Starship Asterisk*

Hello All


NEW: THE SUN: AN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT CONTROLS EARTH'S CLIMATE
http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html
There are a number of papers here, read them and let me know what you think

I. INTRODUCTION Hydrogen (H) and other lightweight elements are dominant on stellar surfaces and in the interstellar medium. Since the classical 1957 paper on element synthesis in stars by Burbidge et al. [1], it has been widely assumed that H-fusion is the main driving force for stellar luminosity and ordinary stellar evolution. The idea of a universe driven in one direction by H-fusion fits with the concept of H-production in an initial “Big Bang”. However, a recent analysis of the systematic properties of all 2,850 known nuclides [2] revealed an even larger source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in condensed nuclear matter [3-5]. Those results [3-5] and the abundances of isotopes and elements in meteorites, planets, the solar wind, the solar photosphere, and solar flares [6-9] showed that:

a) The Sun and other stars act as plasma diffusers, sorting lighter ions to their surfaces.

b) The interior of the Sun is made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorites – Fe, Ni, O, Si, and S – although the lightest elements (H and He) cover its surface.

c) Neutron-emission from the solar core, a neutron star, is the first step in a series of reactions that has steadily generated luminosity, neutrinos, solar mass fractionation, and an out-pouring of solar-wind hydrogen from the Sun over the past 4-5 Gy.

d) Neutron-emission from a neutron star is a statistical process, like the radioactive decay of ordinary nuclei via α, β, γ, or spontaneous fission.

The Sun is an ordinary star, probably powered by the same processes as other stars. Prior to these recent papers [3-9], compact nuclear matter or black holes had been considered as the likely energy sources for the violent, more energetic events, like gamma ray bursts and quasars, but not as an energy source that might sustain luminosity in ordinary stars for billions of years.

If this is true than our standard model of the sun will need to change.

Yes, but none of it is true. The core of the Sun is absolutely not a neutron star. If it were, the Sun as we know it wouldn't be there.

Neutron stars also don't generate 'new' energy. They're cooling cinders incapable of fusion reactions. Even if some mysterious 'neutron emission' effect could occur, that would rob the core of energy, and it would simply collapse futher, eventually into a black hole.

Solar helioseismography shows no evidence for a neutron star inside the Sun.

The Sun is less than half the mass it would be if it contained a neutron star.

The Sun is not made up of the same ratios of elements as the planets. If it were, its spectrum would be utterly different.

Hello Qev

Read some of the papers. Than come back to me. Saying its not true on such an important issue without checking the info is a mistake.
=====================================
My thoughts.
What triggers a supernova

We know that the inner core or assume that it is some form of degenerated matter. The matter serves several functions.

1) Keep the sun from expanding by its gravity and electromagnetic forces.
2) Control the heat release by its G and EF.
3) Release Neutrons to the solar envelope.
4) Segregate the elements into some form layers, iron close to the core and H and He near the surface.
5) Long jeopardy. Its size and density will determine its ability to last for billions of years.
6) The core sends electromagnetic pulses that create convectional currents and huge flares at the surface, serving to break up the Iron layer and prevent over heating.

As the core in time releases neutrons, its size is reduced but not its density. During the long process Iron builds up around the core and eventually the sun starts to expand. (I question the density part)(Maybe the Iron plays a part in the over heating, generating a pulse to eject and break up the Iron Layer. Just thinking aloud)

The core starts to lose control of the heat balance and releases high amounts of energy causing over heating of the Iron Layer which is hit by high energy photons that randomly hit the neuclei of the Iron. This causes the Iron to disintegrate into He atoms and neutrons, in turn these He atoms are hit by high energy photons, releasing Neutrons and Protons. In turn some of these protons are changed to neutrons. This chain of events occurs very quickly, releasing huge amounts of energy, setting up the environment for a rejuvenation of the neutron core and exploding the solar envelope.

So maybe the Iron layer reached such a size and the neutron core reduced to a size unable to control the Iron layer by its pulses and mixing it up in the solar envelope. This over heating released by the inner core maybe the trigger.

These chains of events and the release of this huge amount of energy maybe responsible for the makings of the heavier elements.

there is no evidence for this and even if you could bend the rules a bit to make the theory fit I'm still unsure as to why you want it to be like this whats the point? The current model is a correct fit to observations (neutrino oscillations before you say anything).

Hello Cosmo

The point is,,,,,,,,,,look into it.

Have you read the papers.

Communicate with the writer.

Question the evidence.

Go the distance.

People just sit on the fence with their existing ideas, like the comfort zone.

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

This is critical to the functioning of our sun and the explanation of star formation and the so called star death.

I'll have a read

Hello Cosmo

I have written to Professor Manuel,,,,,,,,,,,,,smart cookie


The super fluid in the core (inner core) of the sun, holds the key to alot of issues.

