Discussion: Is Iron Causing All the Flares?

[Fraser]

SUMMARY: Space scientist Dr. Olivier Manuel from the University of Missouri-Rolla believes that the Sun's core is mostly iron and not hydrogen as most astronomers believe; and this could help to explain how solar flares occur. Dr. Manuel's highly controversial theory proposes that stars like the Sun formed around older neutron stars, and flares are caused by the magnetic interaction between the core and the rest of the star. He believes that trace elements found in meteorites and the clouds of Jupiter support this theory.


Comments or questions about this story? Feel free to share your thoughts.

[Donald A. Rosenfield]

Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don't see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.

[michaelBirks]

Originally posted by Donald A. Rosenfield@Nov 18 2003, 08:52 PM
Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don't see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.

It seems a little out to me, as well. A couple of questions, though:

1) Could the "Strange Xeon" have been generated in a Supernove outside the System, and 'blown' in on the solar wind? Or is there too much of it for that to be reasonable.

2) Regarding Donald A. Rosenfield's comment above about the disparity between Neutron and 'solar-type' stars, is it possible that there are a large umber of Neutron Stars being effectively 'masked' inside solar-types?

Testing this theory:

Is it plausible that having a neutron star at its core could have verifiable consequences that could be differentiated from a conventional cored star? I'm thinking things along the lines of density profiles, emissions spectra, etc.

[Josh]

If he is right... What does that do for the 5 billion years we thought we had for all the hydrogen to be exhausted?

[Jack Lass]

Dr. Manuel's theory is interesting if only for its rather counter-factual
conclusion concerning the evidence of what he calls "strange Xenon" and the
evidence that many stars with large amounts of iron are seen to have planets.

Because the heavier elements (Oxygen and up) are made by supernovas, it is
altogether logical that stars of later generations --such as our sun and
similar stars-- should be enriched with these elements. If we examine those
areas of the galaxy where new stars are forming, we can see that those clouds
of gas are highly enriched with heavy elements created in supernova explosions.

In short, the present astrophysical theories of solar and planetary formation
account quite well for the evidence cited my Manuel et al. The accretion of a
sun around a rapidly spinning white dwarf remnant or even a neutron star might
conceivably take place if the dense remnant were surrounded by a sufficiently
large cloud of available hydrogen (though I think the rapid rotation might not
allow it), but it would not explain the formation of rocky planets.

IMHO professor Manuel's theory is interesting but probably wrong.

[Haglund]

Originally posted by Josh@Nov 19 2003, 12:33 AM
If he is right... What does that do for the 5 billion years we thought we had for all the hydrogen to be exhausted?

And wouldn't it change the mass of the sun?

[AusJosh]

I think the mass of the sun that we have worked out was determined from its gravity on us (As well as rotation and all that stuff).

Presumably, this theory doesnt change its mass, just the stuff the mass if made up of.


-Josh

[Josh]

But that would significantly change the size of the sun wouldn't it? You'd think that would've been taken into consideration when calculations were made as to the size of the sun but no-one seems to have had a problem with the size of the sun that i've ever heard of.

[Haglund]

That's what I was thinking too, Josh.

[Oliver K. Manuel]

To Fraser:

Thanks for posting this news report on the Forum.

The conclusion of an iron-rich Sun is the culmination of over 40 years of measurements since 1960. Solar-wind elements implanted in the surfaces of lunar samples returned by the Apollo mission confirm that lighter mass (L) isotopes of each element are enriched relative to heavier mass (H) isotopes by a common mass fractionation factor (F), where

log (F) = 4.56 log (H)/(L) …… eq. (1)

When the elemental abundance in the photosphere is corrected for the mass fractionation [eq. (1)] it is found that the seven most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca. These seven elements have even atomic numbers (Z), high nuclear stability, and are produced in the deep interior of supernovae. They are the same seven elements Harkins reported in 1917 to comprise 99% of the material in meteorites [W. D. Harkins, “The evolution of the elements and the stability of complex atoms” in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 39, pp. 856-879 (1917)].

The probability (P) that this agreement is accidental (fortuitous or meaningless) is almost zero, P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002.

Experimental evidence for an iron-rich Sun, which has accumulated like water behind an earthen dam since 1960, is summarized in our paper, "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003) 27 Oct - 1 Nov 02, Big Bear Lake, CA

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

[Fraser]

Welcome to the forum Dr. Manuel. I&#39;m glad you found the site and posted your responses to peoples&#39; comments and challenges.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Donald A. Rosenfield@Nov 18 2003, 08:52 PM
Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don&#39;t see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.

