Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles!

[Fruitloop]

From that article:

He noted that some of the stars previously identified as Maunder minimum stars may be metal-rich stars, which also burn brighter than our sun and show less activity. Further analysis of nearby stars is needed to characterize these quiet stars.

 

[laptop]

From that article:

metal-rich stars

Ah! I think we have found the source of the fruitloopery!





To astronomers - especially stellar astronomers - "metals" means any element other than hydrogen or helium.

 

[undercover]

I think the sun came into being to act as a giant furnace to power Bigfish's cut and paste machine.

I've never seen one person have so few thoughts of their own.

and before you ask, no I don't any of my own either, and yes I am a hypocrite.

 

[bigfish]

I think the sun came into being to act as a giant furnace to power Bigfish's cut and paste machine.

I've never seen one person have so few thoughts of their own.

and before you ask, no I don't any of my own either, and yes I am a hypocrite.

Well, I'd be delighted to engage in a rational discussion on the physical nature of our Sun, undercover. But, as we can see from the responses so far, rational discussion is just about the last thing on anybody's mind (with the notable exception of dash_two).

All the best, bf

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Well, I'd be delighted to engage in a rational discussion on the physical nature of our Sun, undercover. But, as we can see from the responses so far, rational discussion is just about the last thing on anybody's mind (with the notable exception of dash_two).

All the best, bf

so you're saying that the reason you're not prepared to commit to any rational opinions of your own, and rely instead on cutting and pasting vast tranches of someone else's work, is because your audience isn't good enough?

you conveniently omit the full 30 minutes I spent in looking up Oliver Manuel's standing in the scientific community - after you insisted on peer-reviewed alternatives to his theories, i went and dug some up for you, and you appear to have ignored them completely. so it seems that when scientific consensus works against you, it's a conspiracy, but when it's in your favour, no-one else is qualified to debate it. that's very sad, and arguably paranoiac.

 

[bigfish]

The idea there is such a thing as consensus in science is a fallacy, as too is name calling.

All the best, bf

 

[WouldBe]

The idea there is such a thing as consensus in science is a fallacy,

There are some scientists out there who claim gravity makes thing fall upwards.

Are these the same scientists you use for your ideas.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

The idea there is such a thing as consensus in science is a fallacy

how terribly convenient for lone mavericks desperate to grasp at any straw, no matter how remotely connected, to advance a political cause - so when it's a retired professor with a 50-year-old contribution to meteorite composition and an unqualified amateur astronomer versus the rest of the world, you can still claim that the sun works differently to the way those pinko lefties claim it is, and is the true cause of global warming

it's a conspiracy!!!!!1

 

[bigfish]

Particle and Astro-Physicists Face Aftershocks

The following quotes from the 14 May 2007 issue of The New Yorker and the 8 May 2007 issue of Nature online suggest that particle physicists and astrophysicists now face aftershocks from findings that shook the foundations of the space science community about a year ago [See CCNet 59/06 - 6 April 2006]

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-06-04-06.htm

ABC Science online reported that scientists from ANU had uncovered evidence that "The chemical composition of the Sun appears very different to what we assumed," CNN carried a news report from MIT that supernova debris orbiting a pulsar may form rocky, Earth-like planets, Universe Today published this drawing of such Earth-producing events

and volume 440 of Nature (6 April 2006) reported that the DOE Secretary had fired his entire Science Advisory Board, that MIT had indications that
Earth-like planets form out of supernova rubble, and ANU scientists had shown that the Sun's oxygen had less oxygen-16 than does the oxygen in meteorites and planets.

1. From Elizabeth Kolbert's article on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in the 14 May 2007 issue of The New Yorker (Annals of Science) CRASH COURSE: "Can a seventeen-mile collider unlock the universe?"

"And yet, for all its triumphs, the field" [of particle physics] "has been haunted by failure. The more physicists have learned about the way matter behaves at its most fundamental level, the more acutely they have become aware that something-a big something-is missing from their accounts."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=1

2. From Sarah Tomlin's article on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in the 8 May 2007 issue of Nature online, NEWS, "Particle physicists hunt for the unexpected: How do you search for something when you don't know what you're looking for?"

