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

Hi all,


On a personal note,

I knew that there was something going on, that was setting you on edge.


My best thoughts are with you; Ive been through similar situations, and know that it is not easy, at all.


Try your most, to keep a smile on your face; your wife needs it. Vent a little here, but also, a smile (even cyber) goes a long way. Points can be made very well, without reference to the way opposing views make us feel. I don't mean to "preach", I have been guilty of this a time or 2 as well.


What ever I can do, do not hesitate to send a PM. I know there isn't much, from such distances (at least we're in the same hemisphere), but maybe you just need someone to "dump it out onto". "Strangers" can be oddly comforting at that.



sincere, peaceful and healthy regards,

T.Roc


This post has been edited by TRoc on Jan 19 2008, 01:00 AM

Most of the mass of our solar system is hydrogen, and obviously no fusion reaction produced that. However it is definitely responsible for the remaining stuff (except some primordial helium). It's unreasonable to assume that the kind of processes that we can observe now didn't occur in the past to produce our sun. Giant clouds of molecular hydrogen slowly collapse and form stars. The biggest stars have the shortest lives. When they explode as supernova, they do two things: their shock waves trigger collapse in as-yet uncondensed regions of the molecular cloud, and they seed those collapsing regions with heavier elements, resulting in a second generation of stars with more "metals" in them than the first generation.

Sorry about taking your example too literally. Consider that NASA and other space programs have to model the future paths of the planets, asteroids, comets, moons, etc. in order to launch probes to the right place. This is accomplished by running a gravitational model of the solar system, and one of the pieces of data used in this process is the solar mass M (actually they usually use GM, but G is a constant so M can be derived trivially). If a model of the solar system was set up with all the initial positions and velocities correct but an invalid solar mass, it would become obvious soon enough that the planetary orbits were far too ellipsoidal to be correct.

Iron cores are going to be a divisive topic in this discussion because of the people involved . Nonetheless I'll tackle it. The crux of the matter is the extremely high pressures and temperatures in the sun. A favorite problem to give to astronomy undergrads is a calculation of how long it would take a photon to escape from the sun's core, and the result is on the order of 10 million years. It takes this long because of all the collisions that take place between it and the super-dense matter around it. The same thing would happen to an iron atom on its way down, making the settling process many orders of magnitude longer than on earth.

Strictly speaking, most of the mass is in the form of hydrogen ions, that is protons and electrons. "Hydrogen" may give the impression of neutral hydrogen gas which has vastly different properties than its constituent ions. See also: 99.999% plasma

Oh the irony of that comment! Gee, I wonder why anyone might assume malice from you?

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Trippy, I definitely think you need to take some additional time off and chill out. It's clear to me at least that the current trials and tribulations of your life are having an adverse effect on the quality of your (our) conversations.

All I have tried to express to you in this thread is that there is a distinct and obvious difference between empirically tested physics, and theoretical constructs that have no empirical support. You seem intent on being angry at me for discussing the difference between real physical "science" and theoretical metaphysical constructs that lack empirical support. At this point in time, many of the key elements of standard theory lack empirical support in any controlled lab test on Earth. That's not my fault, I'm just the messenger. It's not my fault that nobody can demonstrate that inflation has any effect on matter in a controlled scientific experiment, nor it is my fault that nobody can do this with 'dark energy'. It's not my fault that astronomers grossly underestimated the mass of galaxies, and it's not my fault that some of them attempt to stuff that gap with all sorts of metaphysical entities. You may not like the implications of this behavior, but you're getting angry at the wrong guy. Like I said, I'm just the messenger.

What state the matter is in had nothing to do with my argument. I was referring to the identity of the elements involved, whether ionized or not. Also, you are apparently ignorant of the fact that a substance may be considered a plasma even if >99% of its atoms are not ionized. reference Carroll and Ostlie's "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" estimates that only one in 13,000 hydrogen atoms in the solar photosphere is ionized. This says nothing about the solar interior, but it does show that your assumption that 100% of the plasma in the universe is 100% ionized is most certainly a gross overestimate. If there was anything useful in your post, it was to illustrate how many EU fanboys don't know enough physics to make arguments on its behalf.