To: Donald Rosenfield

Your comment about the low ratio of neutron stars to solar-type stars in intriguing. What would the ratio be if each neutron star accreted material and became a neutron star? The number of observable neutron stars is much lower than expected [Nature, vol. 379, p. 233 (1996)]. Perhaps the missing ones are in solar-type stars, closely orbited by rocky, iron-rich planets made out of supernova debris near the collapsed supernova core.

The first planetary system discovered beyond our own was rocky, Earth-like planets orbiting very close to a neutron star [Nature, vol. 355, p. 145 (1992); Science, vol. 264, p. 538 (1994)]. Since these planets could not have survived the supernova explosion that created the neutron star (pulsar), there is little doubt they formed out of supernova debris close to the collapsed supernova core.

The iron cores of the terrestrial planets probably formed in a similar fashion, and were then layered with silicates as material further away lost angular momentum and fell toward the Sun. Today we call those objects meteorites.

We discussed this in a paper, "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete", distributed at a news conference before the 199th annual meeting in Washington, DC. It is available on-line at

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

[Menikmati]

Thanks for the papers in .pdf&#33; I have yet to read all of the papers you posted so maybe I am asking a question I could find myself but what effect does the theory that the Sun could be made up of iron oposed to hydrogen which we have been taught for many years. What calculations are gonna change i.e. The mass of the sun? Are there different elements in supernova blast then thought? etc. Thanks for your feedback.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by michaelBirks+Nov 18 2003, 09:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (michaelBirks &#064; Nov 18 2003, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Donald A. Rosenfield@Nov 18 2003, 08:52 PM
Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don&#39;t see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.

It seems a little out to me, as well. A couple of questions, though:

1) Could the "Strange Xeon" have been generated in a Supernove outside the System, and &#39;blown&#39; in on the solar wind? Or is there too much of it for that to be reasonable.

2) Regarding Donald A. Rosenfield&#39;s comment above about the disparity between Neutron and &#39;solar-type&#39; stars, is it possible that there are a large umber of Neutron Stars being effectively &#39;masked&#39; inside solar-types?

Testing this theory:

Is it plausible that having a neutron star at its core could have verifiable consequences that could be differentiated from a conventional cored star? I&#39;m thinking things along the lines of density profiles, emissions spectra, etc.[/b][/quote]
To: Michael Birks

1) “Strange Xenon” could not have formed outside the Solar System because primordial helium was initially associated only with “Strange Xenon”, not with “Normal Xenon” like that here on Earth [Science, vol. 195, p. 208 (1977); Icarus, vol. 41, p. 312 (1980); Meteoritics, vol. 15, p. 117 (1980); etc.]

There is also too much “Strange Xenon”. In 1983 we predicted that the Galileo mission would find “Strange Xenon” in Jupiter [Meteoritics, vol. 18, p. 220 (1983)]. That was confirmed. The data are available on the web at

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf

2) Yes, Michael, we suspect that neutron stars may be masked inside “solar-type” stars. Of course, we don’t know that. But we are rather certain something like a neutron star is lurking inside the Sun. The mono-isotopic H-1 that rises upward and leaves the solar surface in the solar wind (3 x 10^43 per year) is probably the product of neutron decay outside the core, n -> H + anti-neutrino + 0.782 MeV.

3) Yes, Michael, our model can be tested. We propose several possible tests in our papers. The most simple and straight forward would be the detection of low energy solar anti-neutrinos from the decay of neutrons in the interior of the Sun. The most plausible detector seems to be Cl-35. Capture of low-energy anti-neutrinos on this would produce 87-day S-35. I presented this at a conference in Dubna, Russia this past summer. You will find that test listed with several other possible tests near the end of our papers, e.g.,

"Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proc. SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003) 27 Oct - 1 Nov 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA


http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

"Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

With kind regards,
Oliver

[Paul Copping]

If there was a supernova in the vicinity of our sun, would there not be clues and reminice of this massive explosion. Looking at the centre of our gallaxy, there is evidence of supernova&#39;s which could still be observed as voids with shock fronts.

[VanderL]

Wait a minute, can anyone tell me what a neutron star is? Before we can say that our Sun has an "neutron star core" we need to know what it is. I haven&#39;t seen any proof of a neutron star other than theoretical evidence. What is the difference between a neutron star and an ordinary star and how de we measure this?

cheers.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Josh@Nov 19 2003, 12:33 AM
If he is right... What does that do for the 5 billion years we thought we had for all the hydrogen to be exhausted?

