Starship Asterisk*

Is it my imagination or do the grey "digitally removed" areas follow the yellow background regions?

I can see where they removed the foreground stars but any idea about the other dark spots? like huge areas where theres no light whatsoever - any ideas why?

I think I was able to simulate the same results via PaintShop Pro... I took the original picture, replaced all bright foreground objects with black, and then did a Histogram Equalize... the results mirrored this. But, how do we know this isn't faintly glowing warm hydrogen gas in our own galaxy vs far away ancient red-shifted star clusters?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070102.html
Since the astronomers used Spitzer Telescope and is of deep space; I think that rules out Milky Way glow.
Orin

Todays APOD looks like what I see with eyes closed. haha
==

Imagine ourselves at the center of the sun, and when we look outward and see the surface of the sun (from the inside) , it would look the same as todays APOD.

The dark spots are magnetic field lines rising up away from our viewpoint. The bright spots are the hot areas inside the loops where the plasma temperatures soar. The reason it is mottled thusly, is the same reason the surface of the sun is mottled, when we see if from the outside, from earth.

But unlike looking at the sun from earth, and seeing the outside of the event. In todays APOD we are on earth looking outward, at the inside of the sphere surface of our observable universe. The boundary where we can see no further, [ for whatever reasons we can see no further.]

As Kristian Berkeland reasoned, there are large-scale magnetic structures surrounding all intense electrical energy events. The galaxy has one, the superclusters have one, why not the observable universe having one? We are seeing the magnetic field lines and the plasma events they cause at the outer limits of our range of vision and that is why the COBE picture of the background microwave radiation looks like it does.

It is not the "echo of the Big Bang" it is not the thermalized radiation of a black body at maximum distance, it is like looking at (only) the surface of the sun from the inside (and not all the other stuff going on inside the sun, between the center of the sun and the surface).

Perhaps observational data to help this theory along would be; to record the same place in the sky and over time watch to see if it shifts and changes, like the surface of the sun shifts and changes as the magnetic field lines move and twist and do what they do.

Does our observable universe have an angular momentum component, that would twist the magnetic field lines and cause machinations like our sun goes thru? , although excruciatingly slower !

This was my reply to Dr. Kashlinsky, Sptizer Space Telescope and Astrophysics Journals Letters a Few weeks ago--no Reply from any of them

Is it not possible the Infrared light in the images is
just from the current objects and does not come from
earlier time?

How could we test that?

Take a number of current recently developed objects
and see if you see the infrared background glow. If
you saw an infrared background glow in an object not
developed about 13 billion years ago, it would show
that the glow is related to the object and not some
previous development or a predecessor of the object.
For example, if you took a Spitzer image of

the Earth

the Pioneer mission

Voyager missions

the moon

Mars

Pluto

each planet

asteroids

other past space missions

The heliopause

What kind of test is there to prove that what you
describe as Big Bang light is really Big Bang light
and not from the current source?

do you possibly see some kind of heat related infrared
image? If you see an infrared image, then it is from
the object itself not a predecessor Big Bang related
area. The infrared light you see may JUST be from the
current object not a predecessor universe.

I see an infrared glow when I put my hand near an
infrared detector. Seeing infrared light does not mean
it is from the Big Bang?

My logic may be sloppy.


Additionally, I pointed out something similar to the Nobel Prize Committee, Dr. Mather, and Dr. Smoot that this may only be a local temperature. Part of the idea was, if you take a temperature in Oslo that does not measure the temperature in Pretoria, the Flame nebula, Kenya, Moscow, a quasar at 13 billion light years, Beijing,M51, M15, Cygnus x-1, Vela Pulsar, Great Wall, Great Voids etc.

James T. Struck

to above poster - light and even infra red light takes time to travel to us - so what they looking at happened millions of years ago so they assume its from the big bang and universe expanding. simplly put - takes light 8 mins to travel from the sun to earth - so when you see that sun in the sky you are not seeing it as it is but from 8 mins ago - same applies to background radiation in space - thats how they know its not in real time - we dont know what the edge of our universe looks like right now. we can hypothesis though what it must look like nowadays though - gamma ray bursters offer some clues as to whats going on there latelly.

