Starship Asterisk*

Hello Qev

What you say is logical.

But! There is something wrong.

The ultra dense plasma matter would only need to be the size of a normal room.

The density would need to be so great to give it huge gravity to keep in the heat and release the energy and neutrons slowly.

I maybe on a limb on this, but until I see the light one way or another I will not rest.

Ok, another point how do you explain the origin of our solar system.


Thanks qev

Unfortunately, one of the linchpins of that author's theory is the Solar neutrino problem, which has been solved through the detection of neutrino oscillation.

Also, if the core of the Sun were an actual degenerate neutron star, it would a) weigh twice as much, at least, b) would be undergoing shell fusion instead of core fusion, which means the Sun would be a red giant, and we'd be dead. Neutron stars don't generally accumulate thick shells of hydrogen gas around themselves; they detonate. They're called 'x-ray bursters' (not to be confused with GRBs).

Oddly enough, there [b]is[/b] a theory describing objects consisting of a red giant with a neutron star core. These are called Thorne-Zytkow objects, however nothing like one of these has ever been observed.

I'd have to see something pretty convincing indeed to even entertain the idea that the Sun's core is degenerate. Current theories aren't broken, certainly not enough that this would be a valid replacement. :)

Hello Orin

You said I disagree with my link.

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,I do not understand.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to the core of the sun. I'm still not happy with the density and its composition from the varies studies.

In my opinion the inner core of the sun has degenerated matter. If I was to guesstimate I would put it about 10^ 10 to 10^15.

The reason why is that a high density would preventing and overheating and keep our sun from expanding and exploding by the fusing reactions. Maybe I'm wrong, but until I find the answer I will keep on looking.


In normal starformation some stars will explode leaving a neutron core from which the neutron star develops another star envelope.

The neutrons are so compacted that they feed the star envelope for billions of years.

Some neutrons change to protons, and what we have 2 neutrons and 2 protons fuse together to give helium and energy.

There must be a supply of neutrons either from the star envelope of the inner core of the sun.

One second I think I know where that link is.
He we go.


http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

[quote]The Sun’s radiant energy and protons in the solar wind (SW) come from the collapsed supernova core, a neutron star (NS), on which the Sun formed. The cradle (Figs. 9-12) indicates that the energy of each neutron in the Sun’s central NS exceeds that of a free neutron by @ 10-22 MeV (Figs. 13-15) Solar luminosity and the flux of solar-wind protons are generated by a series of reactions (Fig. 16): a) escape of neutrons from the central NS, b) decay of free neutrons or their capture by other nuclides, c) fusion and upward migration of H+ through material that accreted on the NS, and d) escape of H+ in the SW. An example might be:

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

b) The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

Reactions like a) and b) produce part of the Sun’s radiant energy and perhaps the luminosity of isolated neutron stars25. Note that reaction a) alone may release more energy per nucleon than is released by the sum of reactions b) and c), the decay or capture of neutrons plus H-fusion. The well-established Solar Neutrino Puzzle26 confirms that reaction c) generates only part of the Sun’s total luminosity. Most 1H+ from b) is consumed by H-fusion, but the anomalous abundance of H (See Fig. 8) shows that 1H+ also leaks from the interior, selectively carrying lighter nuclides to the solar surface (See Fig. 6) before departing in the solar wind at an emission rate of about 2.7 x 1043 1H/yr. Homochirality in living creatures26 was likely initiated by circularly polarized light (CPL) from the Sun’s early NS. Their fate and climate changes of planets27 may depend on the half-life of this massive nucleus at the Sun’s core.[/quote]


Now who questioned the origin of our sun.

or am I getting it wrong.


Where is starnut?

Gosh Harry; You disagree with your link on the Sun's makeup. I found some interesting information on the sun from Soho.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=26888
Orin

Hello Starnut

If you have time maybe we could form a team. If i tried by myself it will take me till the cows come home and than some. There are too many points to cover. Too many areas that need backing up.

Anybody else interested welcome.

There will be no bosses.

Hello Starnut

My Baloon,,,,,,,,,,,smile,,,,,,,,,, is OK

As for time, no I do not have that much.

As for a final theory, if it was that simple mate I would have formed it much earlier.

As for a pinch of salt, your info needs a ton of it. I really think you need to work on the info.

As for my info, I need more, there are alot of issues that I'm following up.

One is the Origin of our sun.
Sorry Starnut but your info puts a lid on it preventing possible alternatives. Maybe your right and if you are heads up for you.

But! all the info will be done in my time not yours.