"What if the LHC finds something even more exotic than the Higgs -and the tell-tale traces of that novelty turn out to have been lurking, unrecognized, in Fermilab's data for years?"

"Rather than looking only at data in which a new particle is expected to be found, as the experiments at Fermilab normally do, it looks at a much broader swath of data without any preconceptions."

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070508/full/070508-3.html

3. From Lucy Odling-Smee's article on SN 2006gy in the 8 May 2007 issue of Nature online, NEWS, "The biggest bang of them all: Bright supernova reveals secrets of star death."

"Supernovas typically occur when stars exhaust their fuel and collapse under their own gravity - a process that results in stellar material being sucked up forever into a black hole. But in the case of SN 2006gy, the light emitted by the explosion was so intense that the team thinks a very different process may have triggered it."

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070508/full/070508-1.html

The something that particle physicists have overlooked "about the way matter behaves at its most fundamental level" is the same thing astrophysicists need to explain the behavior of stars-something that is evident in mass data of the 3000 different types of atoms:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

Particle physicists and astrophysicists have overlooked the repulsive interaction between neutrons in the atomic nucleus and in the cores of stars

1. Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) pp. 93-98
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

2. Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) pp. 197-201
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

3. Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051

If physicists still cannot "see" the most powerful nuclear force in the universe in mass data, I hope that they will at least have the courage to criticize our analysis of those data.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

 

[fudgefactorfive]

More opinion-free C&P. With a very pretty artist's impression to illustrate.

 

[Jazzz]

Is there any explanation from Mr Manuel about how the centre of the sun could possibly be cooler than the surface? Where does the heat go?

 

[bigfish]

The highest temperatures occur at the corona, the spheres below cool progressively. Observational evidence from the multi-billion dollar SOHO/TRACE satellites reveal a solid ferrite surface rotating evenly from pole to pole. Ergo, surface temperature aren't hot enough to melt it.

There's a presentation on the structure of the solar core by Manuel here that might help:

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/beyond03_structure_soler_core.pdf

This video (about halfway in) talks about the Sun in the context of the electric universe model.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Observational evidence from the multi-billion dollar SOHO/TRACE satellites reveal a solid ferrite surface rotating evenly from pole to pole.

no it doesn't - that's one single person's crazed interpretation of data from the satellite.

one person, bigfish. one.

 

[kyser_soze]

Still banging on about this?

 

[WouldBe]

Observational evidence from the multi-billion dollar SOHO/TRACE satellites reveal a solid ferrite surface rotating evenly from pole to pole. Ergo, surface temperature aren't hot enough to melt it.

Or the pressure is so high it can't melt at that temperature.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Maybe the sun is flat

it actually goes around the earth, not the other way around, as has been falsely claimed by astronmers for the last few centuries.

 

[kyser_soze]

3. From Lucy Odling-Smee's article on SN 2006gy in the 8 May 2007 issue of Nature online, NEWS, "The biggest bang of them all: Bright supernova reveals secrets of star death."

"Supernovas typically occur when stars exhaust their fuel and collapse under their own gravity - a process that results in stellar material being sucked up forever into a black hole. But in the case of SN 2006gy, the light emitted by the explosion was so intense that the team thinks a very different process may have triggered it."

What you fail to mention is that SN 200gy has been provisionally classifgied as a type 1a Supernova, not a Type II which is described here - expended fuel followed by core collapse. SN200 is thought to have been a Type I, where 1 or a pair of binary bodies (say a white dwarf) pulls matter off it's sibling until it reaches a mass whereupon a thermonuclear fusion reaction is triggered, blowing the body to pieces in a thermonuclear explosion - basically a huge H-bomb - which is why SN200 was about 1000 times brighter than a Type II.

That was compiled from Nature, New Scietist and NASA for what it's worth...and don't forget, US particle physicists still feel the pain that investment in Basic research has pretty much ground to a halt since the mid-80s where the last big PA to be planned is now just a half full hole in the desert, whereas the LHC has been funded and is almost ready and the next big PA is on the cards.