Yes, I agree that the light of the infrared spitzer telescope is more clearly not just close radiation. Still, the infrared background could still represent recent not 13 billion year old objects. One could say "This is looking back 13 billion years in time", but the light could also reflect closer regions. There is no real way to look at the infrared radiation and say "This is from 13 billion years ago." With the sun, I can bounce radar, radio waves other radiations off the sun. I cannot as easily say that with the Spitzer objects. What if the light is a veil around the local cluster or local supercluster. How do we disprove my skepticism? Launch a detector outside the local supercluster and then take a measurement. Recall what kinds of radiation are associated with infrared- according to Realm of the Universe "cool clouds of dust and gas, planets and satellites." (p. 86) What is the radiation possibly...just a cool cloud around our area.

The microwave background is also not established to be from all over the universe. It could be a local radiation around our Galaxy, the local Supercluster, the Local Cluster, around the Supercluster, around the Galaxy. I do not see any real reason to say that the CMBR has anything whatsoever to do with the Big Bang. As I told Smoot, Dr. Mather, and the Nobel Prize Committee, temperatures in one place do not apply to other places. Even if the light appears to be 13 billion light years away, the light could also be a shroud or veil around our region.

The argument made to support Smoot, Mather, Penzias and Wilson's arguments are that the measured temperature fits prediction. "One would predict a CMBR from the big bang to have a temperature of 2.735 K (page 495 of Realm of the Universe by Abell, Morrison and Wolff)." Well, many objects could show such a spectrum. Just as I can feel depressed about being in debt and depressed about loosing a job and depressed about loosing a friend, the end result might be depression but the problem is cured with money, a job, a friend in some cases. Similarly, the end result might be a 2.735 temperature, but I can produce such a temperature in a lab and it might just be a veil or shroud or coffin or outfit around our Local Group. It might have nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang.

We have to leave the local group or local supercluster to measure a universal temperature. The COBE detector IS NOT in the Great Voids of Virgo Cluster. It just is not there. A detector cannot be said to be measuring something with certitude if it is not there. We can make guesses but not measure with certitude. When we put a detector in a location of 7 billion light years, then we can say that the CMBR is the same there. Does the CMBR for a quasar show a redshift showing it is 7 billion light years away? I do not think it does. I may be wrong. It may just be like powder puff around a galaxy or cluster.

This is something that has been simmering for a while and is just now finding its words.

As the number of protons in the Awareable Universe is what all the protons use to determine their rest mass, and as that number fluctuates slightly, the rest mass varies a little, and that influences the strength of the gravitational constant, which makes stars burn a little hotter as it increases, and burn a little cooler as it wanes. This in turn makes the light pressure or solar wind by light radiation, fluctuate as stars fluctuate. As our sun has its sunspot cycle, which is like a fluctuation that would be a similar fluctuation to the rest mass fluctuation, the star heats and cools just slightly. All stars do this, and this slight fluctuation translates into a varying radiative pressure emanating from all the stars, which drives the light powered expansion of particles away from us. (and every one else too, from their own unique point of view as well) As this pressure by light from stars varies it drives the expansion in a fluctuation.

This driving expansion of the particulate material towards the border of the awareable universe at faster and faster rates eventually results in the particles approaching the speed of light and their energy level , for us, gets lower and they disappear from our awareness, that is what determines the border of our 'awareable universe' , where we get no more light speed information from those particles, or light phenomena events.

This phenomena is not a perfectly smooth phenomena in its execution. What COBE mapped is the flux in the border of our awareable universe, which translates into the flux of the rest mass of the protons, as seen by what determines their inertia, their inertia component is their rest mass.

One must understand Dobson for this to make sense, so good luck mainstream guys !! It may help to reframe it in the language that what COBE mapped is the "flux in what determines the rest mass of the proton". Ask Richard Feynman to explain it.

Hello Kovil

I have to read your post again.

You lost me at the POST.

I'm trying to understand.

Hi Harry,

The 5 words I love to hear the most are, 'Can you explain that again?' !

Which POST ? the one that says 'point of no return'?

As Dobson describes the 'recycling feature' in his conceptual cosmology,
starlight drives the expansion by the radiative pressure of light and energy.

As the particles that are being driven eventually reach the speed of light, they then disappear from our sight, or awareness, as no light speed information will ever reach us.
At this point we know 'everything' about their energy level, and by Heisenberg we then cannot know anything about their location. This is how they then tunnel back into this universe in a 'recycling' fashion. There is lots more to this recycling thing, but later for that.