Also I need more info on Ultra dense plasma matter with reference to neutron stars, varies quark stars and the theoretical preon star and the Black Hole formation. All this with respect to a recycle process.


I have come across to many scientist who have tried to bust my bubble and most went running with their tails between their legs.

Too many cosmologists are emotional over their ideas and so be it. But I always respect others even though I think the opposite. If we all agreed imagine what would happen.

Harry, instead of putting in only few lines of statements, why don't you give us an in-depth explanation of why your conjectures and hypotheses are correct? Please don't say you are working on it because if you know what you are talking about, you would have thought about your beliefs for a long time and have the data and math to back them up. Then by now, you would be ready to explain it all in this forum.

You stated in your profile that you are a scientist. Do you have a PhD in astrophysics? Do you have access to multi-million dollar telescopes, including gamma ray, x-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio? Have you submitted papers to scientific journals and have they been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication?

Otherwise, I assume you are just someone (perhaps a retiree like me?) with a lot of time on his hand, and I would have to take what you say with a grain of salt.

As for the sun having a neutron star as its core, nonsense! If there was an isolated neutron star that wandered into a cloud of gas and dust 4.5 billion years ago, it would be accreting the gas and dust but it would not grow bigger! It would keep accumulating them and they would just form a thin and dense layer near the surface. Once in a while, the heat and pressure due to the neutron star's extreme gravity would ignite this layer in a thermonuclear explosion, creating a nova (NOT a supernova). Then things would settle down and get back to normal. We would not have a sun like what we have now, big and shiny, because there would be no nuclear fusion in the core to make it shine and hot. Also, a neutron star by itself would have a mass at least 1.5 times that of our Sun, and if it has been a part of the Sun's core, the higher gravity would make the planets go around in their orbits much faster than they do now!

Sorry to puncture your ballon. :(

Hello Orin

The above link I do not agree with

The question with our sun that has never been discussed deeply is this.

Since our star evolved from a neutron star, having a compact core of neutrons. We would expect the inner core to have this neutron compaction. To keep the structure of the sun stable. If the core did not have this great density the sun would ballon out.

What do you think?

Nice link Harry! Interesting to note that what meets the eye is only on the surface.
Orin

Hello

Our Sun
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/SunLayers.html

Core The innermost layer of the sun is the core. With a density of 160 g/cm^3, 10 times that of lead, the core might be expected to be solid. However, the core's temperature of 15 million kelvins (27 million degrees Fahrenheit) keeps it in a gaseous state

Solar Envelope The temperature is 4 million kelvins (7 million degrees F

Photosphere It is only a few hundred kilometers thick, with a temperature of 6000 K


The photosphere is what we see comapred to to the white dwarf of 200000 C

But! if you are going to compare our sun with a white dwarf you need to compare maybe the core or part of the solar envelope. This can be somewhere between 15,000,000 to 4,000,000 K.

The reason for this I think the white dwarf has been formed from a NOVA which ejected the solar envelope.

Hi! Harry. We don't have to talk about the scratch. For instance, the surface temperature of the white dwarf is one of the hottest surface temperatures recorded at 200,000 degrees C. Kind of makes the sun sound rather cool in comparison. Wonder if the sun will get that hot when it becomes a white dwarf? Oh Well I probably won't be here. 8)
Orin

Hello All

How can that be a scratch?

What type of a discussion can we have over a scractch?

That puts a damper on it.

I'd guess that it's probably just an image artifact of some sort, possibly from post-processing the image. There are a few other glitches in the image if you hunt around on it. :)

Hello All

I had a second look at the image with my glasses.

Its not a scratch, it may be a lazer jet from either a very compact star or a small black hole.
The reason for my answer is because of the nodules, the doted parts that occur in jets.

mm looks very scratch like to me...
anyone here know if its possible to scratch digital images? :p

I am also wondering what the line of white dots are.
As the line does not seem to be in the Hubble Heritage Project image that is brought up through an online link in the explanation I assume it is an image defect resulting from the post-processing of the original image.

Hello All

I can't see the line at 2 to 3pm or is it am.

I think we are looking at face on hour glass image.

If that is so we would expect some straight line projectiles.

Good observation; pictures are repeated from time to time. Even the line is still there.
Orin

Not just a repeated picture, but even the caption is the same!

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990703.html

Doesn't answer your question, but gives you someplace upon which to search for the answer.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060507.html

Awesome; One of the most spectacular views yet! But what is the straight line to the right of the white dwarf; at between 2 and 3 o'clock? is it part of the view or maybe a scratch on the photo?
Orin