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

I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply noted that there are "physical" explanation for "missing mass", and there are metaphysical ones too.

You're not really going to blame me for Guth's insistence that he somehow solved a missing monopole problem with another metaphysical entity are you? It's not my fault he said that stuff, or that he called inflation the "ultimate free lunch".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

I'm simply noting what the "consensus" of the "mainstream" seems to be these days. I already mentioned to you that I believe that astronomers grossly underestimate the baryonic mass of solar systems and therefore I personally tend to fall into a "MACHO" camp when it comes to explaining "missing mass". I don't have any problem with anyone proposing known forms of mass to explain "missing mass". I simply draw the line at unobserved particles.

And you're STILL failing to grasp the basic point.

There are three types of Dark matter theories

Hot Dark Matter.
Warm Dark Matter.
Cold Dark Matter.

Hot Dark Matter refers to particles moving at ultrarelativistic speeds (huge portions of the speed of light). The Neutrino is an example of Hot Dark Matter.

Cold Dark Matter refers to particles that are moving slowly.
Warm Dark Matter refers to particles that have properties that are between hot and cold. An example of this is Sterile Neutrinos (another hypothetical particle which arises out of some GUT's).

Within that there are three main theories as to what the stuff of dark matter is.

MACHO's - Massive Compact Halo Objects, Rogue planets, Black holes, Neutron stars, Brown Dawrfs, the list goes on. ALL of which are ordinary baryonic matter,

WIDGETs - Essentialy another baryonic theory of dark matter, the universe has some background of particle, equivalent to the CMB that has a significantly low temperature, and behaves as a Bose-Einstein condensate.

WIMPs - Weakly Interacting Massive Particles - this is the ONLY class of non-baryonic dark matter theories.

Get it yet?

You seem to be more interested in engaging in a fight rather than actually listening to what I said. I don't have any problem at all with you proposing any empirically demonstrated form of mass to explain "missing mass". You can use neutrinos in your explanation, or you can use MACHO theory, or anything else you can empirically demonstrate to exist in reality in a lab in controlled conditions. That control mechanism and empirical evidence requirement is non-negotiable in my book.

It's clear that we haven't got a clue how to accurately estimate the amount of mass is a galaxy. The only questions that remains are: "What part of our mass estimation process is inaccurate, and where is that missing mass located?"

As long as you aren't proposing SUSY related particles and/or things that are shy around a lab, I'm not really going to complain much, even if I think you're wrong. The moment someone starts stuffing metaphysical entities into the mix however is the moment that I will cry fowl. Those WIDGETs and WIMPS would fall into the metaphysical category, not the "empirical physical science" category. Get it?

This post has been edited by Michael Mozina on Jan 18 2008, 01:33 AM

Obviously you still don't get it.

You still don't get the fact that most of the theories to do with SUSY particles predict that they will be producible, in a lab, under controled conditions, in repeatable experiments.

You still don't get the fact that Bose-Einstein condensates are baryonic matter that has been produced in a lab.

You still don't get that we have more of a clue how to measure the mass of a galaxy then you think we do, I've tried to explain this to you/point this out, but you continually sidestep the questions/comments that I pose to you.

I continue to be appreciative of the debate in this thread regardless of the inability to completely eliminate some of the less desirable comments (which nevertheless are "quantum-leaps" less than other threads). But while the missing mass argument is lovely and all I've been thinking (yes ... a dangerous endeavor for a noob) more about the question posed originally ..."Sun's Origin and Make-up" which of course leads to questions ...

I've long assumed that our Sun is a second generation star. Am I correct in that? My understanding is that the mass in our system was once likely fully contained in "Sol 1" which was likely a much more massive star than the one we see today. The distribution of the elements in the solar system is evidence of this ... correct? Those elements were all created in the fusion processes of "Sol 1" yes? So in layman's terms ... Sol 1 was big, probably went supernova and the resulting nebula reformed gravitationally until a critical mass was reached and viola Sol 2 is born. Then all the boring long accretion began. During that boring long accretion timeframe Sol 2 has been busy fusing hydrogen into helium and helium into subsequently heavier elements yes? Those heavier elements continue to fuse into heavier elements and so on? So the core of the sun has GOT to be in large part these heavy elements; hence the iron core? What am I missing? This is a fundamental process ... yes?

None of this is contrary to Plasma theory is it? Doesn't it all just point to an elctro-dynamo at the core of the sun?

Now my other dysfunction. Excuse the noobness of these thoughts in particular.