 

[bigfish]

Here are 2 very interesting papers which give further evidence AGAINST the standard hydrogen model of the Sun. NASA has confirmed that heavy metals are being pumped out by the Sun. Only one problem, the hydrogen Sun is not supposed to pump out heavy metals. Nor does its apparent mass of 1.98892E30kg make any sense if it is made up of iron and other heavy metals, not unless the true and apparent masses are different as predicted by EMRP gravity theory. But this is all too much for NASA, these findings contradict so many established ideas that it has decided to restrict pubic access, and sweep the papers under the carpet.

In fact, readers who click on the NASA links:

a.) "Abundances of trans-iron elements in solar energetic particle events"
http://epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov/don/00HiZ.pdf

b.) "Heavy-Element Abundances in Solar Energetic Particle Events"
http://epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov/don/04Heavy.pdf

Are informed that:
YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO VIEW THIS PAGE

Fortunately, for anyone who is interested, both files can be accessed via the following urls:

"Heavy-Element Abundances in Solar Energetic Particle Events"
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wB1jRt...QBNvO2sBukmXCoWQzfDpcPIsBF0hwAhjZ/O4Heavy.pdf

"Abundances of trans-iron elements in solar energetic particle events"
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wB1jRs...aWqB4mxienqdfhj3GD2k7AvV3hvksg9fg6c/OOHiZ.pdf

 

[WouldBe]

You do realise that in fusion reactions you produce heavier elements?

 

[MikeMcc]

You do realise that in fusion reactions you produce heavier elements?

And surprise, surprise there are energetic reactions that produce elements heavier than hydrogen too. Just because you lose energy on heavy particle interactions doesn't mean that they can't happen.

 

[MikeMcc]

The following quotes from the 14 May 2007 issue of The New Yorker and the 8 May 2007 issue of Nature online suggest that particle physicists and astrophysicists now face aftershocks from findings that shook the foundations of the space science community about a year ago [See CCNet 59/06 - 6 April 2006]

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-06-04-06.htm

ABC Science online reported that scientists from ANU had uncovered evidence that "The chemical composition of the Sun appears very different to what we assumed," CNN carried a news report from MIT that supernova debris orbiting a pulsar may form rocky, Earth-like planets, Universe Today published this drawing of such Earth-producing events

and volume 440 of Nature (6 April 2006) reported that the DOE Secretary had fired his entire Science Advisory Board, that MIT had indications that
Earth-like planets form out of supernova rubble, and ANU scientists had shown that the Sun's oxygen had less oxygen-16 than does the oxygen in meteorites and planets.

1. From Elizabeth Kolbert's article on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in the 14 May 2007 issue of The New Yorker (Annals of Science) CRASH COURSE: "Can a seventeen-mile collider unlock the universe?"

"And yet, for all its triumphs, the field" [of particle physics] "has been haunted by failure. The more physicists have learned about the way matter behaves at its most fundamental level, the more acutely they have become aware that something-a big something-is missing from their accounts."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=1

2. From Sarah Tomlin's article on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in the 8 May 2007 issue of Nature online, NEWS, "Particle physicists hunt for the unexpected: How do you search for something when you don't know what you're looking for?"

"What if the LHC finds something even more exotic than the Higgs -and the tell-tale traces of that novelty turn out to have been lurking, unrecognized, in Fermilab's data for years?"

"Rather than looking only at data in which a new particle is expected to be found, as the experiments at Fermilab normally do, it looks at a much broader swath of data without any preconceptions."

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070508/full/070508-3.html

3. From Lucy Odling-Smee's article on SN 2006gy in the 8 May 2007 issue of Nature online, NEWS, "The biggest bang of them all: Bright supernova reveals secrets of star death."

"Supernovas typically occur when stars exhaust their fuel and collapse under their own gravity - a process that results in stellar material being sucked up forever into a black hole. But in the case of SN 2006gy, the light emitted by the explosion was so intense that the team thinks a very different process may have triggered it."