Hello All


Nuclear cycle that powers the stars.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2006/Nu ... Cosmos.pdf
Its worth reading

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

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 266, No. 2 (2005) 159–163
0236–5731/USD 20.00 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
© 2005 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest Springer, Dordrecht
Nuclear systematics:
Part IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance
O. Manuel,1* M. Pleess,1 Y. Singh,1 W. A. Myers2
1 Nuclear Chemistry, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401, USA
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
(Received September 15, 2004)
The abundance pattern of s-process nuclides confirms severe mass separation in the Sun and in the parent star that gave birth to the Solar System.
The most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun are Fe, Ni, O, Si and S. These five, even-Z elements with high nuclear stability comprize the
bulk material of ordinary meteorites and rocky planets close to the Sun. The Sun and other stars operate as giant, magnetic mass-separators that
selectively move lightweight elements, and the lighter mass isotopes of each element, to the surface.
Introduction


In 1997 KURODA and MYERS1 reported that the Solar
System started to form about 5 billion years ago, soon
after the explosion of a supernova. The following year a
paper published in this journal2 reviewed evidence that
heterogeneous debris from a single supernova produced
the entire Solar System, including major chemical and
isotopic gradients that exist in our planetary system
today.

Qev points out good reasons for the lack of a neutron star in the center of the sun; my biggest problem is the lack of mass. The sun is no where heavy enough to contain a neutron star!

Harry, you mentioned that our model for the sun would have to be thrown out...but so would any theories of star formation we have thus far, not to mention Newtonian calculus. After all, we can determine the mass of the sun by the speed of objects orbiting it relative to their distance...

Oh, now that I think of it, I suppose Einstein would have to be wrong as well...because we can also determine the mass of the sun by how much light is bent by the curvature of space around the sun.

Harry, you seem to be attracted to any new theory that uproots conventional thinking. That's good...science is stronger when fresh ideas are brought out. But you have to be careful about accepting new theories as "true" before they are thoroughly tested or observed.



8)

Hello Orca

Mate, you are 100% right.

But! I need to investigate this further.

I have spoken to many professors, and they agree that the centre of any star needs further investigation and that degerated matter maybe part of the expalnation and for this reason, I want to know.

I cannot accept my logic or others until I get the evidence.

But! I have to rely on scientists who have looked into this. Not some cowboys who say that I'm wrong.

Have you read the papers by Professor Oliver Manuel.

http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html
Professor Manuel (center) discusses research on the composition of the Sun with (on the left) Professor Fumihiko Suekane of Tohoku University's Research Center for Neutrino Science in Sendai, Japan and (on the right) Professor Dr. Hans Klapdor-Kleingrothaus of the Max-Planck Institut fuer Kernphysik in Heidelberg, Germany.

Cowboys?

The scientific community at large accepts nuclear fusion, induced by heat caused by friction which is in turn caused by gravity. Cowboys are the ones suggesting there's a neutron star hidden down in there somewhere. But hey, scientists can be cowboys too, right? No harm in questioning convention...think of how many theories have been overturned that way?

I will take a look at some of the papers when I get a chance.

Hello Orca

All of us in this net,,are cowboys including myself. For that reason I would rely on scientific evidence and a person of knowledge to advice on some topics.

There is nothing wrong with being a cowboy. Love riding horeses.

Smile,,,,,,,,,what do you know about neutron stars, quark stars and preon stars.

All stars have a common function. I'm just saying that our sun has a special superfluid within the inner core.

Its density has to be so great as to give control in holding together the sun and stopping the solar envelope from expanding.

The other main function is to control the heat balance from the inner core to the solar envelope. The density required for this is huge for the heat control. If the density is made from Hydrogen, the atoms cannot compact enough, if its made from neutrons, they are able to be compacted 10^15 to 10^18. this density is able to control both the heat balance and also to hold the sun together.

Hey! this is my opinion and the opinion of many cosmologists.

Have you read the papers of Prof Oliver Manuel and his profesors. Very intersting info and explains many missing links.

If this goes against the standard model, so be it. If the standard model has any foundation it will not fall.

Harry - "Hey! this is my opinion and the opinion of many cosmologists. "

Not any I've met Harry and I've met a lot.

Hello Cosmo

What can I say?

Sit on the fance and wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,time will either prove or disprove the ideas that I have presented.

Not one person has given any evidence against what I put forward.

As for Big Bang theories, this will be on its "end" very soon.
========================================
and cosmo, If you wish for me to give you a list of cosmologists, more than happy.

Can you do that.

See next post.

Hello All

Photo - heic0609: Cassiopeia A - The colourful aftermath of a violent stellar death
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0609.html

Supernova explosions are the main source of elements more complex than oxygen, which are forged in the extreme conditions produced in these events. The analysis of such a nearby, relatively young and fresh example is extremely helpful in understanding the evolution of the Universe.

There is a a praragraph that reads

A supernova such as the one that resulted in Cas A is the explosive demise of a massive star that collapses under the weight of its own gravity. The collapsed star then blows its outer layers into space in an explosion that can briefly outshine its entire parent galaxy. Cas A is relatively young, estimated to be only about 340 years old. Hubble has observed it on several occasions to look for changes in the rapidly expanding filaments.

The writer fails to addres the process involved and what triggers (causes) the supernova.

