Starship Asterisk*

Hello Michael

Thank you Michael for your time, i know that you must be very busy.

In one way or another you answered my question.

You said

The idea ultimately is that neutron stars can eventually "grow up" to become "MECO's". In other words, they grow in size and mass by merging with one another, but the repulsion forces of neutrons in the core ensure that they do not collapse into black holes, Rather they become rather very large "MECO's".

It may be that neutron stars eventually collapse into "quark stars", but even in that scenario, I doubt that a "black hole" is ever formed, rather we simply end up with a smaller "MECOs".

I agree with you 100% about black holes not ever formed. Just a ultra dense plasma matter that does not allow light to escape.

What about the next step in compaction?,,,,,,,,Preo stars (Theoretical) before the so called Black Hole matter.
========================================


Keeping it simple

I emailed Oliver for his opinion on the following


1 Singularity. In my opinion cannot form. But! than it relies on how you define a singularity. If it is an infinite point than I do not think that it is possible, but if it’s a point where we have compaction of some order as in the progressive compaction from a neutron core 10^18, quark stars 10^18 to 10^22, preon stars (Theoretical) up to 10^35 and the so called black holes ????.

2 Condensed nuclear matter is the driving force for a steady outpouring of hydrogen and luminosity. Do jets expel condensed nuclear matter?

3 I agree with you stellar explosions may expose the neutron core but! also rejuvenate it.

4 What is the possibility of Black Holes,I call them ultra dense plasma matter ejecting small and highly dense neutron or maybe quark or preon matter. Preon matter the size of a 300mm ball has the same mass as our sun.

5 Neutron star fragmentation. How could this occur?

6 What are the possibilities of segregation of Neutrons, quark and preon matter? If it is possible imagine the convectional currents.

7 Just thinking aloud. We know that the elements segregate into layers within the solar envelope.

What if the cycle takes this form.

Neutron core
1
Neutrons released plus energy
1
Hydrogen
1
FUSON FORMATION OF THE ELEMENTS UPTO IRON
1
IRON HIT BY HIGH ENERGY PHOTONS
1
NEUTRONS FORMED
1
NEUTRONS REJUVINATE THE CORE

This balanced cycle controlled by the size of the Neutron core. Which balances the heat release and the electromagnetic gravitational hold on the solar envelope.

When the core loses its mass at some critical point the cyclic process goes out of balance producing more iron and the solar envelope begins to expand. At some stage the iron reaches a critical point and a critical mass reduction within the core releasing huge amounts of high energy photons breaking down the iron. This releases huge amounts of energy that triggers fusion reactions in an expanded solar envelope. This huge amount of energy and a low mass neutron core explodes the solar envelope. The neutrons rejuvenate the existing core.

What do you think? Am I thinking inside the circle or out of it?

Michael,

I note that you have written several posts since I posed two questions to you.

I would like to ask you to post no more to this thread until you have answered those questions.

Thank you.

All,

A gentle reminder - this is an astronomy forum, and so also a scientific forum.

Hello Neried

What was your question?

I know you asked Michael.

=========================================

Interesting link on the Sun. Some parts I disagree with, but thats me.

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

In the link it talks about solid layers in the sun. I cannot see this or understand, than again I will read it again and again.

Michael your the man to ask questions on this link. I'm now reading your 32 page paper. So I'll read it and come back to you.

As the years go by, I'm becoming happier with the explanations on the funtioning of the stars and the funtioning of the universe, I should say the ongoing universe.


===========================================

Hello Michael,,,,,,,,,,,,,whats an insider,,,,,,,,,,,smile

harry wrote:Hello Neried

What was your question?

I know you asked Michael.

[snip]

There are two, back one page in this thread, on Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:22 am:

What is the range of values of the average density* of the material in the Sun, between the bottom of the 'solid layer' and the top of the 'neutron star', in your idea, that is consistent with the numbers you have provided?

Separate question: what is the value of 'g' at the surface of this 'solid surface' (per your idea)? By 'g' I mean the local acceleration due to gravity; it's ~9.8 m/sec^2 at the surface of the Earth.

