Starship Asterisk*

How do you know it is a new star and not an old star shedding its skin.

As for Dark Matter

Dark Matter is a magical word.

Dark is given to its name because it does not give out light.
Blackholes absorb all light and therfore may look Dark.

Most of the matter in the universe is high density plasma found in blackholes or similar objects.

Most of the matter in the universe is high density plasma found in blackholes or similar objects.

I would sure like to see some type of evidence to support that statement.

Hello Bilderback

I will come back to you soon

Unil than search for it and you will find the evidence.

harry wrote:
Infinity does not exist within a black hole.

That is, if a black hole can exist without a singularity at its center. As far a I understand it, at the center of a black hole lies a singularity. A singularity is said to be "infinitely dense" because it has a vast amount of mass taking up "no space." When they use the term "infinite" when talking about a singularity, they are describing the fact that that our physical laws and the mathematics behind them break down; there is no testable scientific method to explain what's actually going on within a singularity.

harry wrote: The calculation is " How many quaks can be compacted within the volume of lets say a hydrogen atom. Lets say 1 billion times although I think it is much more.

Also, as far as I know, we can calculate how small on object of a given mass would have to be compacted to form a black hole; but once that object was compacted to that limit, no force could resist the inward "crunch" as that unfortunate object became a singularity.

harry wrote: The matter that is broken up to its basic of basic particals can only be compacted to a finite number.

What ever matter becomes or falls into a singularity has no form that we are familiar with; it's not particles anymore.

Current theory (as far as I understand it):

When a star the size of the sun dies, the material that is left after the convulsions of shell burning finally ceases, a white dwarf star is left behind. It is composed of an extremely dense ball of atoms. If the star is more massive, it ends up a neutron star; the forces within the nuclei are overcome by the gravitation, and electrons and protons are forced together creating a ball of neutrons. It's no longer any matter we have seen.

If the leftover mass is high enough, the gravitation overcomes the last frontier...even the structure of the neutrons can't resist it. The star collapses into a singularity and a black hole is formed.

Ultimately, all information...aka all energy and matter...are lost in a singularity...any structure or pattern is destroyed; all that is left is the horribly warped area of space-time in which the singularity resides.

FYI;

The total amount of mass needs to be accounted for the gravity field to remain constant.

Mass is not being converted into energy or any other exotic matter that does not have mass (maybe?).

Opinion, I don't like any theory where X/0 is a mathematical representation.

Hello Orca and Bilderback

"When a star the size of the sun dies, the material that is left after the convulsions of shell burning finally ceases, a white dwarf star is left behind".
A sun depending on the size of its core will shed its Iron skin several times. Leaving a core that looks new sometimes a dwarf or a neutron star.

"It is composed of an extremely dense ball of atoms. If the star is more massive, it ends up a neutron star; the forces within the nuclei are overcome by the gravitation, and electrons and protons are forced together creating a ball of neutrons. It's no longer any matter we have seen."
Extremely dense ball of atoms cannot create the high density required for long life and fuelling of the sun. As with respect to the compaction of neutrons I would go one more step. The breakdown of protons and neutrons to quaks and than compacted, or possibbly one more step further electrons.
the compaction difference is about
30,000,000,000,000,000,000 quaks
178,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrons

"If the leftover mass is high enough, the gravitation overcomes the last frontier...even the structure of the neutrons can't resist it. The star collapses into a singularity and a black hole is formed."

Yep

"Ultimately, all information...aka all energy and matter...are lost in a singularity...any structure or pattern is destroyed; all that is left is the horribly warped area of space-time in which the singularity resides."

Nothing is lost in a singularity. Forget about space and time: thats gone out with the stone man and the movie ho ha.
Its like a blackbox anything that happens within does not alter anything outside or inside with respect to time.