The main idea is, at some point there is a boundary to the universe of which we can be aware of. What happens at the border is, things are going away from us at the speed of light, and as a result the energy signature is redshifted down so far they have 'no energy', to us.

Another portion of Dobson is ; protons have a rest mass. Electrons don't. Electrons are purely electrical in their nature. How does a proton determine its rest mass? Well Dobson, and he has Feynman with him on this one; protons determine it by a relationship to all the other protons in the awareable universe. Dobson says, that as the number of protons increases the rest mass goes up, and as the number of protons in the awareable universe decreases the rest mass decreases. (which sounds backwards to me, but this is how the argument goes) So as the border of the universe moves further away, there are more protons and so the rest mass of individual protons goes up. As the rest mass goes up, they are able to make a stronger gravity. So a stars gravity would increase slightly and make it burn a little hotter to resist the increase in gravitational compression. As the star burns a little hotter that makes it radiate energy and light faster, which would drive the expansion a little faster, which would make the particles being accelerated towards the border , reach the speed of light a little sooner, which would as a result make the border move closer to us. As the border moves closer to us, that would make fewer protons in the awareable universe, which would then make the protons have a lesser rest mass and a lesser gravity producing ability. That would make the star burn a little cooler, and radiate light and energy at a lesser rate, which would drive the expansion a little slower, which would allow the particles being driven a longer time and distance to reach the speed of light, and that would make the border in effect move further away, and by that token include more protons in the awareable universe and make the rest mass go up, stronger gravity, more radiation, faster driving, and a resulting closer border; and this creates a self regulating governor that stabilizes the size of the awareable universe !!!!!!!!!!

Dobson's conceptual cosmology has a recycling universe with a governor on it !!!!!!!!

In my own eccentric imaginative ramblings; I interpret the COBE survey of the CMBR to be a picture of the border of the awareable universe, and what it is really seeing are the fluctuations at the border, as the border moves further and closer in a mottley pattern of flux, as it self governs itself into a stable equilibrium. The result of that flux is a flux in the rest mass of the proton. So one might say that the COBE map is a map of the flux of the inertia component in the rest mass of the proton.

As Inertia/Momentum is called the Changeless, the COBE map is a map of the flux of the Changless at the border of the awareable universe. As a Foucalt Pendulum maintains it vector of motion in a constant relationship to the border of the awareable universe, that is the orientation of Inertia/Momentum. It is not to the earth, the sun or the center of our galaxy, it is to the border of our/its awareable universe !

This means that the border of the awareable universe is a very important component or aspect of the quality of Inertia/Momentum. It is part and parcel in how protons determine their rest mass and that in turn affects the gravitational constant.

These things are intertwined and it is hard to speak of only one at a time and not include some aspects of the others. So a complete wholeistic grasp of the situation is necessary first, then we can get into the more subtle aspects of each of the main components of our reality/universe/existence.

That's why it took me 5 years to get a handle on what he is talking about and be able to speak of it myself in limited fashion. He is not the easiest of public speakers to listen to and follow as he goes. He's good, but he does go over things he knows well faster than most in the audience can keep up with. That's the problem with the genius types, they are short on patience for the rest of us slowpokes to keep up. He does have numerous humorous stories and analogies that make concepts easy to remember, and for that he is priceless !!!

To be more fair to Mr Dobson, he does ask if anyone has any questions, and waits thru the stunned silence, as who could find the words to ask? The concepts he's giving turn our educated world upsidedown and one can't process it all fast enough to be able to discuss it in a way of understanding it yet.

Hello Kovil

You said

As Dobson describes the 'recycling feature' in his conceptual cosmology,
starlight drives the expansion by the radiative pressure of light and energy.

As the particles that are being driven eventually reach the speed of light, they then disappear from our sight, or awareness, as no light speed information will ever reach us.
At this point we know 'everything' about their energy level, and by Heisenberg we then cannot know anything about their location. This is how they then tunnel back into this universe in a 'recycling' fashion. There is lots more to this recycling thing, but later for that.

I do agree with a recycling process. But not the way as described.

During the ongoing life of a star we do notice that

The elements Hydrogen to Iron maybe formed from the comapct star cores such as Neutron Stars

Neutron cores release neutron into the solar enevelope and from there form protons,,,Hydrogen and by fusion form elements upto Iron.

