Sun's Origin And Make Up, Origin of the Sun

Hello All

I have taken links from

Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

To explain the Origin and make of our sun.

There are a number of links so I will add maybe one or two links per day or so, by the end of all the links maybe the puzzel will form an image.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Metic..18..209M
Solar abundances of the elements

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AAS...197.5609M
The Standard Solar Model versus Experimental Observations

Hello All

Two more links

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PAN....69.1847M
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005nucl.th..11051M
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars

So is all this some indication that the scientific community is starting to address the "Electric Sun" theories (or did I misread the abstracts)? I'm sure I've seen past posts here that weren't overly enthusiastic about those theories but from my admittedly layman's perspective the problems with the standard solar model are enough reason for me to be suspect of it. If (and I guess it's a real big if) any of what the plasma advocates are saying is true then don't we have to begin looking at an awful lot of how we thought our solar system came to be?

I'd love to see a good discussion of this here that didn't include a bunch of sophomoric defensiveness about whatever area the participants held near and dear. Is there anyone that can convince me in generally layman's terms (i.e ... without the math eh?) that proponents of plasma/electric theories are full of it? Or is this just a topic that EE's and physicists are bound to piss at each other about? Why is the corona so much hotter than the surface?

I'd be happy to not be drawn back to plasma websites but I can't find reasons not to. Anyone Anyone?

Hello Uaafanblog

You need to read links. Understanding the information is more important than the facts.


Some people get hooked on one theory and think that is it.

The minute they call it the standard model and think that they know the facts is the minute people stop learning.

I have posted many links, if you want more links just ask.

I'm off on holidays soon.

So if I do not post any, you'll understand.

You won't mind if I stick around to defend the idea would you?

I'm not really sure why anyone would be drawn toward any other type of astronomy website anymore. Once one starts to see the universe through the "EU/Plasma Cosmology" mindset, it's probably impossible go back to the old way of visualizing the universe.

This post has been edited by Michael Mozina on Dec 25 2007, 07:21 AM

My problem as a layman (i.e... no formal training at all) means that when I read things I have to be skeptical. My forays into reading about electro/plasma theories have left me in a skeptical state with regard to existing theory as well as being skeptical about electro/plasma. I have delved into the articles in the links you provided. My assumption based on the listed references in the documents is that they're peer reviewed and therefore valid in terms of acceptability to the the science community. This of course is from the perspective of someone with no formal training.

With that said I've pulled a single example of text (From This document on page 3) that I'd like to see critiqued and/or answered by standard model proponents:

See I have no real way of verifying this sort of thing for myself. The papers you've linked to are full of such text that a layman like me really isn't capable of analyzing. I could read and reread the papers until I memorized them but that wouldn't mean I've really learned anything valid since I have no method of determining their validity. So I'm not (and I am) questioning the veracity of the newer theory since the "accepted" theory has years of being accepted by the vast majority of science. Does that all make sense?

I guess what I'm saying to you (and anyone reading who is capable of discerning the science) is .... really? There are structures implied by seismology that mean the sun isn't primarily composed of Hydrogen and Helium? I've read a fair bit about electro/plasma theory (in "popular" websites) and while there are often some compelling claims I've often seen equally compelling refutations of some of those claims.

What I'd really like to see here is a list (not links to difficult to interpret papers) in clear language that describes the primary features (evidence) that electro/plasma adherents point to in order to prove their right. Then I'd like to see opponents of the theory express themselves in laymans terms as to where they're right. Am I expecting too much?

So here's where I'm at (with apologies for the vernacular): I'm excited at the prospect that plasma theory brings to our understanding of the universe but skeptical as to many of it's claims. As a layman, being able to participate in a discussion of these issues is exciting in and of itself. But I have to limit my involvement to a level that is appropriate for my education and potential to understand. So with all that ... someone PLEASE take up my challenge to explore these issues on this thread. I promise to ask lots of dumb questions and hopefully I'm smart enough to ask the right dumb questions.

research of Professor O.K. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, and Michael Mozina is excellent. There is replacement space coordinate only in the cosmogeological explanations From supernova to the spiral galaxy nucleus.
why??? after explosion of supermova we can see destroyed space clouds only. when star is moving through the space clouds the star is begining activation. it looks as the embryonic stars.