A singularity is not a point in space it has volumn, mass , extreme density, extreme temperature, extreme gravitational and electromagentic forces. Some balcholes are estimated at secs and some at several light months across. Thats the singularity itself.

harry wrote: A sun depending on the size of its core will shed its Iron skin several times. Leaving a core that looks new sometimes a dwarf or a neutron star.

Only the heaviest stars produce iron at all. The Sun for example won't have enough mass to fuse elements much more complex than oxygen or so.

harry wrote: Extremely dense ball of atoms cannot create the high density required for long life and fuelling of the sun.

Long life and fueling a sun? No offense, but do you understand how the life cycle of a star works? You do realize that the only fuel for the majority of a star's life (its "main sequence"), regardless of initial mass, is hydrogen? You also realize that the smaller the initial mass of the star the longer it will live? Look up "main sequence" or "shell burning" on google for more info.

harry wrote: Nothing is lost in a singularity. Forget about space and time: thats gone out with the stone man and the movie ho ha.

My arguments are based on current scientific theory. You are going to have to post your sources if you want to make a case. Just uttering things like "...relativity is so passé" isn't going to cut it.

Hannes Alfvén
First published in 1948 in the book The New Astronomy , Chapter 2, Section III, page 74 -79


Hannes Alfvén is an original contributor to the potent new discipline of magnetohydrodynamic, to which he brings a background of work in such varied and related fields as cosmic rays, fundamental electronics, aurorae, earth magnetism, sunspots, and the design of electron tubes. He was born in 1908 at Norrköting, Sweden, and educated at the University of Uppsala. Since 1940, he has been professor at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [He died in 1995. Biography]

Nearly everything we know about the celestial universe has come from applying principles we have learned in terrestrial physics: Newton's laws of motion, our studies of the spectrum of light, our explorations of the nucleus of the atom and other major discoveries in our physics laboratories have contributed to our enlightenment about the stars-their motions, their chemical composition, their temperatures and their source of energy.

Yet there is one great branch of physics which up to now has told us little or nothing about astronomy. That branch, is electricity. It is rather astonishing that this phenomenon, which has been so exhaustively studied on the earth, has been of so little help in the celestial sphere. Electricity has illuminated our cities but has shed no light on stellar phenomena; it has linked the earth with a dense net, of communications but has given no information about the universe around us.

Certainly we have seen plenty of evidence of electrical phenomena out in space. Within the last few decades we have discovered several important electrical effects in the heavens: strong stellar magnetic fields such as could only be caused by large electric currents, radio waves emanating from the sun and from many star systems, and the energetic cosmic rays, which are electrically charged particles accelerated to tremendous speeds.

These phenomena, however, are still very mysterious. We have no idea how electric currents may be generated and transmitted in the stars or in space. Although we know a great deal about electricity, almost everything we know is based on its behavior in wires. We generate electricity by moving copper wires in a magnetic field, and we can transport, broadcast and use electrical energy only by means of wires. Any electrical engineer, asked what he could do without using metal wires at all, would certainly say nothing.

But there are no wires in the stars. They consist entirely of hot gases. While physicists have given much study to the behavior of electric currents in gases, we know of no means by which gases can generate electricity. Hence the electrical phenomena in stars present us with a completely new problem.

We cannot bring the stars into our laboratories. But we can investigate electrical behavior in a medium roughly comparable to the gaseous body of a star and under comparable conditions. We know that there are magnetic fields in stars. We also know that very hot incandescent gases, such as makeup a star, are good electrical conductors. In the interior of a star the gases are under such great pressure that they may be much denser than ordinary liquids. Since we cannot work with gases under such pressure in a laboratory, the closest we can come is to use a liquid. .Of the common liquids, mercury is the only one which is a good conductor of electricity.

We have recently conducted some simple experiments with mercury in a magnetic field and observed several very curious and striking results.