Michael gave a non-answer on Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:13 pm (remember, astronomy is quantitative!), and I asked for the numbers again on Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:00 pm.

Now harry, no more "Sun has a solid surface ideas", or Sun has a neutron star at its core presentations please, nor links to sites promoting such ideas, until we work through some very simple, very basic physics, to test this Mozina/Manuel idea. Call it 'critical thinking' if you like.

Hello Neried

And you call this science, trying to control the flow of information.

I thought this is a free flow discussion.

If you look at history its not just Mozina and Manuel thinking along those lines.

I may not agree with them on some issues.

But! they have very important points of discussion.

harry wrote:Hello Neried

And you call this science, trying to control the flow of information.

I thought this is a free flow discussion.

If you look at history its not just Mozina and Manuel thinking along those lines.

I may not agree with them on some issues.

But! they have very important points of discussion.

Hi harry,

Once again, this is a scientific forum, not a free-for-all, stream of consciousness, all ideas are equivalent (no matter how wild), ... forum.

The questions I asked are extremely simple, and should take no more than 15 minutes to work out. These questions, and about another dozen, are the sorts of things that anyone interested in studying the Sun, from a scientific standpoint, should answer, before even considering writing down the ideas, much less developing a website.

Another thing: science is not democratic. The universe cares not one jot about the number of individuals of the species Homo sapiens who agree, disagree, know about, have never heard of, understand, don't understand, ... any particular idea that comes from the mind of one (or more) such individuals.

But, you're right in one respect ... it doesn't matter who does the calculations to come up with those two number (or ranges) - would you like to have a go?

Here, I'll even give you the basic formulae:

F = Gm1m2/r^2

(F is the gravitational force between two masses, m1 and m2, separated by a distance of r; G is the gravitational constant).

V = 4/3 pi r^3

(V is the volume of a sphere or radius r)

average density = m/V

(average density in a volume V; m is the mass contained in that volume)

To do the calculations, you will also need the mass and radius of the Sun (this site, among many other websites, has that), together with the numbers in earlier post(s) by Michael, plus an estimate of the average density of whatever comprises the supposedly solid surface.

Hello All

Neried, I know you mean well. But I have been to alot of groups of discussions and many are dead because of moderators. It is is not a perfect world. But! I do agree with you we need a balance of science or else scientists will not come to our group in fear of "stupidity".

Do you know how lucky we are to have Micheal visiting us. I know how busy he is.

==========================================

OK,,,,,,,,,,going back to the sun

We could measure the average density of the sun, thats quite simple.

What is complicated is the inner layers.

What interests me is the CORE. The inner and outer core.

How much density is required to control the heat release?

How much density is required to hold the solar envelope in its present form.?

There are more questions.

Thanks for the reply Michael.

What about the other question? The one about the surface gravity at this 'solid surface'?

Next easy question: what is an indicative height for the features of this 'solid surface'? A kind of general idea of the vertical relief.

While I'm at it, I'm sure you have this somewhere already, what is an indicative temperature of this 'surface'?

And just to lay it out a little more clearly - these questions are very, very simple, and form part of a 'sensibility check' that should have been done a long time ago (if you are serious about this idea being scientific). In other words (IOW), you should have had them lying around in your notebooks; and if not, it should have been the work of but an hour to pull them all together.

If you get a paper published, with details of your wild idea, it may be appropriate to engage in a wider discussion; for now, speculative ideas, not backed by even the most basic of sensibility checks will not be permitted in this forum. It's your choice Michael - don't post further here (at least, not in relation to ideas that are not yet published), or put the results of the simple, sensibility checks on those wild ideas (that I and others ask for) on the table.

I forgot the immediate follow-on question to the density one ...

What is the pressure at the bottom of the 'solid surface layer', in this idea of yours Michael? I assume it's the same as the pressure at the top of the 'average density between 1 and 1.2x' layer, but perhaps I shouldn't assume - is the Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium, all the way from the core to at least to the top of the 'solid surface layer'?