1. Evidence is here in the LINK http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/relea...9/release.shtml
The "jet" in our galaxy is remnant of collapsed star or died interstellar planet.
Embryonic Stars are to the galaxy active nucleus.
When remnant of died star or interstellar planetary mass object reach another star's planetary system, star is beginning capture the huge space clouds. There are almost all chemical elements (Light, heavy, super-heavy). This is reason of star activation. It is alike new Embryonic Stars. Dec. 1. 2007 is nearest date of activation L1157.

2. Evidence is here in the link
The “Tornado Jet” in our galaxy is remnant of died star or died interstellar planet hit to the star million and million years ago. Second reason is truer. When star captured Interstellar planetary mass object into convection streams are beginning enormous multi-stage nuclear reactions. Truly that is the reason of huge Axial eruption jet in the only one side of the star.
research conclusions ___with cosmogeological explanations.

TRUTH IS VICTORIOUS
research of Professor O.K. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, and Michael Mozina
“Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation”.CONCLUSIONS- ___with cosmogeological explanations
The most obvious, common sense conclusions with cosmogeological explanations to a seemingly complex set of observations made after B2FH [14] published their classical paper on element synthesis in stars [14].
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS-with cosmogeological explanations.
1. Decay Products of Short-lived izotophes.
Fresh debris from a SN (Supernova)explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system
___Fresh gaseous huge streams from a SGN (Spiral Galaxy Nucleus) surface explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system. (Huge unbelievable nuclear reactions into submerged huge SGN spot under huge convection streams of SGN).
2. Isotope Anomalies in Stone Meteorites