Everyone is acquainted with the "mercurial" behavior of mercury. If you tap the side of a vessel containing a pool of mercury, the surface quakes and ripples as if it were alive: We found that when we placed such a pool in a strong magnetic field of 10,000 gauss, its behavior instantly changed. It did not respond to jarring of the vessel; its surface stiffened, so to-speak. The magnetic field gave a curious kind of viscosity to the mercury. This was illustrated dramatically when we dipped the two ends of a bent metal wire into the liquid and moved them through-it. Ordinarily an object dragged through mercury moves as easily as through any liquid. But when the magnetic field was applied, the wire pulled the mercury with it, producing a big surge in the pool. It was like moving a stick through honey or syrup.

This behavior is easily explained. The wire and the surface of the mercury between its ends form an electricity-conducting circuit. When the wire is moved across the magnetic field, it creates an electric current. Since an electric current always produces a magnetic field, the new current creates a second magnetic field. This interacts with the one we have already applied to the pool of mercury, just as, two magnets attract or repel each other. The force between the two magnetic fields opposes the motion which is producing the current. As a result the wire sticks to the mercury as if it were a very viscous liquid.

Let us now consider another experiment that disclosed a more remarkable and illuminating phenomenon. We fill a small tank with mercury. The tank has a movable bottom which can be rotated back and forth like the agitator in a washing machine. In the absence of a magnetic field, the slow oscillation of this agitator, stirring the mercury at the bottom of the tank, will not disturb the surface of the mercury at the top of, the tank; the mercury molecules slide past one another so that the motion dies out before it proceeds very far up the tank. A mirror floating on the surface, with a beam of light shined on it to show any slight movement, stays perfectly still. When a strong vertical magnetic field is applied to the tank, however, the motion at the bottom is quickly communicated to the top.

What we have created here is a new kind of wave, which was predicted theoretically about ten years ago but was actually produced for the first time in this experiment. The wave is the result of a coupling between magnetic and hydrodynamic forces. When, the mercury at the bottom moves in the magnetic field, it generates electric currents. These currents, with there attendant magnetic fields, produce mechanical motion in the mercury immediately above, which in turn creates new currents that act on the next layer. Thus the movement is communicated up through the whole body of the liquid. This rising wave of motion is called a magnetohydrodynamic wave. It has three characteristics: it produces (1) mechanical motion, (2) a magnetic field, and ( 3 ) an electric field.


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

What has all this to do with the stars? It is possible to show that our mercury model reproduces many of the essential properties of stellar matter. To be sure, the magnetic fields in the stars are very much weaker than the 10,000 gauss of our experiment ( the sun's general field is estimated at between 1 and 25 gauss). But our theory tells us that if we made the vessel larger, we could produce the magnetohydrodynamic effects with a smaller magnetic field; the magnetic force required would decline in proportion to the increase in size of the vessel. Hence in a star, which is, say, 10 billion times as large as our experimental vessel, the magnetic field need be only one 10-billionth of the laboratory field. The stars' fields are much stronger than this.

The results of our experiments lead to an entirely new way of looking at the behavior of stellar matter. It has always been assumed that the movement of gases in stars obeys the laws of hydrodynamics, as they apply to ordinary liquids and gases. But if a magnetic field drastically changes the properties of the dense stellar gases as it does in the mercury model, then they must behave very differently from ordinary fluids. Let us see whether the curious behavior of mercury in a magnetic field can shed any light on some of the great mysteries in astronomy.

Consider sunspots. Few astronomical phenomena have been more thoroughly studied. We have charted their paths across the sun's surface, discovered their cycle of activity and their effects on solar radiation, analyzed their light and learned from the splitting of their spectral lines (the so-called Zeeman effect) that they have strong magnetic fields. But what sunspots are, how they originate, how they can produce magnetic fields -- that seems more difficult to explain. It was once thought that sunspots were great eddies in the solar atmosphere, similar to cyclones on the earth. The motions of gas in sunspots, however, are not at all like those of the air in cyclones.

The pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place if we think of the mercury model. We can assume that the energetic nuclear reactions in the interior of the sun cause violent motions of the matter there. This would correspond to the stirring of the mercury at the bottom of the vessel. In the sun's general magnetic field, whose lines of force apparently run from the center of the sun out to the surface, these motions would generate magnetohydrodynamic waves that would travel to the surface. The waves would account for the strong magnetic fields associated with sunspots.

As we have seen, magnetohydrodynamic waves also generate an electric field. This may well account for some of the other phenomena observed on the sun's surface. The very high voltages generated by the waves may discharge into the sun's atmosphere, very much as a discharge tube in the laboratory produces corona discharges into the air. Such discharges would explain the solar prominences. The marvelous motion pictures of solar prominences taken at Pic du Midi in the Pyrenees and at the High Altitude Observatory near Climax, Col., give a vivid impression that they are electrical discharges.

The sun's emission of radio noise, another great mystery, would also be accounted for by this method of generating electricity. As radio listeners know too well, all sorts of electric currents -- in transmission lines, household appliances and so on -- produce radio noise. The large electric currents generated in stars by magnetohydrodynamic forces would give rise to radio waves and broadcast them into space.

Finally, the magnetohydrodynamic process seems to offer a plausible explanation for the great energy of the cosmic rays. How these particles are driven to their fantastic energies, sometimes as high as a million billion electron volts, is one of the prime puzzles of astronomy. No known (or even unknown) nuclear reaction could account for the firing of particles with such energies; even the complete annihilation of a proton would not yield more than a billion electron volts.

But if we suppose that the cosmic-ray particles are driven by electric and magnetic fields in space, in the same way as we accelerate particles in our big laboratory accelerators, it is easy to see how they could reach very high energies indeed. We know that interstellar space is not absolutely void. Although the matter in it is very thin, certainly not more than an average of one atom per cubic centimeter, in the vastness of the universe it adds up to an enormous amount of material. In at least some regions the interstellar matter is ionized, so that it is a good electrical conductor. Furthermore, there are good arguments for assuming that a weak magnetic field (some millions of a gauss) pervades all of space. It is likely, therefore, that magnetohydrodynamic waves roam ceaselessly througlr space, generating weak but very extensive electric fields, especially near the stars. If so, we can picture charged atomic nuclei being propelled across electrified space, gathering speed as they go and crashing into the earth's atmosphere with energies far beyond any that could ever be generated within any star or planet.


Please note that this was written in 1948 - Aqua

There's more to the picture of what happens in extremely dense bodies, than what gravitational forces can explain.

Thats very intersting,,,,,,,


Hello Orca

As for the process in the sun. I can give you links as to the functioning and the iron present within our star and the influence a nebula has over near stars with adding Iron to their diets.

Hydrogen fusion is a seconday burn compared to the energy stored within the core.

Without a high density core the sun would not hold together. It does not matter how many books you have read. Step outside the circle and read beyond.

The models that exist today are bound to change. In the last 40 odd years of discussing cosmology I have noticed many changes.

One great change was that I argued that The BiG Bang theory was wrong and that one day when we look into deep field we shall see an existing formation of Galaxies. At the time most cosmoligist said we will see the birth of the universe.

I do keep an OPEN mind and not to be closed.

harry wrote:One great change was that I argued that The BiG Bang theory was wrong and that one day when we look into deep field we shall see an existing formation of Galaxies. At the time most cosmoligist said we will see the birth of the universe.

You obviously don't speak to many good cosmologists!

As for the dense core thing - why would the sun be unstable without it? We've been through this is another thread....
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=823

Why the Core to be dense.

When the core has high mass than the star has a tight sphere.
When the core loses its gravitational pull the star expands out. This will happen to our sun one day and when it does it will expand possible to earth.

As for good cosmoligist. Give me one that is able to go on a limb and not a yes man.

We are at the steps of a great journey. Its easy to go with the flow.

