Inner Core of our sun

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

You say:

Entropy trumps all else, if the universe was infinite in age all matter would be a homogeneous conglomeration of energies of a uniform temperature.

Lets assume that the universe is endless in all respect.

What processes are taking place to give us the present observations.

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

You got to allow yourself other options. Never ever close the door on any theories.

Man has not fully gained all the information required to formulated a model that can stand on solid foundations.

Even I who speaks against the Big Bag, I have not closed the door on the Big Bang.

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

The question amongst many is:

If the Big Bang did not create the parts within the Universe (TOTAL). Is their a possibilty that small Bang or Bangs made up the known super clusters and is this part of some form of recycling.

============================================
I have read this link:
I would not give much credit to it. He works from the assumption that the Big Bang is a fact.

http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/proton.html

Gravity controls the size of the Universe while the electric force controls the size of the electron. The strength of the electric charge controls the life span of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, while the strength of the gravitational charge controls the life span of the Universe - including, coincidentally, the half-life of proton decay. When g = c, as in the interior of black holes, these distance, time, and force scales are (locally) equal. In black holes, space collapses, time stands still, and proton decay is as commonplace as particle-antiparticle annihilation

Gravity does not control the size of the universe. The universe is a word given to the total "ALL".
The life span of the universe,,,,,,,,where does this character get his info from.
Time cannot stand still.

I could go through the paper,,,,,,,,,,whats the use.
============================================

[Dr. Skeptic]

Gravity does not control the size of the universe. The universe is a word given to the total "ALL".
The life span of the universe,,,,,,,,where does this character get his info from.
Time cannot stand still.

Harry, you are not putting 2 and 2 together.

Relative time can. A person traveling at the speed of light renders time motionless to the rest of the observer's universe.

As approaching the edge of the universe as space/time becomes "weaker" both time and distance decrease in magnitude. A distance becomes shorter but it takes longer to traverse. If you choose to use infinity, at the edge of the universe it would take infinitely long to move an infinitely short distance. We know that space/time is a derivative of mass, without mass space/time does not exist. Near a black hole, the effect is reversed.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic


You said:

Relative time can. A person traveling at the speed of light renders time motionless to the rest of the observer's universe

Partially correct if travelling at C away from the earth and that its implications to communication.

As approaching the edge of the universe as space/time becomes "weaker" both time and distance decrease in magnitude. A distance becomes shorter but it takes longer to traverse. If you choose to use infinity, at the edge of the universe it would take infinitely long to move an infinitely short distance. We know that space/time is a derivative of mass, without mass space/time does not exist. Near a black hole, the effect is reversed.

The universe has no edge in what ever logic you use. If you use man's maths than maybe space/time is a derivative, but ! time, actual time cannot be changed. Cannot be lengthen, shorten or given different dimensions.

You just as well prove that santa clause is true.

[Orca]

The universe has no edge in what ever logic you use. If you use man's maths than maybe space/time is a derivative, but ! time, actual time cannot be changed. Cannot be lengthen, shorten or given different dimensions.

You just as well prove that santa clause is true.

Time is relative. Time moves more slowly near massive objects or at high speeds relative to an observer. This has been proven many times...one experiment shows that identical atomic clocks, some in orbit and some on the surface of the earth, show discrepancies in the time they keep.

[harry]

Hello All

Time is relative when we talk of the means of communication.

The actual time does not change.

Time cannot be changed.

Unless someone gives me evidence of actual changes.

Than we can produce a time machine.

We all have that dream, to travel in time.
==========================================
This reminds me of evolution
The Larmack theory and Darwin theory.

Larmack said that the environment can select the change and so pass it on.
Darwin said the change occurs through natural selection.
============================================

[Qev]

Hello All

Time is relative when we talk of the means of communication.

The actual time does not change.

Time cannot be changed.

Unless someone gives me evidence of actual changes.

Than we can produce a time machine.

We all have that dream, to travel in time.

We're all time-travellers! It's just... we're going forward at one second per second.

But yes, harry, time is relative between different observers. It's been observed countless times, and has nothing to do with how we're communicating with the clock that's keeping time. It also has nothing to do with how the clock keeps time.

Orca mentioned atomic clocks in orbit, and this is a perfect example. Take two atomic clocks, synchronized, at the surface of the Earth. Keep one on Earth, send the other into orbit on a rocket... it's moving at a good clip relative to the ground-based clock. Leave it up there for a while. Then bring the clock back to Earth, and compare it, side-by-side, with the clock that's always stayed on the ground. Your communcation with either clock will be identical, but you'll find the clock that was in orbit is now running slow compared to the Earthbound one. And it will be running slow precisely the amount (okay, there's always some experimental error) that Special Relativity predicts.