The main question in my mind is thus ... Are there any assumptions in the factors that result in the estimates of Sol's mass that in some way could lead to a mistaken conclusion?

If we estimate the mass of the sun by determining the gravitational interactions we come to the conclusion that the sun's mass = X. Is there only one set of factors that lead to X? For example ... What I mean by that is ... could the sun's mass be twice as much as we think it is because we've mismeasured something else? We view the acceleration of A and B and C and D and conclude that X is a mass of 1. I apologize again for not knowing this stuff pat ... but I'm 46 and not everything sticks to my gray cells the way it once did. What am getting at here is to ask if it is possible that we've miscalculated the mass of our Earth and if we have then we could have arrived at X for the sun's mass when it really is X times 2? If the earth (and the other factors in the calculation) were twice what we think (again just an example for arguments sake) then wouldn't a star twice as massive still = the observed acceleration?

Be kind if I've been a total dumbass here. Thanks.

uaafanblog,

This article shows that there were multiple supernova involved. The consensus is that one or more supernova may have triggered the collapse of the gas cloud that eventually became our solar system and seeded it with material, not that the solar system arose solely from the remnants of a supernova, and there's not much support for an iron core.

It would be impossible for the sun's mass to be off by a factor of two.

Um ... no. It theorizes that the uneven distribution of certain isotopes leads them to believe that there may have been more than one supernova event.

I didn't see anything in that article that talked about a consensus. I'll be happy to accept however that more than one supernova contributed to the mass that eventually accreted to form our solar system. That's really neither here nor there to the questions I was asking. So I'll ask some modified versions ...

Were the elements which compose our solar system created by the fusion reactions inside the predecessor(s) to Sol 2 (our star)? Or were the elements created by the supernovae of the predecessor(s)?

I asked about the iron core because if the sun is a giant fusion furnace turning hydrogen into helium and helium into progressively heavier elements then it follows that those heavier elements migrate to the center of the mass i.e... you've got an "iron" core. Don't all objects we know in our system that generate large magnetic fields have an "iron" core at their heart? (Note: I'm using "iron" to mean a generally metallic core as I believe Jupiter and/or Saturn have been understood to have "metallic hydrogen" at their cores). Mars has no such magnetic field since it has no active internal core?

Gee thanks for taking my "example" literally I guess. The point of my admittedly naive inquiry was to edify myself. That's why I included all the excess info as a way of displaying my thought processes in the hope that someone would come along and say ... "Hey you dumb hockey fan ... here and here is where you went wrong."(a reply I'd far more prefer); but instead of that I guess I should just be satisfied that "you" say it is impossible. Thanks.

Obviously you aren't listening to my responses, you're only interested in winning some sort of ego battle in this thread.

If and when you ever get around to actually empirically demonstrating that any of the SUSY particles actually exist, and you demonstrate that SUSY theory has any merit whatsoever, and you make some significant link between your new found particle and that "missing mass", let me know. Until then you're just putting faith in a totally *NON MAINSTREAM* view of particle physics theory, and you're hand waving in some perceived connection between your failed galactic mass estimation theories and your faith in hypothetical/mythical SUSY particles.

When and where did I claim otherwise? Talk about a strawman fallacy. I specifically said that I had no objection to you proposing a solution to the "missing mass" problem that involves any *empirically demonstrated* forms of mass. Are you just not comprehending the difference between *empirically demonstrated* physics and mythical/hypothetical physics, or are you just building strawmen just for the fun of it?

If we could measure the mass of a galaxy accurately, we wouldn't need hypothetical forms of mass to explain these observations, and we wouldn't have needed "dark matter" in the first place! Get over it. "Dark matter" is nothing more than a post-hoc "gap filler" to prop up an otherwise failed galaxy mass estimation theory. We were so far off the mark that we need several times more "missing mass/dark matter" to exist than the mass that we think we can actually identify at this point in time. We aren't even in the ballpark yet when it comes to identifying the correct amount of mass or the correct type of mass in a galaxy. Don't try to tell me we know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy because never once have we gotten in right. That is why we are now reduced to sprinkling in a healthy portion of "dark matter" to explain our "missing mass". Claiming that our "missing mass" might be located in SUSY particles is like claiming that that unidentified flying object in the sky might be from another planet. It might be theoretically possible, but it's not the most probable explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary empirical support. Show me some controlled evidence that SUSY theory has merit in the lab, and show me that SUSY actually particles exist in nature, and *then* you can talk to me about where you think that missing mass is located, and what form it is in. Until then, I think your lack of empirical evidence for SUSY theory precludes you from trying to stuff SUSY particles into theories related to "missing mass" in very distant galaxies. If you can't produce any here on earth, what makes you think I should believe there is any of it "out there" somewhere?