Again, this is a very simple, very basic 'sensibility check' question, though it may be easier to express it in terms of some parameters, rather than as a specific number.

Hello All

I'm very intersted in Micheals ideas.

He should be able to express his opinions and what he thinks.

Its not every day that a person like Micheal walks into a forum like this.

He has a mind set, that is rear.

harry wrote:Hello All

I'm very intersted in Micheals ideas.

He should be able to express his opinions and what he thinks.

Its not every day that a person like Micheal walks into a forum like this.

He has a mind set, that is rear.

Michael has his own website, and as owner of that, he is free to say whatever he wants (no doubt within the law of whatever country hosts his domain).

There are dozens, nay, hundreds of internet discussion fora which allow pseudo-science to be presented and discussed. However, Discuss an APOD, and NSL, is not one of those fora.

If (when?) Michael's ideas make it into print, in a peer-reviewed scientific publication (relevant to astronomy), we can discuss the ideas, as presented in that (or those) papers.

Until then, how about we limit discussion solely to the very basic, very simple things which any scientist must do, in order to move their new idea beyond speculation untrammelled by considerations of the physics which you accept every day of your life (such as when you choose not to leap off tall buildings, without a parachute etc, and expect to not go splat, or when you expect to be able to read, and post, on this forum).

Of course, in good old Aussie fashion, if you'd like to "have a go" at answering the very basic, very simple questions I asked about Michael's idea ....

Hello Neried

You said

If (when?) Michael's ideas make it into print, in a peer-reviewed scientific publication (relevant to astronomy), we can discuss the ideas, as presented in that (or those) papers

Micheal knows that, and I will be waiting for that moment.

So what do we discuss. I will sit on the fence waiting.

I have already started discussions by email to some Prof and NASA on some issues. Yes! they are unconventional issues. Until they are written up, in a few years than I shall discuss them.

Hello Michael

I have seen that movie many times.

Can a fluid under electromagnetic forces give the same result making it look like a solid.

There is the other movie which shows movements across the object. During this movie the objects remain stable structure as they move from left to right. Now this makes me think. What type of material will allow such structure to hold together on the surface of the sun. Could it be solid and if so how could it under such extreme temp.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another point

Looking at the different types of star cores.


Superfluid ???? Density 10^5

Neutron Core Density 10^18

Quark core Density 10^19 to 10^22 about

Preo core Density 10^22 to 10^35

The question is what temperature is required to keep the particals in place?.

What electromagnetic forces are required?

==========================================

I read your previous post and agree with you.

I see great potential in you.

You have lateral thinking.

Hello Michael


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0510/0510111.pdf

As a conclusion, we would like to emphasize our most significant result: the change in
radius goes from being in phase with the solar cycle in the deeper layers to out of phase
the shallower layers with a transition at 0.99R⊙. This result could eventually lead to a
deeper understanding of the physics behind the changes

.

I have read the above link

The question is

What effect has the ongoing functions within the star on the radius of the sun or the surface depth layer.?
The previous link may have the answer.

What effect has the planets on the radius of the sun. Particularly Jupiter.
and the 11 year cycle.

If I ask too many questions, please let me know. If your too busy I understand.

Sometimes my sentences may seem relaxed and laking logic. Its because I work 12 hrs a day. Smile and than do this as a hobby.

I will search and read papers on the above questions.

Hello All

Interesting info on this link

VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF IRON SUN
http://www.omatumr.com/data.html

http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Suns_core.htm

The core of the Sun is hidden inside a mantle made mostly of Iron (Fe), covered with a surface veneer of Hydrogen (H). The core probably looks like this Chandra x-ray image of the pulsar that was formed in 1054 AD by the supernova explosion that produced the Crab Nebula. The core emits neutrons, which quickly decay to Hydrogen. Mistaking this "smoke" from this nuclear furnace at the Sun's core as its "fuel" caused the "Solar Neutrino Puzzle." Elements made deep in the supernova - Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel, and Sulfur - blanket the Sun's neutron star and account for its bulk composition.