The axial SN explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in accretion disk
___The axial SGN surface explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, into red-hot huge gaseous proto-planetary parent bodies. Debris of exploded space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed stone meteorites later.
3. Isotope Anomalies in Iron Meteorites
Iron-rich SN debris directly formed iron meteorites and planetary cores
___Iron-rich SGN spots gaseous huge streams directly formed planets and Iron-rich planetary cores. Debris of exploded iron-rich space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed iron meteorites later.
4. Elements/Isotopes Were Linked Xe-1 in FeS, Xe-2 in Carbon Grains
Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SN interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SN surface
___Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SGN spots interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SGN spots surface
5. Isotope Anomalies In Planets: Xe-1 in Sun, Mars; Xe-2 in Jupiter
Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SN interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SN surface
___Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SGN spots interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SGN spots surface
6. Severely Mass-Fractionated Isotopes in Meteorites and Planets
Multi-stage mass separation in the Sun and in the parent star of the SN
___Multi-stage mass separation in the Sun and in the it’s parent star (SGN)
7. FUN (Fractionation + Nuclear) Effects Linked in Meteorites
The supernova made new isotopes in material that was mass fractionated
___The SGN into spots made new isotopes by nuclear synthesis reaction into proto-planetary material that was mass fractionated
8. Mirror-Image Isotope Anomalies
Unmixed products of the various nuclear reactions that collectively made “normal” isotope abundances
___Exploded SGN proto-planetary spot products by the various huge nuclear reactions, unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, made collectively “normal” isotope abundances into space-bodies later.
9. P-1 Planetary Gas Component Had Only “Normal” Xe-1, Kr-1 and Ar-1
This came from SN’s iron-rich interior that was depleted of light elements
___This came from SGN’s iron-rich spots interior that was depleted of light elements
10. P-2 Planetary Gas Component Had “Strange” Xe-2, Kr-2, Ar-2, Ne, He .
This came from the outer SN layers where light elements remained.
___This came from the outer SGN spots layers where light elements remained.
11. The Solar Surface Is Made Mostly of Light Elements.
Elements undergo multi-stage mass separation in the Sun.
___A lot of small parts of the main spots is spread into convection streams all over the Sun undergo multi-stage mass separation into the streams. (In the streams into separated spots masses are continuing nuclear syntheses reactions mainly by He-nucleuses, super heavy nucleuses are exploding later and light elements are spreading all over the Sun).
Video evidence-explosion into convection stream of multi-stage separated mini spot. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
12. Carbonaceous Meteorites Are Also Rich in Light Elements.
These came mostly from the surface of the mass-fractionated parent star.
___These are part of exploded space-bodies. They were formed mostly from the surface of the mass-fractionated exploded SGN spots.
13. Why Does O/C ≈ 2 at the Surface of the Sun and Similar Stars?
Multi-stage mass separation decreases O/C ≈ 10 to O/C ≈ 2 at solar surface.
___Multi-stage mass separation of spots masses, nuclear syntheses and nuclear reactions into the convection streams are decreasing O/C ≈ 10 to O/C ≈ 2 at solar surface.
14. What Are the Most Abundant Elements in the Solar System?
Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, sulfur, magnesium and calcium
____Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, sulfur, magnesium calcium and lead too. (Lead is into the metallic nucleus of planets as the main product of radioactive demolition).
15. What Causes the Solar Neutrino Deficit?
The number of neutrinos produced is the number detected. There is no deficit
16. What Is The Source of Solar Luminosity?
Neutron emission and decay generate >62%; H-fusion generates <38%
___Neutron emission and decay generate >62%; H-fusion generates <38%;
(Nuclear reactions of separated spots masses are into convection streams).
17. What Is the Source of Hydrogen in the Solar and Stellar Winds?
Neutron-decay and upward acceleration of H+ ions are by solar magnetic field.
___P.S. Formation of new erupted stars from our SGN is discovered, there is no suspect. The ten Hypervelocity stars (embryonic stars) are discovered formed by parent star in the centre of the spiral galaxy. It means our galaxy is young, it has no “black hole” in the centre, and it has parent star there, parent of all stars in the galaxy. Of course nearest stars to the nucleus are hypervelocity.Source of strange isotope abundances in the Solar wind are nuclear reactions into a lot of multi-stage mass separation mini-spots masses in the convection streams and huge nuclear reactions into main spots masses too. The solar surface is made mostly of light elements is evidence of huge nuclear syntheses reaction into main spots and separated mini-spots masses. Nuclear syntheses reactions into separated mini-spots masses are continuing into convection streams. Synthesis reactions of nucleuses are creating super-heavy nucleuses. They are exploding and Light Elements are left. He-nucleus is important in the nuclear syntheses reactions. He-nucleuses are main product of radioactive demolition too. The double destructive and creative feature of He-nucleuses must be easily understandable. Fe-nucleuses are important in the magnetic field of convection streams.
Detail explanations of many topics are in the theory. My Webpage
Truth easy to explain…

This post has been edited by K. Margiani on Dec 25 2007, 09:07 AM

Then it would sure have been nice if you'd "easily" explained it here rather than spamming the thread with poorly formatted near gibberish. If this is the sort of junk that one side of the "argument" about the sun's origin is going to use then as a layman that just BEGGED for clearly worded lists of reasons from both sides I'd have to say the plasma side is very poorly represented. I have many questions about this area and theory and if your only answer is to read your webpage then you've completely lost a person who honestly came into this thread with an open mind hoping for rationally stated simple arguments regarding the subject.

I suspected it was foolish to hope for something that would help me understand all this. Hopefully, my suspicions are not realized this quickly. It's Xmas ... someone give me the present of clearly stated discourse.

Good bye uaafanblog
Why you are running for. You are afraid to discuss topic of alternative cosmology.
Maybe you can lose your future wages, if someone will understand about the discussion.
(“The plasma side is very poorly represented”)--- Yes, That’s discussing. That is excellent topic and there are hidden almost all secrets of universe evolution.

This post has been edited by K. Margiani on Dec 25 2007, 10:51 AM

Uaafanblog,

I understand your frustrations on the subject, as ever since my interest in cosmology has taken root, I've had a terrible time discerning fact from plausible from impossible. I find myself questioning assertions on both sides of the coin as well; the established theories may be stuck in somewhat of a rut, while the plasma/electric universe proponents don't have access to so much expensive scientific equipment. Their theories are simply dismissed as looney talk when some of them may hold water, or at least have offshoots or implications that may be true.