After billions of years, the compact core loses mass and no longer is able to hole the solar enevelope and also unable to control the heat realeased from the core. The star begins to expand and reaches a critical point where high energy photons break up the iron into helium than hydrogen, than protons than neutrons and possibley another neutron core. This cycle is discussed in many papers

http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html


Similarly with the so call black holes that are just compact cores with enough mass that light cannot escape it. In this situation just as Neutron stars create jets so do these black holes that create jets and eject matter into space reforming galaxies and recycling matter back into space.

How the jet is formed thats another issue that can be expalined by Plasma Cosmology scientists.

I do not have all the answers. But! hopefully in the next few years I may get there.

I'm trying to gey my ahaed around how plasma works in compact stars.

Harry,

I'm probably on a totally different wavelength here from you;

Plasma is protons and electrons yes, that are not hooked up to make atoms or molecules. Just the most basic elements of matter.

As per the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory as the Mechanism for Radiation; electrons are where the forward and backward wave through time, meet and the amplitude rises, and that loci (or focus) is where we say an electron is in its existence as an electron. I think protons are the same phenomena only with the added confluence of inertia as well.

In this frame of thinking, protons and electrons are just amplitudes of wave function phenomena. So that would be what plasma is as well.
IT IS ALL JUST WAVE FUNCTION PHENOMENA, the whole thing is ALL ENERGY. (except for the Inertia component and I do not understand how that fits in and interacts with the Energy wave function as yet)

And so all this business of more and more subatomic particles and gluons, leptons, quarks etc is just wave function intersections and amplitude spikes, which we are calling particles and subparticles. And that is why there seems no end to the number of particles and that is why they come in 3 flavors etc, it is the combination and permutations of waves as they intersect and make highs and lows and cancellation spots of equality average.

The interior of a 'quarkstar' is a different frequency to the vibrations or wavelengths that the energy is vibrating to. A much higher frequency than say a regular sun in fusion state. It is all energy frequencies tho, the both of them.

When I think or vision it like this, it all is so easy to understand and it makes complete sense that they behave this way, and the picture of it is simple and clear. All the particles and their complex interactions etc, is too difficult to comprehend in one grasp. The wave interaction picture is easy to see, in that it is like a ripple tank with the waves reflecting all over the place and making patterns of standing highs and lows and level places too. This is all in 4 dimensions ( 3 dimensions of space and one of time) and Inerita is in the mix as well, so it is way more complicated and fractal-like than a plain old ripple tank.

Hello Kovil

There is nothing wrong with being on different wavelenghts.

The process is important

Please read this link

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2006/Nu ... serted.pdf

Before it's gone,

GRB the long form, could they be neutron stars or star; bifurcating; like a uranium atom splits from too much electrical surface tension, and it is more efficient to be in berrilium and boron (or whatever) and so it divides to a lower energy state and gives up some binding energy (1% ?) and we call that fission. Could a neutron star be doing the like; and splitting, and that is what makes the long GRB's ?

Two galaxies are merging, the massive black holes in their centers do not cojoin, they orbit each other and if one is considerably larger than the other, the smaller is flung violently outward, like a comet, usually not to return? That is the origin of the quasar flung outward with trailing clouds of gas etc. ?

It is fine to continue to use the neutrons and particles as a way to talk about what is going on at an atomic level of activity, but I still believe it is only energy waves interacting, but it makes it simpler after a fashion to speak of it as particles and I'm good with that!

What a dynamite paper Harry!! Many thanks !!

So the sun is in its last stages just before it novas again eh?
another 5 billion years they said , LOL they were just singing us a lullabye it seems! hahaha I can see the headlines in the papers tomorrow, new information shows that the sun will blow up soon ! Pictures at 11 .

No wonder the space program got a goose in the ass lately !! We have to get the heck out of here before the sun blows up again !!! LOL

That was the other thought; Story outline; Advanced but peaceful aliens were irked by this very violent species, and they transported all of them to this nice planet orbiting a star that was about to blow up in an estimated 2 million years. We are that violent species !! The aliens legal system was complex and they were not permitted to just kill the violent species as that would be too unenlightened. So a compromise was struck and if the violent species had the brains to figure a way off the planet before the sun blew again, they would be permitted to join the Federation, provided they mend their violent ways. We are being monitored in some fashion to mark our progress etc from time to time, and to keep tabs on the suns prognosis. If we are too stupid and violent to escape our cosmic solar fate, then so be it in the eyes of their legal system and that it will be the 'will of neutron'.
Neutron is their 'god', so to speak.