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070508/full/070508-1.html

The something that particle physicists have overlooked "about the way matter behaves at its most fundamental level" is the same thing astrophysicists need to explain the behavior of stars-something that is evident in mass data of the 3000 different types of atoms:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

Particle physicists and astrophysicists have overlooked the repulsive interaction between neutrons in the atomic nucleus and in the cores of stars

1. Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) pp. 93-98
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

2. Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) pp. 197-201
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

3. Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051

If physicists still cannot "see" the most powerful nuclear force in the universe in mass data, I hope that they will at least have the courage to criticize our analysis of those data.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

And is there a point to any of that? Do YOU have an interpretation of it? Why do you find it surprising that physicists are questioning the present theories? It is after all WHY they are building the LHC

 

[kyser_soze]

The recent "solar oxygen crisis"

What was this? Are disasters affecting stellar inhabitants not being reported on the daily news? Shocking and outrageous discrimination against the Solers...

You do realise that in fusion reactions you produce heavier elements?

I was given to believe that our sun, being a 4G star, is actually capable of producing metals that younger generation stars can't (e.g iron), and that the production of ever-heavier elements has been an ongoing process for stars - the early universe procduced short lived supergiants that helped make the basic metals/elements and that when they explode as supernovas the next type of star, with heavier metals and a longer lifespan, gets going out of the gaseous remains of the SN...or something...

 

[Jonti]

The atom which contains the minimum energy per unit mass is iron (forget which isotope). So fusion reactions release energy as they fuse stuff up towards iron; and fission reactions release energy as they split stuff down towards iron.

That's not to say that elements heavier than iron don't form in stellar reactions -- they do. As far as we know, almost all the material that comprises this planet, and our own bodies, was formed by burning and exploding stars.

We are stardust. Even the fish.

 

[bigfish]

Research overturns accepted notion of neutron's electrical properties

For two generations of physicists, it has been a standard belief that the neutron, an electrically neutral elementary particle and a primary component of an atom, actually carries a positive charge at its center and an offsetting negative charge at its outer edge.
....
Using precise data recently gathered at three different laboratories and some new theoretical tools, Gerald A. Miller, a UW physics professor, has found that the neutron has a negative charge both in its inner core and its outer edge, with a positive charge sandwiched in between to make the particle electrically neutral.

"Nobody realized this was the case," Miller said. "It is significant because it is a clear fact of nature that we didn't know before. Now we know it."

The discovery changes scientific understanding of how neutrons interact with negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons. Specifically, it has implications for understanding the strong force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature (the others are the weak force, electromagnetism and gravity).
....
It also could lend to greater understanding of the interactions that take place in our sun's nuclear furnace, and a greater understanding of the strong force in general, Miller said.

http://www.physorg.com/news109259529.html

 

[Crispy]

hoorah for science.
how, precisely, does this confirm or disconfirm the 'solid sun' theory?

 

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, that simply says to me 'Very cool new thing to discover, isn't it great that those saying it aren't being roasted over a pit for heresy...oh, and that it will help us understand the Strong force better...'

 

[bigfish]

hoorah for science.
how, precisely, does this confirm or disconfirm the 'solid sun' theory?

Well it's an interesting finding in so far as it details the charge sub-structure of the neutron. However, it doesn't explain the recent finding by Manuel et al. that neutrons strongly repel each other. According to the Manuel team this previously unrecognized source of nuclear energy far exceeds that available from nuclear fusion or fission:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

Repulsive interactions between neutrons are short range, unlike the long-range repulsive interactions between like charges.

Neutron Repulsion Confirmed As Energy Source*

Systematic properties of heavy nuclides reveal a fine structure in Coulomb energy that parallels variations in mass arising from n-n interactions between neutrons. These results confirm an earlier suggestion [1] that n-n interactions in the nucleus are repulsive. Neutron emission may release up to 1.1%-2.4% of the nuclear rest mass as energy. By comparison, 0.8% of the rest mass is converted to energy in hydrogen fusion and 0.1% is converted to energy in fission. Neutron emission in the core of the Sun may trigger a series of reactions that collectively produce the Sun’s luminosity and an outpouring of protons and neutrinos from its surface.

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

 

[stdPikachu]

Well it's an interesting finding in so far as it details the charge sub-structure of the neutron.

So, in other words, it has absolutely no bearing on the "solid sun" theory.

 

[Fruitloop]

What about quark confinement? Does that not even feature in the electric-psychosis model of the universe?

Do orgone generators feature in this garbage somewhere?

 

[kyser_soze]

I've just realised the problems one would have with a crumbling gas model as well - altho I think crumbling gas would be pretty cool...