This post has been edited by barakn on Jan 20 2008, 06:52 PM

Still missing the point I see.

One of the points that you miss, is that I understand, and have understood what your objections are right from the first post. You, however, have refused to hear or aknowledge any of the points that I have made.

It's not you that bugs me, it's your attitude (go on, be predictable, take another dig).

I wasn't using my recent challenges as an excuse for my behaviour, let's get this straight right now. My perceived attitude is a direct reflection of your own.

The only reason why I brought any of that up in the first place was to demonstrate that there had been no deliberate attempt at malice or deception in regards to your baseless accusations of me opting to use a strawman fallacy - only a minor misunderstanding on my part (more of a mental rewriting really) about wether WIDGET's were Baryonic, or non baryonic. My responses with regards to Bose-Einstein condensates in respect to your comments about WIDGET's being non-baryonic was a direct reflection of this genuine misunderstanding, not an attempt at deception.

I have tried to explain to you that I object to your use of the phrase 'Metaphysics' when referring to the λCDM model, because of it's common use as a perjurative, and yet you persist in using it.

I hazve tried to explain to you that the view that you are espousing is, in many respects a double standard, and I have endeavoured to explain, in detail why I consider this so, and named many, many examples to support my statements, and yet you have yet to aknowledge that they have even a single iota of validity.

I have even tried to explain to you that there are experiments planned, starting in the next 6-18 months that are anticipated to provide direct observational evidence of both dark matter and dark energy.

I have offered you several challenges to your philosophies, none of which you have been able to meet.

Thanks to everyone for the responses (and re-responses in barakn's case) to my questions. It isn't necessarily an easy thing for a noob to interject simplistic thoughts into a conversation that is on a level so much deeper than my education allows a full understanding (especially those more detailed and/or esoteric points). That said I'm just looking for some feedback as to whether I'd be a "crackpot" ...

Here's where this discussion (and others here) have led me over the last few weeks:

#1: I'm skeptical that Hubble was dead on right -- without a link I refer to Halton Arp and Geoffrey Burbridge's assertions that noncosmological redshift are legitimate factors which Hubble did not consider and subsequent observations have cast doubt upon. I've even read about some of Hubble's own unpublished doubts. This information (entirely new to me) leads me to believe that the Universe is quite possibly MUCH smaller than we think. There is a reasonably fair discussion of the issue at this link.

#2: The primary active process in a star is fusion. The result of the fusion process is to convert a volume of lighter elements into heavier elements with the result being that thos heavier elements migrate to the core of the body over the lifetime of the star. That those heavy elements (metals) are an electro-dynamo which are responsible for the existence of the magnetosphere of the star (in the same way it does on Earth, Jupiter and Saturn). I don't know that this means that electrical interactions take place between anode and cathode galaxies and/or even neighboring stars but it is an exciting possibility that as a layman I find difficult to reject. There is nothing I'd like better than to be alive during a proven discovery that fundamentally changes the way we view the Universe.

#3: If #1 is correct then the dark matter/dark energy search will be fruitless. So ... if the LHC experiements don't find the evidence they are looking for then wouldn't it be reasonable to take another look (a detailed open-minded look) at Hubble's conclusions? Wouldn't it lovely to discover that the Universe is much smaller and probably much older than we currently believe? Wouldn't it be nice (and isn't it more intuitive anyway) if there was no significant expansion? Yes, I guess it sounds like I'm a "Steady State" believer I suppose; but honestly I didn't know what the Steady State really meant a few months ago.

It is somewhat arrogant for me to come here as a layman and express that the currently accepted theory doesn't light my fire. What the hell do I know ... I plead simple intuition though.