Now that i've finished reading the paper !

"...we conclude that neutron repulsion is the main energy source for the products of gravitational collapse."

As Gravity is the Undivided, so is electron +and- attraction, and -- ++ repulsion, the principle of the Undivided as well.
As gravity is the undisputed winner in all known forces, so is repulsion.
Well the Undivided is the force in the universe.
The Changeless and the Infinite are not forces as such only the Undivided is a 'force' in that sense. How interesting , different aspects of the Undivided. Great Paper , Harry. It certainly stimulated several interesting thoughts !! This has been some week , eh ? taa for now, its 1:24am here.

- -

Bonjour! Looked at your link two posts back! What a list of PDF's! That will keep me busy for a week! or two! ( a year or three!) Now I see why you are so all fired up about the sun and compact objects!

It took a while to sink in; that the idea our sun novaed and that is why our planets have the concentrations of what they have! Our planets didn't coagulate from an average ISM (interstellar medium) they are condensate from our sun's supernova ejecta, or nova ejecta. This substantiates my growing feeling over the last decade or two that earths composition is not in correspondence with the general pervading % ratios of the general galaxy ISM. It answers the question of how much local nova production would it take to generate the %'s we have here; it was our own sun!!! This makes very very much sense for what we have here. Local novas would have a hard time doing this earthly % too, and that's what has been bothering me as well for quite a while. The big picture was not explaining the small picture. Now it is.

136Xenon in Jupiter a radioactive isotope, 2850 possible combinations and permutations of neutrons and protons in the atom! , fascinating. It is all the wave function possibilities possible. Many are unstable, and decay into stable combinations. Some decay so fast they aren't around long enough to be isolated. Some last almost forever, given cool conditions. We are at one of those 500 year spots in science where 90% of what was previously thought to be true is thrown out! This comes during the intense knowledge explosion brought on by a revolution in technology and data gathering and perception devices. We are entering the hi-tech age, and have been doing so for 30 years now? and only now is science catching up to itself, and in that process a lot of previously held dogma will be scooped up and placed in the round gray circular file, (sh*t-canned in otherwords). !! The world of hi-tech, and old phrase now, is only just starting, it will last for another 200 years at least. Assuming we as a species last that long, and don't bomb ourselves back into a stone age or some other regressive state. Drug ourselves into a regressive dumbed down condition of 1/2 brain deadness by unlegal or prescription drugs or by mercury loaded vaccinations, or other brain damage. Humanity is such a bizarre mix of conflicting behaviours ! What will be the overall final result? Will our production/creativity in the sector of the Arts and Sciences outweigh our tendencies to megalomaniacal violent behaviour ? That's what the alien's law courts want to know too !!!

Hello Kovil

You are smarter than the average bear.

One more point or maybe two.

Look at the function of a compact star inner core.

1) Its control of heat loss from the inner core and its effect on the solar envelope.

2) The mass of the inner core and its importance to the solar envelope with respect to size.

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

Compact star cores and plasma research are the keys to the universe.

Harry,

In terms of how i think about it; could the wave function (wf) of the inner core, be somehow incompatible with the wf of the outer layer? In this way the heat wouldn't transmigrate past the boundary layer? Like how light waves change vector when they transmigrate thru into a different medium; like from air to water, the angle of incidence changes. The poor fish have learned to compensate when jumping for mayflies ! The inner core wf bounces off of the outer layers wf and back towards the inner core, or circles around the boundary layer on a continuously deflected path, building up a layer of transverse flow to the arriving tangential heat wf ; and stasis is maintained this way?

So like oil on water the inner and outer layers keep to themselves and refrain from mixing, and thusly the inner cores heat potential is regulated in its loss? When it somehow seriously overheats prior to supernova (SN) all bets are off.

I will read all I can find about all this solar compact business. These are just initial leaps of thought. Dobson did have us calculate how long it takes for heat from the innermost core to reach the surface based on temperature gradients and radiation rates, we got something like 1 million years as I recall.