To: Josh

Don’t worry, Josh. The Sun will probably be here much longer if its core is a neutron star than it would if the core were hydrogen-filled like the solar surface. The fraction of mass that can be converted into energy is over twice as high in a neutron star as in a star made of pure Hydrogen. See "Attraction and Repulsion of Nucleons: Sources of Stellar Energy", J. Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.ps

Kuroda and Myers combined U/Pb and Pu/Xe age dating to show that a supernova exploded here about 5 Gy ago, at the birth of the Solar System. See Figure 4, p. 364 of the paper on the “Composition of the Solar Interior”

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

We know the Sun has remained relatively stable since then, except for a period of flash heating about 4.5-4.7 Gy ago, when Hydrogen fusion was re-ignited in the Sun and some planetary dust was converted into glassy, aerodynamically shaped droplets in meteorites called “chondrules.”

In my opinion, our poor understanding of interactions between nucleons and of possible neutron tunneling of the gravitational barrier around a neutron star poses a much greater threat to us than does the exhaustion of fuel in the Sun

I challenged a group of theoretical physicists to address these issues at the 6th Workshop on Quantum Field Theory Under the Influence of External Conditions (QFEXT03) at the University of Oklahoma, Norman (Sept 15-19, 2003). I will send you a reference if our paper is not censored from the proceedings. That battle is on-going.

With kind regards,
Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
===============================

[Josh]

Phew&#33;&#33; I was about to start selling off all my footy cards. Good to hear we have a few more years. And thanks for the clarifications through out the discussion.

[Tinaa]

I hate showing my ignorance but here goes: To form a neutron star doesn&#39;t it go nova and blast off it&#39;s outer shell? If that is true, how did the planets form? From the elements from the outer shell? And wouldn&#39;t the sun have a faster rotation?

[Haglund]

The planets could have been there from the start, although in our case maybe not. Didn&#39;t think about the spin, that&#39;s a good question.

[Jack Lass]

[FONT=Impact][SIZE=5][COLOR=orange]Dr. Manuel's attention to this board is of course quite flattering, however, I think this is not the venue where such questions can be decided. Nor is it good scientific practice to issue press releases prior to scientific conferences. Such actions serve only to garner headlines. The truth or falsity of Dr. Manuel's theories are not matters of majority vote or opinion. Time and further research will show that he is correct in whole or in part, or incorrect entirely. I for one look forward to seeing how it turns out.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Josh]

Well said Jack Lass.

I was unaware that this hadn&#39;t been peer reviewed yet. That seems like a necessary first step.

[Guest_luke]

:blink: If the Suns core is comprised of Iron then how does this effect the theory of when the Sun is supposed to go into Red Giant phase? Instead of roughly 2 billion years left we may have more or less time to move to the stars and seek refuge from our dying sun. Is the Dr. out there? Can he or anyone else give me an answer?

[Josh]

Yeah ... I asked that about ten or so posts ago and the answer is about six posts up. happy reading.

[IonDrive]

Some arguments against that thesis:

1) Why do iron-rich (= metal-rich) stars seem to have planets more often than iron-poor (= metal-poor) ones?
Simply, because planets (especially planets large enough to detect with the methods currently in use) require a certain amount of heavier elements to form, as kind of a condensation core. But the difference between metal-rich stars and metal-poor ones is not necessarily whether their core contains hydrogenium or not, but it&#39;s simply their age. A cloud which formed stars one or three (or 4.6) billion years ago simply had much more time to collect heavier elements ejected from earlier star generations than one which collapsed to form stars already 8 or even 10 billion years ago.
So this is actually the old chicken and egg question, and somebody took eggs for chickens here.
Also I personally don&#39;t think that stars with much less metal content than the sun didn&#39;t form planets at all, but that simply the average mass of the most massive planet in a metal-poor system is WAY smaller than the average mass of the most massive planet in a metal-rich system (like perhaps 5 earth masses, compared to Jupiter&#39;s over 300), so they are just too small to be detected with nowaday&#39;s methods, while in 10 or 20 years instruments have been perfected enough to detect these too. Actually, these 3, 5 or 10 jupiter mass "monsters" have all been found orbiting stars which are most probably WAY younger than the sun.