Where does the energy come from?
What are the players?
What happens to the matter that has been ejected?
What happens to the matter that is not ejected.?

Not one person has given any evidence against what I put forward.

We're you mistaken there Harry or simply lying? What about the pages and pages of explanations on the other threads, detailing the simple physics that rules out these theories?

As for cosmo providing a list, I'm sure he could, the difference between his list and yours is that hsi would tend to have people who actually work in the field at accredited institutions on it, not people working for creationist think tanks (if you can call them that, very little thinking involved, mostly just copying from a mouldy old book).

Hello Astro

If you have the evidence than give it to me.

and do not give me fantasy ideas and make believe dreams.

I really think you need to study further and gain more info. Your level of thinking and comments are out of balance. Reminds me of the stone age.
Get with it mate. Look at some modern investigation of the universe.

You make statements as if you are a kid.

Cosmo is a big boy he can talk for himself.

You make me smile Harry, you understand nothing about any of the ideas you espouse, you have no idea about real Physics, if you did you would see the inconsistencies in your own arguments.

If you are serious about learning about the Universe, you can't do it without a basic grasp of fundamental physics, how about enrolling yourself in a course in that? Its never too late. That way you could learn about what limits fundamental physics applies and why your ideas cant work.

I will repeat one simple observation which you have yet to respond too. I look forward to hearing your response.

In an eternal Universe how do you deal with entropy? Even if you allow matter to recycle the fusion reactions of the previous generations of stars will have emitted a significant amount of mass as energy in the form of starlight. This starlight cant just disappear, that would violate conservation of energy. So the next generation of stars must contain less mass than the previous. Eventually all the emitted star-light will have heated up the Universe to such a point that no more star formation can occur. The Universe will reach a uniform temperature and at that point nothing ever happens again, nothing moves, nothing emits or absorbs, the Universe is over.

How can you get out of this without violating conservation of energy?

Hello Astro

You make silly statements ,I just hope people see through you.

As for

In an eternal Universe how do you deal with entropy? Even if you allow matter to recycle the fusion reactions of the previous generations of stars will have emitted a significant amount of mass as energy in the form of starlight. This starlight cant just disappear, that would violate conservation of energy. So the next generation of stars must contain less mass than the previous. Eventually all the emitted star-light will have heated up the Universe to such a point that no more star formation can occur. The Universe will reach a uniform temperature and at that point nothing ever happens again, nothing moves, nothing emits or absorbs, the Universe is over.

You have really got it wrong,,,,,,,,,I cannot help to think,,,,that an educated person like you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,makes statements like that.

Its not even worth a comment.

Simple recycle would explain the above.

harry wrote:You have really got it wrong,,,,,,,,,I cannot help to think,,,,that an educated person like you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,makes statements like that.

Its not even worth a comment.

Simple recycle would explain the above.

The whole problem with recycling is entropy. You aren't allowed to answer "recycling"! I encourage you to read up a bit on entropy: every single energy transfer is accompanied by a net increase in disorder of the universe.

Do you mean the Universe itself will recycle in a "Big Crunch"? Nothing else would reconcentrate the dissipated radiation and randomly spread atoms of a heat dead Universe - in other words, nothing else could reverse entropy.

Hello Pete

If you are thinking along the lines of the Big Bang I would understand.

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

Are you saying that the parts within the universe do not recycle.

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

I did not say it will recycle into a crunch

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

As for reading and observing , I read huge amounts of info.

No Harry he is not saying material within the Universe cannot recycle, he is saying that its impossible for everything to recycle.

As I have explained many times, 100% efficiency is impossible, even if you allow recycling of heavy elements into Hydrogen, some energy will have been radiated during the previous stars lifetime as light. How do you collect this light which has spread out through the Universe and turn it back into Hydrogen?

If you allow a BH to recycle material, fine, but you lose some of the energy when the material falls into the BH, it heats up and radiates light, that is again energy that can never be recovered.

All of your recycling processes are less than 100% efficient, much less in fact. So I restate how can a static Eternal Universe be reconciled with simple physics? Eventually all of the energy lost during these processes will have heated the Universe up to a uniform temperature. You have yet to provide a physical process that can reverse entropy on the scale of the Universe, provide one or accept that your theory has a fatal flaw at present.

Harry please try and understand you can't just ignore the most fundamental of physical processes just because you don't like it. Simply repeating "recycling" with your hands over you ears which is what your doing reveals you to be quite ignorant despite all the reading.

Hello All

The issue is.

Do the parts within the universe recycle.

YES

Matter cannot be created, matter cannot be destroyed.

As for being 100% per item thats another issue.

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

I have been very busy with a project and it has taken time from having fun here.
There are some issues that I want to address. LATER

All of your recycling processes are less than 100% efficient, much less in fact. So I restate how can a static Eternal Universe be reconciled with simple physics? Eventually all of the energy lost during these processes will have heated the Universe up to a uniform temperature. You have yet to provide a physical process that can reverse entropy on the scale of the Universe, provide one or accept that your theory has a fatal flaw at present.

This is correct.

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

Note: All matter has a half life.

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