayres' paper starts with these two revealing statements:
1. "In recent years, a number of studies of the solar oxygen abundance--based on detailed 3-D simulations of photospheric convection--have pointed to values nearly a factor of two smaller than recommended as recently as a decade ago. In fact, each new study seems to outdo the previous one in recommending a progressively lower oxygen abundance [EACH NEW STUDY SEEMS TO OUTDO THE PREVIOUS ONE IN RECOMMENDING A PROGRESSIVELY LOWER OXYGEN ABUNDANCE], most recently even below 400 ppm (parts per million relative to hydrogen; earlier recommended values were near 800 ppm)." [Caps inserted in parentheses for emphasis. OM]
2. "At the present rate, the Sun will be oxygen free in around 2015."
This sad fate for mother Sol may be averted if b.) is correct and our Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that more selectively moves lightweight elements to its surface during periods of higher magnetic activity. Between now and 2015, solar cycle 24 is expected to exhibit peak surface magnetic activity in 2011-2012.
Yesterday (2 May 2007) brought another intriguing news report of the impending "solar oxygen crisis." http://tinyurl.com/2mlhr3
According to this latest report the Sun contains about half as much oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and neon as previously thought. Might that measurement instead indicate the presence of twice as much iron as expected, instead of half as much oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and neon??
[The arXiv link to the paper to appear in The Astrophysical Journal 660:L153-L156, (10 May 2007), indicates that the oxygen/iron ratio (O/Fe) was measured. *See *http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702162 or http://tinyurl.com/35dtdd]
If the abundance of iron (Fe) increases at the Sun's surface during solar minimum, because the magnetic plasma diffuser is less effective then, this might be observed as a decrease in the O/Fe ratio and misinterpreted as an indication that oxygen is vanishing, i.e., the solar oxygen crisis.
Another study suggests that other sun-like stars also act as magnetic plasma diffusers.
Three years ago, UC Berkeley astronomers Jason Wright and Geoffrey Marcy completed a survey of other stars during periods of low surface magnetic activity, like the 70 year period from 1645 until 1714 AD. *This was
the coldest part of the Little Ice Age in Europe and North America, when early astronomers reported almost no sunspot activity. http://tinyurl.com/35q7g3
Although the survey was intended to be of "sun-like" stars, at the end of the survey the astronomers concluded that the stars were "not sun-like at all, but are either evolved stars or stars rich in metals like iron and nickel."
Continued measurements of the O/Fe ratio at the surface of the Sun during solar cycle 24 may explain the surprising findings of the UC Berkeley astronomers for distant stars and *the operation and internal composition of the Sun and its influence on Earth's climate.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Hold on just because new studies are showing that there was less oxygen than previously suggested doesn't actually mean that the sun is running out of the stuff!!!!
bigfish I know what it's like to realise that many things are not what everyone thinks, but that doesn't mean that everything is not what everyone thinks, one can get carried away, I've done it...
bigfish I know what it's like to realise that many things are not what everyone thinks, but that doesn't mean that everything is not what everyone thinks, one can get carried away, I've done it...
fudgefactorfive
New Member
bigfish said:
After that day, Chicken Little always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, Chicken Little didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
It's a shame there's not quite as much oxygen on the sun as we thought. We'll never be able to go and colonise it now.
Similar threads