2) Where do all these supernova-related (xenon and other) isotopes come from?
YES, they were produced in a supernova. YES, they were created in that supernova that FORMED the solar system. But that doesn&#39;t mean that the sun is centered around a neutron star that was a remnant from that supernova.
It&#39;s a different story: While stars are created by the dozen or hundred (see pleiades) from collapsing clouds of interstellar gas and dust (dust is important for the cooling mechanism of the cloud, otherwise stars as small as the sun wouldn&#39;t be created by these events but only very massive ones), these clouds do not collapse from themselves. On the contrary, without anything spectacular happening in their vicinity they are stable for billions of years (which is why there are still clouds where young stars can be born). But all observations point to the fact that such collapses are actually TRIGGERED by near supernovae. The sheer brute mass and speed and heat of the expanding gas shell of the outer(&#33 envelopes of a star gone supernova is enough to cause severe density fluctuations in an interstellar cloud, and the most dense of these fluctuations then simply collapse into a new (singular or binary or whatsoever) star system. Thus, EVERY star (except the very very first generation of stars which seemingly doesn&#39;t exist anymore, because no specimen was found yet) contains isotopes which were created in the outer layers of a supermassive star gone supernova. But MOST of that star&#39;s matter (the hydrogenium and most of the helium, actually) does NOT originate from the supernova but from the gas cloud which the supernova caused to collapse.
NOTE: since stars going supernova shed 90-95% of their mass and only the remaining few percent remain as neutron star (or black hole, for that matter), also a portion from the inner parts of that star is spread into space, which is why we can also find isotopes created in the inner parts of supermassive stars in less massive, sun-like stars (and their planets).

3) Why are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca so abundant in the sun and meteorites, compared to other elements in their vicinity within the period system?
That&#39;s due to two (or actually one-and-a-half) reasons: First, while O is so abundant in supernova remnants because most of the hydrogen is fused in massive stars by the CNO-cycle and not by the proton-proton cycle common in sun-like stars, the other six of these elements are, within the "Light Metal"-part of the period system (most chemicians tend to let what they name "Heavy Metals" start with copper, as the lightest "heavy metal", which is COINCIDENTALLY the element right after Ni in the period system), those with the most stable isotopes. For example, Iron has 4 stable isotopes, while it&#39;s "neighbor" Cobalt possesses just one; Sulfur also posesses 4 while it&#39;s neighbor Chlorine has only 2 stable isotopes. So simply, if an isotope of these six elements is created, the probability that it&#39;s stable for these elements is much larger than for other elements. The reason is that nuclei with even proton numbers are more stable than those with odd proton numbers, and isotopes who possess both even proton and neutron numbers are the most stable nuclei we know. (The most stable known nucleus is actually Fe-56, with 26 protons and 30 neutrons). This also leads us further: Second, the probability for an isotope to be created also increases very much (we are talking about factors of 10 or even 100 here) for even proton and neutron numbers. So we can find very good reasons to why, not counting H and He of course, these seven elements are so abundant in meteorites and stars, without having to resort to new theories about exotic matter in average star&#39;s cores. (For those who know the expression: Occam&#39;s Knife&#33; )

4) Last, but not least, my MAIN argument against the hypothesis that the sun contains a neutron star:

Neutron stars have a MINIMUM MASS of at least 1.4 times the mass of the sun&#33;
They can&#39;t have less mass because 1.4 solar masses are the minimum required to create gravitational forces great enough to make neutronium out of ordinary matter. Anything with less than 1.4 solar masses ends as ordinary white dwarf.
So where is the rest of the mass of that neutron star that&#39;s said to be inside the sun?
Actually, we have to count the mass of the "sun-like" H-containing ordinary matter envelope too. But since neutron stars are very small (average diameter about 20 km), we have to assume that if the rest of the solar volume has the same density as we think it has today, the sun&#39;s mass would have to be at minimum 2.4 times the mass we know it has&#33; So if the sun really contained a neutron star, Earth&#39;s year length would not be 365.25 days, but 235.76 days or less&#33; No we know that it&#39;s not like that, don&#39;t we?

But what would actually happen IF a neutron star collected an amount of ordinary matter sufficient in amount to create such a "sun envelope"?
If you drop ANY matter on the surface of a neutron star, the strong gravitational forces simply would "neutronize it too". (Actually the surface of a neutron star contains of ordinary matter, but more mass on it&#39;s surface would exert more pressure on it&#39;s core and more neutronium would be created on the inner edge of the crust.) If you drop more matter on it, the same thing happens again. And so on and so on, til eventually the neutron star would reach it&#39;s UPPER mass limit and collapse to a black hole&#33;
So if you add a neutron star with a certain mass and ordinary matter of a certain mass together, the result of that equation would be either a black hole or simply a neutron star which is just more massive than the neutron star you started with.
And NO, it would NOT take 4.6 billion years for the neutron star to "neutronize" that additional matter&#33;

[VanderL]

Hate to nag again, but what is neutronium, has it ever been detected? What is a neutron star, what makes is different from a normal star? Which properties are unique to neutron stars and how do we know what triggers a nova/supernova?
Anyone, please?