(Interestingly, for slow-moving clocks at high altitudes, eg. in aircraft, the opposite effect occurs, and their clocks actually run faster than 'stationary', ground-based ones. This is due to the fact that the gravitational field of Earth weakens with distance, and gravity also slows down relative time.)

These sorts of things have been tested over and over. Heck, the GPS system we rely on daily needed corrections to accomodate for this phenomenon. If you're not going to accept time dilation, you're going to have to throw out all of Special Relativity, you know.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Sorry Harry, you are sooooooo wrong on this one. Try one of your searches on the "Twin Paradox".

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Dr Skeptic have a read of these links and let me know what you think.

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm
Time Dilation and Twin Paradox Debunked

The Special Theory of Relativity (as developed by Einstein) obtains a set of equations (i.e. the Lorentz Transformation formulae) which relates length and time units of two systems moving uniformly relatively to each other. Unlike the equations of the usual Galilei Transformation, these are not merely a linear transformation (describing the change in distance between two points due to the motion), but they are non-linear in the velocity due to an additional factor γ containing the ratio of the velocity and the speed of light (see for instance my Aberration page for details). This factor γ corresponds to the amount of 'length contraction' and 'time dilation' that, according to Special Relativity, should be taken into account if transforming length and time units between different reference frames moving relatively to each other with non-zero velocity. However, this re-scaling of the space and time coordinates is in fact the result of Einstein ignoring the principle of the constancy of the speed of light by applying the usual vectorial velocity addition and then subsequently trying to compensate for this error by making a further error and changing the given length and time definitions (see my page regarding the Speed of Light). As indicated on my page, with a consistent definition for the 'Speed of Light', no re-scaling of the length and time units is indeed required to make it independent of the motion of objects. The conclusions of time dilation and length contraction are hence invalid because they are based on a set of equations that is inconsistent with physical principles. This inconsistency is also evident from the well known 'Twin Paradox' which is due to the fact that motion is always only relative and any time dilation effect would therefore be ambiguous. Some physicists claim that the situation would in practice not be symmetric as one observer has to turn around in order to compare the clocks (see for instance http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html), but it is clear that this argument does not hold water as the time dilation should already be apparent before one observer turns around. This is best illustrated by the following thought experiment which does not involve any change of the state of motion of both observers:

One should note that the situation depicted above does not even involve any transmission of light signals at all and hence the basic assumption of Special Relativity does not apply in the first place. The clocks are started and stopped in each reference frame simultaneously and independently and both clocks will thus show identical times after having been stopped (after the clocks have been stopped it is obviously irrelevant if A or B (or both) turn around to compare the clocks).
It should also be pointed out that the signal propagation time from the trigger points to the clocks is irrelevant here (whatever way of transmitting the signal is used): if the corresponding distances are identical in both systems, then the delay times will also be identical and there won't be any difference in the clock readings afterwards; if the distances are different, this would only result in a constant offset of the clocks which would be known and could be taken into account accordingly.

As indicated on my pages relativity.htm, dynamics.htm and on the Relativity Forum pages, any alleged experimental evidence for the time dilation must therefore be due to actual physical effects (e.g. charged particles moving in electric and magnetic fields).

Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp

Finally, in a recent article, Ashby [[xv]] claimed that the clock-epoch correction term (also called the “time slippage” term) in the Lorentz transformations, (see Eq. ), can be dropped in SR even when its value is large, but he is very vague about why. In LR, this term can be dropped because initial clock synchronization is arbitrary. However, this particular term is the only difference of consequence between Einstein synchronization of clocks in different inertial frames and Lorentz synchronization of clocks to an underlying “universal time”. And the GPS system has been designed to use Lorentz synchronization, for which one frame, the local gravity field or ECI, is special; not Einstein synchronization, wherein clocks tick at their natural rates and all inertial frames are equivalent. By itself, this does not prove LR “right” or SR “wrong”. But the practical difficulties for GPS of not changing the natural rates of clocks pre-launch, or with the use of SR for any frame other than the Lorentzian preferred frame, are very great. If a ring of satellites (A, B, C, …, Y, Z) circled the Earth in a common orbit, and each satellite tried to Einstein synchronize with the next in sequence, then when Z tried to complete the circuit by Einstein-synchronizing with A, the corrections required would lead to time readings for A different from the starting readings, making closure impossible. In fact a single satellite clock could not Einstein-synchronize with itself because the time for a light beam to travel forward around the orbit differs from the time for the same signal to travel backwards around the orbit.