Here's a metaphor for how I see the current cosmology theory --

The King of Cosmoland ordered his chef to prepare the ultimate pie to suit his palate. He told the chef his favorite pie was Apple. The chef went off and prepared the best Apple pie he could and presented it to the King. He liked the pie but told the chef it was missing something. The chef went back to work; again and again he added and subtracted an ingredient or two and each time the King tried the pies he expressed that they tasted good but that something wasn't quite right. The chef tried for years to create the perfect pie for his King's palate but to no avail. Then one day he noticed the King drinking a Pepsi with his pie; as an experiment the next day he replaced the King's Pepsi with "The Real Thing" and baked another Apple Pie completely devoid of all the spices he'd been using to flavor it. The King tried the new pie and proclaimed it perfect. We all know "Things Go Better with Coke". --

So no matter how many new ingredients we add to the cosmos in order to balance the equation it just doesn't taste as good as when we serve it with something that gives it "Perfect Harmony". An always existing non-expanding universe is harmonious isn't it; and if noncosmological redshift is true doesn't it make it so? And doesn't the discovery that we overlooked (if we have) something fundamental in the study of our own star (which is right next door to us) call into question so many of our other assumptions?

Is it reasonable as a layman to walk around with all of the above as my current understanding? Or should I accede to those (like all of you) who have a far greater education and understanding of physics and accept the current model until you guys all agree and tell me something different? Sorry if all that is not particularly germane to the specifics of the discussion but this is my favorite thread on the board and I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Trolling:
Pepsi just sucks ... plain and simple ...
Scooby Doo Philosophy 101: Just pull the mask off the ghost and you'll find a regular bad guy.
Learn to Swim: Maynard James Keenan - Tool
Gamma Ray Bursts are a doddle ...
Feynman was Jesus ...





This post has been edited by uaafanblog on Jan 21 2008, 07:19 AM

Hello All

Hydrogen maybe the most abundant element or is it?


We have been told for years that H fusion is mostly found in the solar envelope.

If H made up most of the sun.

What holds the solar envelope together?
What stops it from expanding from all the turbulence?
What controls the heat or energy release from the core?

It requires a very high mass and density matter.

To get this H+ is transformed into Neutrons by the addition of just one electron.

Neutrons are able to be compacted to 10^17 kg/m3 and form a body that is more stable than any other matter. This process has allowed our sun to burn for billions of years by controlling the release of energy and preventing the expansion of the solar envelope. Imagine if we had a low density core. The solar envelope would expand and uncontrollable heat loss from the core, resluting possibly is a Nova or supernova.

Fe and other elements form part of a cycle that keeps on feeding Neutrons and vis-versa.

Fe formed from the fusion of atoms.
Fe broken down by fission reactions to He than to H than to Neutrons.
Neutrons by losing an electron become H+ and fusion starts again.
Forming an important cycle one of many.

Hey! thats my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,I could be wrong.
But! the logic is there.

Hi all,



Adding to my last post ( here ). The basic questions: (to MM)


Looking at data from a 171 Angstrom filter can not assure us that we are looking at Fe IX & X exclusively. Yes, this is where we can compute an absorption, but as I have shown, there are 5105 other transitions possible in the same "filtered" region.


We can also not be assured that an "solid iron core" is producing the magnetic field of the Sun.


I asked about forbidden transitions in the plasma state. I am still interested in what others have to say, but I did a little looking myself.


Let's start with a quick definition:

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


Also, a reminder that in these "plasma cells", or "self-organizing boundaries", we will find "vibrational nodes" that produce a vast change in density, compared to the surrounding regions. This is also directly related to "shock zones", where velocities can be seen to be null. De-excitation from collisions will be rare in these conditions. Without going into detail in this post (for brevity), I would just point to the need to discuss "collisionless shocks" as well. Perhaps I will be getting into that on the thread "SEC .. Earthquake precursors .." soon anyway.


An abstract from "Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society":

Effective collision strengths for fine-structure forbidden transitions among the 2s22p3 levels of Ne iv
Ramsbottom, Bell & Keenan
Department of Pure, Applied, and Theoretical Physics, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN

(emphasis added)

Starting off with general methodology.