The question is, can the neutrons be released from a neutron core. Many have questioned the possibility.

I tend to think the process is probable.

http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/9a.pdf

Sources of Solar Energy (SE) [19, 20]: • Neutron emission from the solar core ( >57% SE) <01n > → 01n + ~ 10-22 MeV • Neutron decay or capture ( <5% SE) 01n → 11H+ + e- + anti-ν + 0.782 MeV • Fusion and upward migration of H+ ( <38% SE) 4 11H+ + 2 e- → 24He++ + 2 ν + 27 MeV • Escape of excess H+ in the solar wind (100% SW) Each year 3 x 1043 H+ → Depart in the solar wind Neutron-emission releases 1.1% - 2.4% of the nuclear rest mass as energy. Hydrogen-fusion releases 0.7% if the end product is helium, and fission releases 0.1% of the rest mass as energy [20].

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:Thanks for the reply Michael.

What about the other question? The one about the surface gravity at this 'solid surface'?

Next easy question: what is an indicative height for the features of this 'solid surface'? A kind of general idea of the vertical relief.

According to the heliosiesmology paper I cited for you earlier, the top side of the surface changes by an average of about 10km on the top of the surface. That may not all be due to changes only in the actual surface features, but rather a change in thickness of the crust and the surface layout. Just to be on the safe side, I'd be inclined to split that number in half as it relates to surface elevations and suggest that nothing is probably much taller than about 5km.

While I'm at it, I'm sure you have this somewhere already, what is an indicative temperature of this 'surface'?

About 1200-1400 Kelvin.

Thanks.

If an image of the Sun, taken from the Earth (or at a distance of approx 1 au) has a resolution of 1" (one arcsecond), that corresponds to approx 700 km 'on the Sun' - do you agree?

What sort of 'lighting' (illumination) would be needed to produce a resolvable 'shadow'*, on the Sun, of a feature that has a vertical relief of ~10 km?

*by an instrument, with a 1" resolution, at a distance of ~1 au.

And just to lay it out a little more clearly - these questions are very, very simple, and form part of a 'sensibility check' that should have been done a long time ago (if you are serious about this idea being scientific). In other words (IOW), you should have had them lying around in your notebooks; and if not, it should have been the work of but an hour to pull them all together.

Well, these have in fact been fairly "sensible" questions IMO as well, though I can't say the same for your light propogation through plasma question from the other forum. I have taken at least an hour away from my family time now, futzing with spread sheets, and uploading them to my website simply to satisify your personal curiosity about whether or not I can do math. In a "typical" conversation, if someone has an actual "problem" with an idea I have presented, they typically provide the math they feel is a relevant rather than fishing for numbers randomly and expecting me to provide them on demand.

It seems that what I wrote has been misunderstood; allow me to clarify.

This is a scientific forum.

The 'Sun has a solid (ferrite/iron) surface' idea is a radical departure from standard models of the Sun. This radical idea has not yet been published in peer-reviewed (astronomy) journals.

Under normal circumstances, presentation and discussion of any such radical idea would be out of scope, here in Night Sky Live.

However, as it has already been discussed, and as there is a reorganisation under way, we can continue the discussion. One condition of continuing is for you, or any other supporter of this idea, to answer very simple, very basic questions about it. If you choose not to, then that's OK.

For avoidance of doubt, there is no requirement that you (or any other registered member) answer these questions.

Since you expect me to do work on your behalf, and provide "sensibility checks" as it relates to these ideas,

I have no such expectation, in terms of what you should (or should not) post here. Per my clarification above, it's your choice.

The expectation I do have is that these sensibility checks have been done, and that they would be very easy to write up. Further, if you are enthusiastic about your radical idea, I expect that you would take every opportunity to explain it, to answer questions on it, etc.