Don't think we have many certified PhD solar scientists patrolling this site, but since you seem like an articulate individual, I would recommend sending an email to helioseismologist Leif Svalgaard. I'm fairly sure he would give a lengthy, informative response to your inquiries. You might try linking him to the paper mentioning the iron composition 0.5% of the solar radius deep, not sure if he's seen that.

Although he would most likely defend conventional scientific points of view on solar physics and composition, it would be an interesting read nonetheless.


He's a very nice guy, check out his site at www.leif.org/research

His email is leif@leif.org

Good luck, I'd love to see any correspondence

As far as the 'mysteriously' elevated temperature of the coronosphere goes, there's been some recent developments in the Hinode mission that may go someway to explaining this http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/dec/H...node_Waves.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/06dec_xrayjets.htm
basically, what the article says, is that Alfven waves are responsible for heating the coronosphere, something that's been theorized for some time, however, the difference is that this time, we have something in space that has the resolution, and the refresh rate to be able to observe them directly.

The key question has always been how are these Alfven waves produced, up until now it's been solar flares that have been thought to be the culprit, the problem with that is that solar flares are somewhat limited in distribution, and frequency, and theorists have been having trouble getting the frequency of the solar flares to match up with the observed amount of heating.

What this Hinode result has done, essentialy, is show that there are hundreds of x-ray jets that occur on the suns surface on a daily basis, the occur everywhere, over sunspots, in quiet regions, in the coronal holes even, and they occur all the time. The analogy that's given in the second article is a whip cracking - the sound we hear is the energy that the tip of the whip transfers to the atmosphere.

While know one is claiming that these xray jets fully account for the observed heating, they do play a very important role, and serves to demonstrate another point - that to dismiss a theory when we haven't observed the object being theorized about in any great detail (up until Hinode, the best reolution images we had of the sun could only resolve images thousands of kilometers across, so they missed these jets, Hinode picks up on features a little more then a hundred kilometers across) seems to me to be a bit short sighted.

Sure. Then again, I'm not quite sure that it's entirely accurate to suggest you can't "verify" some aspects of plasma physics. Some things you won't be able to directly measure yourself, but assuming there is some overlap of various sciences, we should be able to use various branches of science to build a cohesive case, one way or another.

Yes. Alexander Kosovichev has found physical evidence of a "stratification subsurface" that is located at .995R, or directly under the photosphere at 1R. At that physical location, there is a dramatic increase in sound speed. In a homogeneous hydrogen/helium atmosphere, where convection is supposed to occur at that location, we would not "predict" there to be a sound speed change at .995R. Now you might verify this statements or refute it by finding a "prediction" from standard theory that expected to find a 'stratification subsurface" (or something equivalent) at .995R. You won't find any predictions of such a thing in the standard solar model. Why not?

Now as a layman, you can still verify that elements tend to mass separate by density here on earth. In other words, the sky is less dense than the water, and th water is less dense than the crust of the planet. The core of the Earth is thought to contain a lot of iron, and not a lot of hydrogen in the core.

The four closest neighbors to the sun all have very high concentrations of heavy elements. Why would the sun's four closest neighbors be so radically different in composition than the sun? Why wouldn't you expect to see elements mass separate themselves on the sun?

Such as? I'm just curious what you find to be a "compelling" refutation of plasma cosmology/EU theory. I've certainly never heard one. I've seen compelling data to suggest currents through through our sun and solar system, starting with those million degree plasmas in the solar atmosphere, those gamma rays from the solar surface, those neutron capture signatures in the coronal loops, etc.

No, not at all. I will refrain from overwhelming you with papers, and I'll stick to some basic scientific data. There will be parts of my explanation that are better served by posting some quotes from Hannes Alven and a providing links to NASA websites so that you can verify parts of what I'm saying are true.