Now who's engaging in personal attacks?

I've made several polite posts, free of personal attacks to you, meanwhile, you have continued with the barrage of attacks that you have sustained right from the start.

Screw off. I'm not interested in a battle of egos, and for you to ASSume that is just... Wrong.

Oh screw off.

Once again in your haste and your arrogance you're falsely attributing deliberate malice where there is none you dipsh1t.

Apparently I misunderstood what WIDGET's were - somewhere along the way (even inspite of my post to Harry Costas earlier in the thread to the contrary) I got it in my head that the WIDGET theory of dark matter was refering to a Background Bose Einstein condensate of BARYONIC matter (even though what I said to Harry Costas when he reminded me of WDIGETS was "So your pointing me in the direction of a non-baryonic theory to explain why another non-baryonic theory is wrong?").

So no, it's not a strawman fallact as you as you seem to want to assume, it's a simple misunderstanding, and if you got off your pedastal for one god dam minute, and took the fricking chip off your shoulder, you'd realize that in a thread where I've been posting daily, I've been gone for at least 10 days. In that 10 days, my wife has been critically ill, my baby daughter has been delivered 5 weeks premature at the average weight of a baby 8 weeks premature, i've had a job interview, and all while having to work 12 hour nightshifts.

So I think under the circumstances, I'm allowed to remember one piece of information a little bit wrong (That the WIDGET theory refers to non baryonic very low mass bosons rather then normal baryonic matter).

Sheesh, you're so venemous, and yet you decry my attitude.

Once again, you're twisting my words.

Nowhere have I stated that SUSY particles must be the missing mass of the universe.

The most I have said is that they are one possibility, that there may already be some observational evidence to support this possibility, and that further observational evidence to support or deny it was expected when GLAST is launched, and when the LHC fires up.

In your zeal to falsely attribute things to me this seems to have been twisted to be "It must be SUSY particles" when in fact nowhere on this thread have I claimed to know what dark matter is.

I'm not going to address most of the blatantly venemous BS in this post except to point this out.

You claim that our estimations of stellar compositions are out.
You claim that this throws our estimations of stellar masses out.
You claim that this throws our estimations of galactic masses out.

And yet you have produced pecisely ZERO proof to back this up.
You haze provided ZERO calculations to show how far out these factors put galactic mass estimates.
You have provided ZERO proof to back up your 'Iron core' assertions.
You have provided ZERO proof that even our estimates of stellar masses are in error.
And when confronted directly with the point that the relationships between luminosity, colour, and mass can (and have) been emperically derived, you simply sidestep the issue completely refusing to address it at all.

Trippy, thanks again. I'll look up WIDGETs.

In reference to the 'iron core' thing, I won a $50 bet some years ago with someone who claimed the same sort of thing. We talked our way into an astrophysics lab, talked our way up the deputy department head, and he told my bud to fork over. Very nicely, though. He said to my friend, "It would appear that you are mistaken."

I was gentlemanly, too. We went to dinner, my treat!

Yes.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

Yes. You aren't missing anything.

Not at all. It's perfectly congruent with plasma theory.

IMO it does point us in that direction, as does the missing momentum problem.

First of all, keep in mind that there are many possible configurations of materials that would not require us to assume that the mass calculation is off.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6754021971907867193

As this video demonstrates, surface tension and EM fields can have very surprising effects on spheres in space. The outside surface can be more dense than the interior of a sphere in space.

Having said that, there are many potential ways that our concept of the total mass of the sun might be off, such as a z-axis acceleration of the solar system, or an EM effect between the planets and the sun. Newton used a "rock on a string" analogy to describe the force of gravity. As the rock swings faster there is more tension on the string and gravity has to offset that tension. If we swing that same rock on a string at the same speed, but we also ride up in an elevator while doing it, there would be additional force on the string due to the acceleration of the rock and the string in the z-axis. Using Newton's same analogy, we can demonstrate that a force of acceleration on the central mass in the z-axis will result in additional force on the string. The same idea could apply to the sun. If the sun is experiencing an acceleration in the z-axis, it might require that the sun must contain more mass to offset that additional force on the planets. EM influences might have some influences as well.