In summary, Table 1 shows the major features of and differences between the two competing theories for the relativity of motion, Einstein special relativity and Lorentzian relativity. Experiments have now decided in favor of the interpretations in the last column.

Also

What Global positioning tells us about the Twin's Paradox
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 0N1TVF.pdf

[harry]

Astro said

One for Harry

After looking at astro-ph today I noticed a couple of interesting papers, one is the crazy Iron sun theory that Harry has mentioned, I'm afraid it hasn't got any more lucid.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509

The second however is much more interesting. The investigators were looking for evidence that Quasars are associated with low red-shift galaxies, a la Halton Arp. Now most people know I don't give much credit to this theory, however it does look like they have found a reasonably strong correlation between Sloan digital sky survey quasars and the minor axes of edge-on spirals.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609514

This at first glance looks like a fairly nice paper, there is definitely something wierd going on here. The authors are only prepared to call it tentative, though they have quoted confidences of greater than 3 sigma.

This is very interesting, at a rough reading it seems likely that this effect is probably something to do with the way the SDSS chooses which objects to get redshifts for (and therefore potentially classify as quasars). Selection effects in large surveys like this are very tricky things and building a larger sample (by including more galaxies) tends to make the effect worse, in contrast to what happens when your trying to beat down statistical noise.
Hopefully the people at the SDSS will have some comment soon.

Anyway, nice to have a bit of controversy, and it sort of gives the lie to Arps claim that astronomers just ignore his theories.

What are peoples thoughts?

It is very healthy to have controversy, I 100% agree and would not have it any other way.

Sorry I moved Astro's comment to this topic.

[Nereid]

harry, in case you don't know, the ideas of Tom van Flandern, Michael Mozina, and Dr Manuel have been discussed, in internet fora which are avowedly scientific in their approach ... and no one has been able to defend any of these ideas, in terms of either internal consistency, or consistency with good observational or experimental results.

If you're interested, I can provide you with URLs to specific discussions which not only rip these, shall we say, 'wild' ideas to shreds, but also contain staunch defenders of these ideas struggling (and failing) to make an even half-way decent case for those wild ideas.

[Wadsworth]

Welcome Nereid! Link away, sounds interesting.

[harry]

Hello Neried

I would like to see those links


Until than

I just got an email from Prof Manuel

If you want, here is the link.

In my opinion, Prof manuel and other prof's are on track. They could be wild ideas, but! that does not mean they are wrong.



http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Th ... Origin.pdf


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

Can you explain to me which parts you think are wild, or should I say wrong.

[astro_uk]

Hi Harry

I'll leave out the atomic physics which looks dubius but I don't know anything about.

The two main problems as I see it are:

A neutron star in the sun!!! A neutron star requires a minimum mass of 1.4 X the mass of the sun. Even if by some magic you allow a neutron star of much less than this to form in a SN you still run into a density issue. Observations of the sun by SOHO etc have measured the density of the Sun. If there is a NS in the centre of the sun it must make up the vast majority of the mass of the sun, therefore the outer layers of the Sun should be much less dense than we observe them to be. Plus of course SOHO results are perfectly in line with there being no solid core, and the Sun being essentially pure H.

There is no solar neutrino problem. We see exactly the same effect in ground based neutrino experiments, that neutrinos can swtich between flavours and hence are not all detectable by the same instrument.

One point not related to the science has me very worried is some of Manuels statements on climate change, it almost seems as if he claiming the Sun is to blame for this.

[harry]

Hello Astro

Look at the origin of the sun.

How it evolves.

Now if the sun evolved from a supernova that left behind a neutron core, it is logical that we would expect a long life from it (10 to 12 billion years).

Now you need to follow and see what happened to this neutron core and what changes occured after 5 biilion years. Than what is left is the question. It is no longer a neutron star, but that does not mean the inner core does not contain a neutron compact core.

I could give you that info, but! I think it is best for you to self discover.

Also the influence of rejuvination where our solar system goes through a nebulae every few hundred million years.

[astro_uk]

Alright Harry lets look at it another way.

If neutron stars are supposed to emit some unknown energy, that is the energy that supposedly powers the sun, fine. Why then are all the other neutron stars we observe (usually as pulsars) not as luminous as the Sun? All the pulsars that have been observed, have emission that looks exactly like what you would expect if they were objects cooling down, or accreting matter from a companion star.

If neutron stars can give off energy because of some decay process, they should all have roughly the same lumnosity as the Sun, because they are all roughly the same mass, and the decay process seems to be proportional to the amount of neutrons present. They dont though.