Also, since Oxygen is "#3" in abundance in the Sun, the following should be relevant:


From "NASA Technical Reports Server"

Atomic oxygen-metal surface studies as applied to mass spectrometer measurements of upper planetary atmospheres
Sjolander, G. W.

Again, this is only a "general" link. (related to equipment; see below)


A little more about "measurement methods", from "Physica Scripta. Vol. 58, 599È604, 1998":

Forbidden Transitions in the Visible Spectra of an Electron
Beam Ion Trap (EBIT) Link to PDF
E. Traibert,* P. Beiersdorfer, S. B. Utter and J. R. Crespo Lopez-Urrutia
Department of Physics and Space Technology, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94501, U.S.A.

(emphasis added throughout)


The technical problems of our measuring devices should be questioned before (IMO) the underlying theories. However, if these problems can be traced back far enough into theory development, it may change our entire picture.


Finally, the closest that I could find, specifically to the problem at hand, is from:


Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 4:Origin and Evolution of the Elements, 2004ed. A. McWilliam and M. Rauch (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

Tracing Iron Abundance with Fe II Spectra in Astrophysical Plasma Link
E. VERNER
IACS/Dept. of Physics, Catholic Univ. of America and NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771

(I'll leave the details for those who wish to read the paper)

(emphasis added throughout)



regards,

T.Roc


This post has been edited by TRoc on Jan 21 2008, 02:25 PM

You're evidently still intent on killing the messenger.

There is a distinct physical difference between empirically tested physical science, and someone's faith in constructs that lack physical (empirical) support in controlled observations.

Let's just start with inflation. No other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation. Every other field in nature experiences a significant decrease in density over several exponential increases in volume. Nothing even remotely like inflation has even been shown to exist in a lab, anywhere on earth. Now you're welcome to put faith in that metaphysical concept, but it absolutely and positively is a metaphysical concept because there is no empirical evidence that it exists to be found anywhere in nature or in any controlled experiment. Lambda-CDM theory is a act of faith.

I don't practice EU theory from a "big picture" perspective. I take the Birkeland approach here and base my beliefs on what I can actually empirically demonstrate and measure. It's a "little picture first" approach to cosmology, and it's based upon classic methods of empirical science, real physical science.

It is not my fault that you put faith inflation, nor is it my fault that inflation is a metaphysical construct. You're simply blaming the messenger here for something that is entirely impersonal and that is unrelated to me personally. I just notice it and mentioned it, along with hundreds of other scientists on the planet.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

This post has been edited by Michael Mozina on Jan 21 2008, 04:42 PM

Ugh,

Point flew right by again I see.

Show me where I blamed you for aznything. I didn't.

All I have simply done is ask you to stop using a particular word because of its common use as a perjurative. That's it. Nothing more.

And once again, you're blaiming me for your misconceptions.

You keep blithering (hey, if you're allowed to use perjuratives, so am I) on about Guths inflation, in spite of it having been pointed out to you that modern inflation theories bare little of no resemblance to Guths inflation.

More over, obviously even Guths inflation predicts that the strength of what ever drove inflation decreased with time, because otherwise any inflation theory would predict that the universe is still expanding exponentialy.

What specific word that clearly distinguishes the difference between tested physical science and untested and unfalsifiable theoretical constructs would make you more comfortable?

Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density?

Hi all,



I think that "MM" (I hope you don't mind that), and Trip are are as close to "apologizing" as they are going to get. Not to be rude, but this is a Forum, and if all you are going to do is go on and on with the "personal" sleights, then you could do so via "PM". You both can move past this, and get into some productive discussions with the rest of us, as well.


Just don't use the word "meta-physical" anymore, because, socially, it has come to be associated with things like "telekinesis" and "ghosts". Those things, while many people believe them, have no Scientific justification. The "current paradigm" (a suggestion to replace meta-physical with) does have Scientific reasoning behind it, even if later, it proves to be off base. We did not get to our current state on the shoulders of idiots.