But, to repeat, whether you choose to avail yourself of this opportunity to explain your idea, or not, is entirely up to you.

let's also talk about "sensibility checks" then as it relates to standard theories. How about a sensibility check on the density of inflaton fields in BB theory as well? What other scalar field do you know of in nature that remains at a constant density while the volume increases exponentially? How about we apply this "sensibility check" to the concept of mass separation of plasmas in gas model theory. What kind of "mixing" forces are going to be required to keep iron and hydrogen plasma from separating in the solar atmosphere in the middle of such strong magnetic and gravitational fields?

Some very good questions here, and no doubt there are many folk who would be very interested to answer them, either here, or here or here (or in several sites on the internet).

However, most of these questions are off-topic for this thread (but we do have several other threads, here in the Café, that would be relevant).

If you get a paper published, with details of your wild idea, it may be appropriate to engage in a wider discussion;

Some of our work has already been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy, and we are working to make sure that more work will be published very soon.

for now, speculative ideas, not backed by even the most basic of sensibility checks will not be permitted in this forum.

As long as your "sensibility checks" continue to remain "sensible", and you are willing to return the favor by also providing some sensibility checks for BB theory in the other thread, I'll be happy to work with you on this issue Nereid.
[snip]

We are not bargaining here Michael; there is no 'deal' to be had ...

There are dozens, nay, hundreds of internet discussion fora which allow pseudo-science to be presented and discussed. However, Discuss an APOD, and NSL, is not one of those fora.

Nobody besides you ever suggested that we discuss "psuedo" anything Nereid. Talk about unfair and unreasonable debate practices.

I would personally prefer that we discuss the real life satellite observations such as this one, that led to my theories whenever you are ready to discuss the real "science" behind my theories.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

And what is it that you think this shows Michael, in terms of a 'solid ferrite/iron surface'?

For starters, could you please give us an indication of the scale (e.g. arcseconds per pixel, or km per pixel) as well as the units of intensity (e.g. what's 'white'? what's 'black'?)?

Oh, and before I forget, did you answer this question?

What is the pressure at the bottom of the 'solid surface layer', in this idea of yours Michael? I assume it's the same as the pressure at the top of the 'average density between 1 and 1.2x' layer, but perhaps I shouldn't assume - is the Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium, all the way from the core to at least to the top of the 'solid surface layer'?

harry wrote:Hello All

Interesting info on this link

VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF IRON SUN
http://www.omatumr.com/data.html

http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Suns_core.htm

The core of the Sun is hidden inside a mantle made mostly of Iron (Fe), covered with a surface veneer of Hydrogen (H). The core probably looks like this Chandra x-ray image of the pulsar that was formed in 1054 AD by the supernova explosion that produced the Crab Nebula. The core emits neutrons, which quickly decay to Hydrogen. Mistaking this "smoke" from this nuclear furnace at the Sun's core as its "fuel" caused the "Solar Neutrino Puzzle." Elements made deep in the supernova - Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel, and Sulfur - blanket the Sun's neutron star and account for its bulk composition.

The question is, can the neutrons be released from a neutron core. Many have questioned the possibility.

I tend to think the process is probable.

http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/9a.pdf

Sources of Solar Energy (SE) [19, 20]: • Neutron emission from the solar core ( >57% SE) <01n > → 01n + ~ 10-22 MeV • Neutron decay or capture ( <5% SE) 01n → 11H+ + e- + anti-ν + 0.782 MeV • Fusion and upward migration of H+ ( <38% SE) 4 11H+ + 2 e- → 24He++ + 2 ν + 27 MeV • Escape of excess H+ in the solar wind (100% SW) Each year 3 x 1043 H+ → Depart in the solar wind Neutron-emission releases 1.1% - 2.4% of the nuclear rest mass as energy. Hydrogen-fusion releases 0.7% if the end product is helium, and fission releases 0.1% of the rest mass as energy [20].

harry, has this been published, in a peer-reviewed (astronomy) journal? If so, can you please give the reference?

Hello Nereid

Good question I will check and get back to you.

Right now my time is spent on another project. For the next few days I will be in and out.

Hello Michael


I'm very interested in your work.

My question is the same as before.

Can a fluid show the same properties as a solid.