To come at it from yet another direction, we see stars forming in dense interstellar gas clouds,

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap021102.html

but we dont see any stars forming around pulsars. If stars form around neutron stars, they must form relatively rapidly for the effects of mass segregation in the solar system to occur (this is a central argument of manuels), we should therefore still see radio emission form the neutron stars onto which the matter is coalescing. Again we dont see that.


The final problem being, just how do you form stars in the first place? How do the stars that become the neutron star form. You see Harry this is where you haven't thought about the implications of this idea for your own theories, you prefer an eternal unchanging universe. But to have a generation of stars that can form without these neutron stars requires a first generation, a generation of stars different from all of the ones today (which apparently all have neutron stars in them). Or is it simply a case of turtles all the way down?

[harry]

Hello Astro


I have covered all what you asked.

I want you to read up on the stages of star formation.

This will explain

If neutron stars are supposed to emit some unknown energy, that is the energy that supposedly powers the sun, fine. Why then are all the other neutron stars we observe (usually as pulsars) not as luminous as the Sun? All the pulsars that have been observed, have emission that looks exactly like what you would expect if they were objects cooling down, or accreting matter from a companion star.

Than you other question

The final problem being, just how do you form stars in the first place? How do the stars that become the neutron star form. You see Harry this is where you haven't thought about the implications of this idea for your own theories, you prefer an eternal unchanging universe. But to have a generation of stars that can form without these neutron stars requires a first generation, a generation of stars different from all of the ones today (which apparently all have neutron stars in them). Or is it simply a case of turtles all the way down?

There are varies theories as to the formation of compact star cores. I want you to self discover these. The other means is by the theoretical ejected material from black holes forming the seeds or possible compact cores.

I could give you all this info,,,,,,,,,,,,I'd rather not,,,,,,,,self discovery is most impostant in your case.

[Nereid]

Welcome Nereid! Link away, sounds interesting.

Thanks for the welcome, Wadsworth!

Let's start with Michael Mozina:

a relevant internet forum discussion thread
another one
a third
and one last one (for now).

Now Michael's ideas are based almost entirely on published images from various sources, including TRACE. That he misunderstands even fairly basic things about these images is clear from this thread.

To the extent that Dr Manuel's ideas incorporate Michael Mozina's, they incorporate the same flawed logic and bad science.

Perhaps the easiest way to see that Michael's idea is wrong is to consider the observed density of the Sun.

First, anyone can measure the Sun's angular diameter (of course, you must be extremely careful and avoid damaging your eyes). It takes a bit more work, but from this observation and observations similar to those which Copernicus made, together with some relatively straight-forward arithmetic, you can - for yourself - get an estimate of the distance of the Earth to the Sun. Combined with your measurement of its angular diameter, you have the Sun's radius, in km.

To get the mass of the Sun, you need to accept that Newton's description of gravity is (more or less) correct - the same data you (or Kepler) used to estimate the distance to the Sun will also give you an estimate of the Sun's mass, in kg.

Divide one by the other, and you get the average density of the Sun.

For the density of (solid) iron, you can either measure it yourself, or take someone else's word for it.

Now the flaw with Michael's idea is that the estimated average density of the Sun, by the above method or others, is much smaller than the density of solid iron ... and the errors in the measurements and calculations are far too small to allow the difference to be explained away as just 'measurement error'.

So, either the Sun is not composed of solid iron, or Newton's F = Gm1m2/r^2 is very wrong, or .... Michael's idea is inconsistent with good observational and experimental results.

Next - Tom van Flandern.

[harry]

Hello Nereid

You need to come up with a better explanation.

The above just tells me that you do not understand the issues and that you have not read the papers.

I do not care about the people that wrote the topics. I 'm looking at the logics behind it and the overall funtioning of stars and the universe.

Getting the density of the sun is ok. Finding the varies make ups is another issue. The make up of the inner core, outer core, varies layers and so on.

Nereid do not be too quick to close on ideas. Keep the door open or else you will be left with a closed mind.

[astro_uk]

Harry your using the same logic as craterchains here.

If you have evidence then present it.

I really don't have time to search the entire internet to look for evidence that you say exists, but I have no idea what form it exists in. All I can say is that I have never come across a peer-reviewed article that backs up what you are saying.

At the minute it just looks like you don't have any answers and are stalling. If so thats fine, but be honest about it.

Regarding Nereid's point, he/she? is quite right, the density of the Sun rules out an Iron Sun. Think about it logically Harry, Manuel is claiming that around 90% of the Sun is heavy elements, there is simply no way that you can have an object that dense within the Sun and not notice it. The outer layers of the Sun would have to be orders of magnitude less dense to compensate, this of course would also screw up all the convection that we see in the Sun etc etc etc

[Dr. Skeptic]

Harry, you are in denial that you house is on fire and insist that the heat is do to the way your furnace works, convincing yourself its not time to get out. Everyone else sees smoke and flames while you rationalize them into being essential, natural parts of your heating system - as long as you house is getting warm it must be working.