Right now, there is another question on the table, directed to MM. I am stating the same reasoning that you have used: you are basing your framework on "non-falsifiable" data. What I mean by that is, that the assumption that this data is fully accurate, and without possibility of being "off base". In the last 2 posts, I have clearly framed this claim with technical limitations.


Have you offered a "glimpse" of what lies in "sight" beyond 171 A ? (IE. "penetrated" into the area that you claim exists)


Have you brought back physical samples for us to examine, or done so "on site"? Is this possible right now?


Have you offered a mechanism that allows a "rigid iron surface" to rotate at different rates (poles vs. equator), and to "congeal" at the poles? (crossing this "velocity boundary")


You ask, "Please point me to any other scalar or vector field in nature that acts like inflation and that has been shown to increase it's volume exponentially many times without experiencing a significant decrease in density? ". I will gladly supply you with an example, after you have addressed the issues already on the table.





regards,

T.Roc

Actually the term "rigid" was used (intentionally) and composition of elements relates directly beck to Manuel's data. I came to the conclusion that the sun had a mostly iron shell based on the satellite data too, but Manuel's work is more definite in that respect.

Not at all. I'm simply noticing that different wavelengths give us a different set of observations with different characteristics. I only have access to very specific wavelengths however, particularly when we start looking at individual filters on individual satellites. The SOHO and TRACE filters for instance are limited to three iron ion filters (171, 195 and 284) and one helium ion wavelength 304A. We get very different images from the iron ion wavelengths compared to the helium ion wavelengths.

I'm not actually trying to "stop" at any specific wavelength, I'm just working with the specific wavelengths that are available to me. I've used RHESSI data in my presentations too from the gamma ray spectrum, and I originally became interested in solar satellite images via the Yohkoh program which produced mostly x-ray images of the sun.

I'm simply noting that some wavelengths provide a very different kind of data than other wavelengths. x-rays seem to be absorbed by the photosphere, whereas the iron ion wavelengths are not as easily absorbed by the photosphere.

As far as what the approach itself might be doing to complicate the interpretation process, we need to look at what effect has in other wavelengths. We don't get long lasting (2 hour plus) rigid features in 304A RD images. Why not? That's the question that we have to ask ourselves. Why are different wavelengths producing different sets of patterns, some showing "structures" lasting only a few minutes (G-Band for instance), while other wavelengths show rigid structures that last for hours ans sometimes days at a time.

While I observe this "churning effect' and differential rotation patterns in the helium ion images, including the RD images, I see no such differential pattern of rotation in the 171A images. Why is that?

Now of course when we apply a Doppler imaging technique related to Nickel ion wavelengths, we also find rigid features located under the photosphere. Heliosiesmology data shows us that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting at a shallow depth under the photosphere. What is that doing sitting in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard gas model theory?

It's not just one thing or one wavelength that I'm basing these ideas upon, but rather it's based on a wealth of information related to many wavelengths, heliosiesmology data, Doppler images and nuclear chemistry data. It is not as though I'm trying to build a federal case upon a single image or a single wavelength.

Does this help answer your questions at all?

I also wanted to mention that this solar model has actually been "lab tested" to a great degree by Kristian Birkeland. Warning: The following link is to a PDF file of Birkeland's work that is over 160 megabytes in size.

http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/nor...p01chririch.pdf

Birkeland not only tinkered with this solar model, he actually made predictions about the sun based on his simulations. He predicted and simulated a lot of the higher energy emission patterns we observe on the sun, including coronal loops and x-ray jets.

It would be inaccurate to assume here that there is any single piece of data that is critical in this model. In other words, this model comes from the analysis of a lot of different types of data, from nuclear chemistry data, from heliosiesmology data, from satellite image data, to controlled laboratory testing. It's not as though I would attempt to promote a new solar model based on only a couple of satellite images. There is a lot of different data here to consider, and a lot of different pieces of data that all point us towards Birkeland's early solar models.