My question is how compacted is the core?
Has anybody got any suggestions.

Why the Core to be dense.

When the core has high mass than the star has a tight sphere.
When the core loses its gravitational pull the star expands out. This will happen to our sun one day and when it does it will expand possible to earth.

As for good cosmoligist. Give me one that is able to go on a limb and not a yes man.

We are at the steps of a great journey. Its easy to go with the flow.

My question is how compacted is the core?
Has anybody got any suggestions.

I agree with the core being dense, but not to the extent of a neutron star - it's the mass of the star that makes it dense.

I know what you're saying but it's easy to go out on a limb - I could come on here and claim that everything was invented by a giant iguana called Bob, who got bored one day so spawned a universe...

My point is that there are many people who go out on a limb - the important aspect is evidence - even prediction. You keep bringing up these ideas - which are very valid and interesting incidently - but when quizzed about evidence you deflect the questions.

To quote yourself, it's a little easter bunny and santa....

http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html

Instead of speculation, try researching. By observations of orbital speeds of the planets, the Sun's diameter, variance in rotational speed of the Sun, the magnetic field, Doppler/acoustic measurements of the surface, and so on the physical properties of the Sun is understood more than you think. including the density of the core.

S. Bilderback wrote:http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html

Instead of speculation, try researching.

Here here. Not to mention spectral analysis of the sun's make up. Harry, the sun is in the main sequence, which means it is roughly composed of 75% H, 24% He, and 1% everything else. Iron has NOTHING to do with powering the sun, or fusion for that matter. Nothing. Nadda. The opposite in fact. Iron is the death of ANY star with high enough initial mass to actually get to that complex an element. When a star tries to fuse iron, it requires more energy to fuse than is released by the reaction. Therefore the heat produced by fusion no longer wins the battle against gravity, and the star collapses in on itself.

edit: the 75-24-1 ratio is very rough. Our star is barely middle-aged...so the ratio is much larger in favor of H.

Principal chemistry
Hydrogen 92.1%
Helium 7.8%
Oxygen 0.061%
Carbon 0.030%
Nitrogen 0.0084%
Neon 0.0076%
Iron 0.0037%
Silicon 0.0031%
Magnesium 0.0024%
Sulfur 0.0015%
All others 0.0015%

harry wrote: I do keep an OPEN mind and not to be closed.

That's good. I agree with you here. A closed mind doesn't get you any closer to the truth. But on the other hand, being credulous and jumping on any new "theory" that comes down the pike isn't very helpful either. You must use objective criticism. I suggest you (everyone in fact) read a book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It's a very good read.

8)

As I had to tell one of my science instructors at one time, there is an old saying that 'you can't have an Open Mind and an Open Mouth at the same time'.

Anything by Carl Sagan is worth a read

Hello all.
Thank you for your patience and ongoing discussions.

I did not say that Iron is part of the powering of the sun.
It is one of its byproducts

I do not agree that Iron leads to the death of a star. The star will shed its Iron layer similar to a pressure cooker. This layer lost does not mean the death of a star. It is the eventulal loss of core mass that leads to the death. If the core has enough mass it will continue to reconstruct itself. These stars are somtimes called new stars.

As for evidence one day I will catch up on that.

Until than just discussions.

Also look at
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... atter.html
CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL PLASMAS

I think plasmas may have to add another type found within a singularity and probably in the core of suns.
Quote from the link:http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html
"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."

What I'm saying there is an inner core with a density far greater than 160g/cm^3. How can it be expected to be a solid ?????

I wish I had more time.
Those links do not add up.


OOPs look at this link
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm
Have a nice day

harry wrote:I did not say that Iron is part of the powering of the sun.
It is one of its byproducts

How can Iron be a by-product of fusion in the sun?

harry wrote:As for evidence one day I will catch up on that.

Please do!