Are you ever going to respond to my question on quantum mechanics or is quantum mechanics another meaningless theory that has no place in "Real Science"?

[Nereid]

Hello Nereid

You need to come up with a better explanation.

The above just tells me that you do not understand the issues and that you have not read the papers.

I do not care about the people that wrote the topics. I 'm looking at the logics behind it and the overall funtioning of stars and the universe.

Getting the density of the sun is ok. Finding the varies make ups is another issue. The make up of the inner core, outer core, varies layers and so on.

Nereid do not be too quick to close on ideas. Keep the door open or else you will be left with a closed mind.

As astro_uk and Dr. Skeptic have already pointed out, if Michael Mozina and/or Dr Manuel cannot estimate, based on their wild ideas, the average density of the Sun, to within the observational errors, then why should anyone continue to spend time on such wild ideas?

For that matter, would you be prepared to show us all, using the Dr Manuel or Michael Mozina ideas, how the average density of the Sun could be what we observe it to be?

[Qev]

Interestingly, it seems that the minimum stable mass for a neutron star is on the order of 0.1 solar masses. Below that, they would apparently fall apart quite violently, as gravity fails to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle. Effectively, an enormous fission bomb.

Even so, this can't be taken as support for Manuel and Mozina's ideas. For starters, even having a 1/10 solar mass neutron star for the core of the Sun would skew its average density in noticable ways. Not to mention the Sun would be behaving a lot differently; neutron stars are remarkably extreme, violent environments.

Even more importantly... where are you going to get a 0.1 solar mass chunk of neutron star from? The minimum mass required for one to form is in excess of the Chandrasekhar mass, about 1.4 solar masses, and once you've got one that size, how're you going to chip bits off of it? The surface escape velocity is half the speed of light. Anything energetic enough to 'break a piece off' isn't going to leave the piece it gets as anything more than a spray of subatomic particles.

[harry]

Hello Qev

I will post these links, I do not agree with them on some issues, but ! read them anyway

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html


I post this one before

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 20410.html

and
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/n ... 31203.html
=========================================

It may take 1.4 sun mass to form the neutron core. Than it will break down to what ever level beore it loses its ability to hold the neutrons together. This crirical mass may also be the tricker in starting another supernova. Mass will determine the ability to balance the heat and keep the solar envelope together.

Once the critical mass is reached, it release energetic photons that split the iron atoms and causes a chain reaction releasing huge amounts of energy.

[Qev]

It may take 1.4 sun mass to form the neutron core. Than it will break down to what ever level beore it loses its ability to hold the neutrons together. This crirical mass may also be the tricker in starting another supernova. Mass will determine the ability to balance the heat and keep the solar envelope together.

Once the critical mass is reached, it release energetic photons that split the iron atoms and causes a chain reaction releasing huge amounts of energy.

Problem is, there's no mechanism by which they can spontaneously break down. Gravity dominates in a neutron star, overpowering even the strong force. There's no decay mode that I'm aware of that can cause mass loss from this environment.

Neutron star collisions could possibly 'break' neutron stars, but these events are so energetic that it's more likely the components are completely destroyed (either by being consumed by the forming black hole, or simply by being blasted apart). Even if neutron star collisions were perfectly efficient in spending all their mass creating the lowest-stable mass (and thus the most numerous) fragments, at one ns-ns collision per decade per 60 million lightyear radius (our current estimate of the frequency of such events), that only creates enough 'cores' to allow about 50 new stars being born per decade.

I do like the pasta-antipasta descriptions of neutron star internal structure at the first link. Who says scientists don't have a sense of humor?

[harry]

Hello All

qev said

Problem is, there's no mechanism by which they can spontaneously break down. Gravity dominates in a neutron star, overpowering even the strong force. There's no decay mode that I'm aware of that can cause mass loss from this environment.

There are mechanisms for breaking down a neutron star.

Rather than just closing the door on some issues go the distance and find the answer.

===========================================
some links
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041223.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960531.html
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/Images ... Small2.gif


This link is ok, but ! for the Big Bang logic.
THE LIFE CYCLES OF STARS,,,,
http://spacescience.nrl.navy.mil/starlifecycles.html

functioning of a neutro star

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html#accretion

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

Many stars owe their existence to compact cores that determine their life span.

The more compact the longer the life span.

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