[Jack Lass]

I would like to thank Ion Drive whoever he or she may be and wherever he or she is from for a lucid rebuttal to doctor Manuel&#39;s thesis. I wish I had said it myself. (I wish I COULD have said it myself.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Paul Copping@Nov 20 2003, 08:18 PM
If there was a supernova in the vicinity of our sun, would there not be clues and reminice of this massive explosion. Looking at the centre of our gallaxy, there is evidence of supernova&#39;s which could still be observed as voids with shock fronts.

Hey, there is a great deal of evidence for a supernova that exploded here&#33;

Primordial helium (from outer layers of the supernova) was trapped with "strange xenon" in carbon-rich minerals when meteorites formed.

:P The Galileo mission found "strange xenon" with abundant helium and carbon in Jupiter. See the data at: http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus (giant, gaseous planets) came from the outer layers of the supernova.

Iron-sulfide minerals of meteorites trapped "normal xenon", like that on Earth, but no primordial helium. These minerals formed out of elements from the interior of the supernova, where fusion converted light elements like helium into heavier ones, like iron.

Earth and Mars contain "normal xenon" and abundant iron and sulfur from the interior of the supernova.

B) The Sun contains mostly "normal xenon" but the lighter atoms (isotopes) of xenon at the surface of the Sun are enriched by 9-stages of mass fractionation. Each stage enriches the amount of the lighter (L) atom relative to the amount of the heavier (H) atom by the square root of (H)/(L). For xenon, that means the lighter atoms (isotopes) are all enriched by about 3.5% per mass unit.

When the abundance of elements at the surface of the Sun is corrected for this mass-fractionation, the interior of the Sun turns out to be mostly iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, and calcium. In other words, the surface of the Sun is 91% hydrogen and 8.8% helium because these are the lightest and the next-lightest elements.

But the Sun contains "normal xenon" and abundant iron and sulfur in its interior, just like the iron suldife mineral in meteorites and the planets (Earth and Mars) rich in iron and sulfur. The Sun and the small, rocky inner planets formed out of elements from the interior of the supernova.

These observations are summarized in papers available on-line. See, for example:

1. "The Sun&#39;s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy", 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conf., Abstract #1041, Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.ps

2. "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete", presented at a news conference in Washington, DC, January, 2002

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v32n4...4/aas197/60.htm

3. "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proc. SOHO/GONG 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

The Oort cloud and background radiation may also be remnants of the supernova explosion, Paul. Thanks for your comment.

With kind remarks,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Josh@Nov 21 2003, 08:00 AM
Well said Jack Lass.

I was unaware that this hadn&#39;t been peer reviewed yet. That seems like a necessary first step.

Jack, the concept of an iron-rich Sun has been peer-reviewed many times since the mid-1970s. Please go to my web-page and check the list of publications on this subject.

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://umr.edu/~om
http://umr.ballofiron.com

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Guest_luke@Nov 21 2003, 09:55 AM
:blink: If the Suns core is comprised of Iron then how does this effect the theory of when the Sun is supposed to go into Red Giant phase? Instead of roughly 2 billion years left we may have more or less time to move to the stars and seek refuge from our dying sun. Is the Dr. out there? Can he or anyone else give me an answer?

Thanks for the question. The short answer is that we do not know if the Sun will go through a Red Giant stage. :unsure:

The core of the Sun is probably a neutron star. But there is little doubt that iron is the most abundant element in the interior of the Sun. Its surface is 91% H (the lightest of all elements) and 8.8% He (the next lightest element). I gave this on-line references earlier.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

:P [Gosh, does lighter material float? I thought the Earth was 67% water&#33;]

This internal structure of the Sun is based on many measurements since 1960. However, this composition is unlike the structure assumed in standard text-book descriptions of stellar evolution. :unsure:

As I recall, I told Josh earlier the life-time of the Sun if it had this structure will probably be longer than it would if composed of hydrogen. But we do not know if it will go through a Red Giant stage.

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://umr.edu/~om
http://ballofiron.com