The Sun and its planetary system formed from heterogeneous debris1-11 of a supernova (SN) that exploded 5 billion years ago.

Harry, I have never heard of this hypothesis before. Here are my initial questions:

Granted, the Sun is a population 1 star...that's why the nebula from which the protoplanetary disk formed had heavier elements than H and He. But if it formed from the remnants of a supernova, where did all the hydrogen come from? By the time a giant star collapses into a supernova explosion, it has long since left the main sequence and expended most of it's H.

Why don't we see protoplanetary disks forming out of supernovae that have been observed? We see nebula expanding "forever" outward...and naked neutron stars left behind.

harry wrote: The star will shed its Iron layer similar to a pressure cooker. This layer lost does not mean the death of a star. It is the eventulal loss of core mass that leads to the death.

How thick is this "iron layer?" How often is it shed? Have we ever made an observation of an iron layer being shed from a star?

harry wrote: If the core has enough mass it will continue to reconstruct itself.

With what energy? Again, Fe can't be fused for an energy source.

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

Here's my guess: The sun would be much more massive, at least twice the mass it is, if it had a neutron star in the center. After all a neutron star is similar in mass to the Sun but about 10 km across. So if there is only 1 solar mass, and a Sun with a neutron star in the middle, the vast majority of the mass would be that neutron star; which would make the Sun's outer layers density very low. Then in turn, a low-mass low-density cloud around a neutron star would be pulled in by the star's immense gravity pretty quickly. So you would be back to where you started, a naked neutron star.

Again, just my initial observations.

I've heard the recent theory about the sun having a solid surface - a thin layer of predominantly iron where is it cool enough to exist

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

I have to admit I'm not convinced by their arguments - but I think this is what Harry is referring to.

Maybe It's cool enough on the night side

links

Iron sun
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... fy.html#c2

Posible structur of the sun
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html

Where did the elements come from
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... tions.html
http://web.umr.edu/~om/picpages/snexplo.html
look for other links and info, you will find them.
------------------------------------------------------------
There is more than one hypothesis of how the sun was formed.
--------------------------------------------------------------

That reminds me there is evidence of our solar system some two hundred million years ago, it went through a Nebulae causing chaos and the end of the Dinosaurs.
And that it frequenlty does so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion the extreme high density cores were formed from an active blackhole ejecting these cores.
Or in the process of becoming a high density plasma by the collisions or addition of large amounts of matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is how can an object such a a neutron star 6 klm wide have the same mass as our sun. Something must be cooking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone find more info on the formation of the elements, why Iron is picked on and why larger elements are unstable within the sun.

I'm so sleepy,its time to say goodbye to all our family,,,m,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,c,,,,,k,,,,,,,,,,e,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,,smile
bye

links

Iron sun
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... fy.html#c2

Posible structur of the sun
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html

Where did the elements come from
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... tions.html
http://web.umr.edu/~om/picpages/snexplo.html
look for other links and info, you will find them.
------------------------------------------------------------
There is more than one hypothesis of how the sun was formed.
--------------------------------------------------------------

That reminds me there is evidence of our solar system some two hundred million years ago, it went through a Nebulae causing chaos and the end of the Dinosaurs.
And that it frequenlty does so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion the extreme high density cores were formed from an active blackhole ejecting these cores.
Or in the process of becoming a high density plasma by the collisions or addition of large amounts of matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is how can an object such a a neutron star 6 klm wide have the same mass as our sun. Something must be cooking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone find more info on the formation of the elements, why Iron is picked on and why larger elements are unstable within the sun.

I'm so sleepy,its time to say goodbye to all our family,,,m,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,c,,,,,k,,,,,,,,,,e,,,,,,,,,,,,y,,,,smile
bye

Ok, this may seem slightly "out there", but that's why we're here right? Why would the universe start from a so called "pin sized point"?? If it was the only thing out there wouldn't it be the biggest and smallest thing there is? Kinda infinite??