Now keep in mind that all the satellites that we've launched up into space, and all the flybys of the planets we have done seem to confirm that our concept of solar and planetary mass appears to be *highly* accurate. I would expect that z-axis acceleration and EM influences would have been inclined to have reared their ugly head by now.

Since I see no obvious signs of other influences on solar mass, I tend to lean toward a solar mass model that resembles that water shell/ air bubble analogy, with lighter elements inside the crust. The sun may even contain a small massive core that rotates rapidly at very high speed, and slowly rotates inside the shell over the period of 22 years, giving us an 11 years solar cycle. All of these option are consistence with plasma cosmology theory, and I highly support that cosmology model as well.

This post has been edited by Michael Mozina on Jan 18 2008, 11:14 PM

Hi all,

If my knowledge is still current on this (no pun intended), this is not the standard view. There are "super-granule cells" that are traveling in opposite directions in the chromosphere. They are responsible for "dissipating" localized magnetic fields towards the poles. This gives a preferred tendency to collect polarities at the poles, giving the impression that we have an Earth similar "dynamo".



M. Mozina, previous to my last post, I had only read one paper that you linked (already forgot which one), and the one that you worked on, "THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS". Now, I spent the time to look at your website, and some of the linked papers.


I'm not ready to get off the fence on this idea yet. I agree with some of the things that you are saying, and I understand that we do not yet have a complete theory, that adequately explains some of the questions that you brought up.


The main thing is, I don't understand/agree with the term "solid" being used, nor can I see that the "picture" ends on "iron" as the dominant element.


I agree with Trippy, that you seem to be using the same principle against current theory, to support yours. Namely, that the "view" that we have had is not the whole picture (I agree with that), and then, you wish us to "stop" at 171 A, and call it quits.


Certainly, is is well accepted that we have Fe X & IX at 171 A represented in absorption lines. This is mathematical. Going over to technology, we run in to a bit of a problem (IMO), with the response of the filter. Looking at the instrument report, I see we have +/-~ 6.5 A , as a width.


(trace.lmsal.com)


Also, a full report for STEREO is available here: EIT: EXTREME-ULTRAVIOLET IMAGING TELESCOPE FOR THE SOHO MISSION


To make this easy, go to this site http://www.camdb.ac.cn/e/spectra/spectra_search.asp , and enter the range that we are dealing with, say 165 to 177 A, (do not add any element parameter) and hit "retrieve". This is well within the width of our filter (because we will disregard Doppler broadening at the source).

I'm obviously not going to post all 256 pages of the available 5105 transitions. It suffices to say that Fe is not in any way dominant on this list. H, He, Ni and Ne all post the highest numbers, from my skimmed view. One could also do a similar search, for the 195 A +/- ~6.5 A, and come up with even more possibilities.


So, my question is, "how are our forbidden transitions affected by a plasma state". I have no recollection of this, nor a source to look in. Does anyone know?


This is why I ask, "why stop at 171 A, as if this is the last layer?". It seems a bit premature to assume that we have an iron core (let alone a solid one). The temperatures DO drop way down, inside a CH, below the layer of interest, but never to a point to solidify (at least with the data we have now).


Also, we have "ground support", in this paper, "A STUDY OF HYDROGEN DENSITY IN EMERGING FLUX LOOPS FROM A COORDINATED TRANSITION REGION AND CORONAL EXPLORER AND CANARY ISLANDS OBSERVATION CAMPAIGN" ( http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/321488 ).

With MSDP, we are getting a more complete picture. With any quasi-monochromatic approach, measured through 2 similar paths (semi-coherent), we will get some "cross-talk". This would be analogous to a "Solar Hanbury-Brown & Twiss" measurement of "beats". This is basically what barakn has pointed out. You are getting "quantum beats" in the differential pictures. This is one time that I would agree with the standard QM statement, that "when we are not looking (with this method), those mountains are not there". This "monochromatic assumption" plagues many interpretations.

What I would personally lean towards, is a "churning" at the equator, of a great many different elements (in plasma state), producing the differing speeds of rotation at the equator, and near the poles. The mix of lighter elements would make the mass estimation closer to expectations. The whole "ball" would display a consistent 3D "cymatic", or systemic property, with well defined, self-organized, plasma boundaries. This answers why we would have cyclical patterns appearing in the "under" layer. The "variable", is the incoming radiation, that we have basically zero data on, and how it interacts with our Sun, made visible in the outer layer.



regards,

T.Roc