The data from the Helios satellite is amazing, in how it sees Fe(ix) and Fe(x) ionizations just below the surface !!! This new data from the hi-tech revolution is turning traditional models on their respective heads !!!

I feel privileged to have lived to see these scientific days, and the internet to be bringing all so much to our desktops in so an immediate fashion.

This IS the 21st century !

Harry will you expand point 2). I don't get what you mean yet. the implications are opaque to me. what's the setup of the problem?

Hello Kovil

Your right about the heat released from the core takes about 1 million years.

This slow release from the inner core is a temp control by the density of the inner core gravity. Imagine if the heat release was faster. What would happen to the solar envelope.

The inner core needs a density of so much ????? to have enough gravity pull on the solar enevelope.

If the density is reduced by 50 % than the solar envelope will expand to twice the current size. Just a guess. If someone is good at maths that can probably work it out.

So! in the case of the giant red stars. The inner core has lost alot of its density and mass at this point the iron layer around the core of the sun, is hit by high energy photons released by the inner core that is unable to control the heat loss. These high energy photons hit the Iron breaking it down to Helium and than to Hydrogen than to protons and than to Neutrons , this chain reaction occurs in seconds. If the neutron repulsion force is not greater than the forces occuring within than the neutrons will break up to quarks and than to preon particals creating some form of quark and preon composite.

The forces that are used to create the supernova are a mixture of
Fission reactions,,,,,,,,,,Iron breakdown
Fusion reactions

All at once. One Big Party,,,,,,,,,one Big Bang,,,,,,,,,,some cases you will have muti bangs.

Hey! I could be wrong, I do not think that I know it all.
But! the more I learn, the more I learn that I know less.

Well, I do not see why the gravity would affect the rate of heat release. Thermal conductance is a property of the material itself, not the gravity environment it is within. Higher gravity would pack things tighter and make it conduct faster would be my thought.

Maybe that is how red-giants form, there is a change in the conductance index and the heat flows faster and that results in the gas envelope expanding. Gravitational attraction is by the square of the distance, so gravity by 1/2, envelope goes 2x as far out. It is probably a combination of events, the heat goes up, and there is a change in the core as well. The envelope expands greatly, like 1 million times bigger, in radius! so that's 1 million cubed for volume. Yes the core must definitely change somehow.

Total mass is what determines gravity, density only determines size. Are there classical size ideas for red-giant star cores? I never learned that detail. (you are right, it's a combination of the two. The mass of a star, spread out to the size of our solar system would have a low gravity index as the size of the cloud would space everything so far apart the gravity in any one location would be minuscule; but condense it to the size of a neutron star, the gravity strength at the star surface would be prodigious ! )

These thoughts must be taken with a 'sack of salt' as it is top of the head. Star interiors are not like here on earth, thermal conductance of the material is in a different league for properties. I think Dobson was using theoretical numbers for central temperatures, and observational estimates for surface temperatures, and we constructed the gradient scale to result in flow numbers over time allowing for surface leakage by radiative effects. So the whole thing of 1 million years is highly susceptible to the central estimates being ballpark correct. (cup of salt !)

Articulation is an inexplicable art, eh? It amazes me sometimes too. Where does it come from, and it may be my best talent; tho I'm not too bad with a hammer and saw, like the blind carpenter; who said, "Oh I see, as he grabbed his hammer and saw."

Well, I'm in an edit so as not to lose the post, and cannot see your post. Maybe it's time to let simmer for a while, and contemplate all this. There are 20 PDF's awaiting my download and perusal over the next couple of days, by your grace. Some cogitation is in order at this time. Have a great weekend Harry !! , Kovil

Hello All

Heat release is depandent on the density of the compact core.

If we take the extreme, and we have a quark preon composite the possiblity is a compact core that will not relese any form of electromagnetic radiation that includes light. That means we have a Black hole so to speak. Some giant stars that under go a supernova have enough matter to crete this.

So! when we speak of quark composite the release of heat increases

Even more with neutron star cores.

and so on.

That is the reason why the heat from the core takes close to a million years to reach the surface of the sun.

If you increse the density you increase the mass and therefore increase the control of the heat release from the inner core.

If I find the link that explains this I will post it.

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

Kovil some people will not even discuss this because they still think along the standard model of Hydrogen fusion and a sun core density of about 10^5.