Let's start with some simple observations in Earth's atmosphere and see if we might apply them to the solar atmosphere. For instance, we can point the RHESSI space craft at the earth and see gamma-rays coming from that Earth's atmosphere. These are obviously very high energy events. We can trace these gamma ray emissions in the atmosphere of Earth to electrical discharges (lightening).

Now if we point that very same piece of equipment at the atmosphere of the sun, we also observe gamma rays. Is it logical to put two and two together here and note that these gamma ray events *could be* and logically might be related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere?

IMO plasma physics is the future. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation are utterly unfalsifiable and therefore the fall outside the realm of testable physics. If you think you have a tough time verifying that those are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, try verifying that inflaton fields exist in reality. Nothing like inflation exists in nature. No other scalar or vector field in nature will experience an exponential increase in volume without an equally significant decrease in density. Inflation is pure mythology. If you're biggest beef with plasma physics is that you can't easily verify it's tenets, try verifying that inflation has any effect on anything in a controlled laboratory test. I'll clue you in right now, you won't find any empirical data that inflation has any effect on reality from a controlled experiment on Earth.

Wouldn't that same criticism of plasma cosmology theory be equally applied (more so) to Lambda-CDM theory?

This post has been edited by Michael Mozina on Dec 25 2007, 07:35 PM

Well, lets start with some basics here. Most of the universe is made of plasma, so understanding the properties of plasma critical to understanding the properties of the universe. The first thing one should know about plasma is that it's an *excellent* conductor of electrical current. It's a far better conductor than copper or gold or anything solid. Plasma is composed of charged particles and therefore it's extremely sensitive to EM fields of all sorts. It is easily moved around by EM fields, and it has distinct "filamentary" behaviors when current is present. You can actually verify a lot of these statements by purchasing an inexpensive plasma ball. That particularly item will demonstrate many of the basic properties of plasma, particularly light plasma like you might find in the solar atmosphere.

The other piece of background information you'll probably need here relates to MHD and the work of Hannes Alfven. Alfven was the mathematical father of MDH theory, plasma physics and plasma cosmology theory. Here's how Hannes Alfven described a "magnetic rope" as it relates to MHD theory".

From his book Cosmic Plasma:

Emphasis mine. Note here that he is describing the *current flow* inside the plasma that is driving these filamentary processes. An ordinary plasma ball will generate a similar moving filamentary shape inside the plasma. The current flow forms a flowing tornado like vortex inside the plasma. The magnetic fields that surround the current flow act to "pinch" the plasma into a tightening spiral. These filaments can attract one another due to the magnetic fields around the current flow. He even mentions Bennett, in reference to the Bennett pinch process that he is describing.

He's essentially describing a z-pinch in the plasma that is caused by current flows inside the plasma.

He goes on to describe the configuration of these magnetic ropes later in the book as well:

In other words, he is describing concentric tornado like vortexes, one inside the other, that form in the plasma. The current flow separates the elements in the plasma and the concentric vortexes are arranged by the ionization potential of each element that is flowing inside the plasma pinch.

There is an explicit understanding of current flow inside a Bennett pinch, or a "magnetic rope" according to Alfven. There should be no misunderstanding about the nature of a magnetic rope. It is a current carrying z-pinch plasma thread.

Now let's look at a recent NASA press release related to the THEMIS program:

Here we find verified confirmation from in-situ measurements of the presence of current carrying plasma filaments that transfer *huge* amounts of energy to the atmosphere of Earth.

Make no mistake here, we can verify that EU theory has merit via the halls of science and via other scientific fields. There is nothing about EU theory that is based on metaphysics unlike Lambda-CDM theory. There is a wealth of new information coming out related to the ring currents on Saturn and the "magnetic ropes" that connect objects in space. The universe is electric, and that electric signature is easily verified, from electrical discharges in our own atmosphere, to electrical discharges in the suns' atmosphere, to the presence of current flows between stars.

Hello All

Hello Michael

You hit the nail on the head.

The universe is mostly Plasma and knowing the properties of plasma will give us an inside understanding of the workings of the parts within the universe.

Thank you for responding to the above posts.