Iron Sun Discussion

[blueshift]

Originally posted by Duane@Oct 4 2004, 06:52 PM

Here's a paper about Neutron star cooling [theory and observation]
Neutron Star Cooling

This paper would seem to put yet another nail in the Iron Sun theory. According to the timelines laid out by the authors of this paper, there is no possibility that a neutron star could supply the power necessary for our sun to burn happily for 5 billion years or so.

Duane,

All my studies suggest the same thing...I don't see a neutron star accumulating matter and just sitting there...He would have to prove that degeneracy does not get reached prior to the nova event....Yet the nova event cannot occur without it..

The new thread antoniseb brought by J. Marvin Herndon dealing with Mercury's
Protoplanetary Mass throws another wrench into things...complete with mass ratios.

blueshift

[qraal]

Hi All

blueshift wrote about the neutron star cooling paper...

(Duane @ Oct 4 2004, 06:52 PM)
re: Neutron Star Cooling

This paper would seem to put yet another nail in the Iron Sun theory. According to the timelines laid out by the authors of this paper, there is no possibility that a neutron star could supply the power necessary for our sun to burn happily for 5 billion years or so.

...reply: actually that's only true if the neutron star's heat alone supplied the Sun's energy. But two other sources are neglected in that case - gravitational energy as the envelope collapses slowly into neutronium, and any fusion caused by compression in the intense gravity around the neutronium core.

Before Bethe proposed fusion as the powerhouse of stars astrophysicists toyed with a neutronium core and a collapsing envelope as the power source of the Sun. Ordinary Helmholtz-Kelvin style gravitational collapse didn't have enough oomph for long enough. What they found - highly germane to this discussion - was that the arrangement was unstable and the whole core rapidly collapsed producing energy in a bang.

How does the Iron Sun avoid neutronium runaway???

qraal

[antoniseb]

Here is a link to a paper by Dr. Manuel which was presented in Russia 23 Jun 2003, but appeared in arXiv today.

The paper details his request that we look for low energy [<0.782MeV] anti-neutrinos from the sun. It&#39;s three pages plus references and diagrams, and a fairly easy read. It contains nothing that wasn&#39;t already stated in this thread, but is a fairly concise statement of the Iron Sun theory. It was written in 2002, and so has nothing in it answering some of the concerns raised here.

Paper by Dr. Manuel

[antoniseb]

Here is a very on-topic paper about element abundances in the sun and meteorites.

The solar chemical composition

[om@umr.edu]

Thanks, Anton.

The new paper still assumes the interior of the Sun is, like its surface, composed almostly entirely of

H - the lightest of all elements, and

He - the next lightest element.

That assumption contradicts our finding that light-weight elements and the lighter isotopes of each element are strongly enriched in the Solar Wind and at the Sun&#39;s surface.

Fig 1. The Sun&#39;s Surface Composition


Fig 2. Evidence of Mass Separation in the Sun


Fig 3. Composition of Bulk Sun Indicated by Isotope Mass Fractionation in the Solar Wind


Fig 4. Composition of Bulk Sun Indicated by Mass Fractionation of s-Products in the Photosphere


Results from the Genesis Mission may address this matter. According to a NASA/JPL news release at,

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate...ionoverview.pdf

The primary purpose of the Genesis Mission is to collect atoms in the solar wind and analyze them to determine What the Sun is made of.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[antoniseb]

Figure 2 in your most recent post is one that I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen in this thread before. Thanks for bringing something new.

I noticed, when I looked at this paper that one of its authors was Grevesse, whom you&#39;d cited on numerous occasions. Yes, I had noticed that his paper contradicted your conclusions in some ways. I thought it represented a clear easy-to-read statement of the other side, with fifteen years improvement in the data and analysis from the 1989 paper you cite so often.

[VanderL]

What do you make of the remark in the article that these new values for the solar abundances brings the results of helioseismology into trouble?(remember that was the finding that everything agreed to unprecedented accuracy, see Bahcall)

If anything, imo we should be wary of overconfidence in our models.

Cheers.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by VanderL@Oct 12 2004, 07:30 PM
What do you make of the remark in the article that these new values for the solar abundances brings the results of helioseismology into trouble? (remember that was the finding that everything agreed to unprecedented accuracy, see Bahcall)

If anything, imo we should be wary of overconfidence in our models.

I agree, VanderL.

On the one hand, defenders of the standard solar model might point out that they have only changed their estimate on the amount of material that makes up less than 0.2% of the Sun.

I.e., they still claim the Sun is over 99.8% H and He &#33;&#33;

On the other hand, Earth, meteorites and the rocky planets are made almost entirely of elements whose abundance in the Sun has dropped overnight by a factor of two &#33;

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - Bahcall, Basu, Pinsonneault and Serenelli
http://www-admin@arXiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0407060
claim the metals only decreased by 30%. They
suggest that the opacity be increased by about 10%.

[om@umr.edu]

Four years ago yesterday, it was noted that:

"The only reasonable conclusion is that the standard
solar model is like the Emperor’s new suit of clothes,
there are so many holes that nothing remains."

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstract11.htm

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[damienpaul]

by you


I am still finding it hard to be convinced i am afraid

[suntrack2]

i discussed with the honourable saint Achyut Maharaj, they were given me half an hour to talk, during this i move towards this Sun subject, then they define what sun is as follows:
whatever the heat exploded from the universe that is sun already burned part in it heavy, whatever the coolness gathered in the universe that is moon they further said, they were giving me an instance of human body, firstly they said don&#39;t look into the sky sun, look in your body, sun is with you, they state that the vain [sanskrit name is Pitta Nadi] is nothing but a sun in our body, they further said that landing on sun is very difficult since that is very hot, they further said that sun is in the continues process to collect the micro duct absorb in it for its burning process and the big mass collected within that circle is a heavy matter [become] latter, after the huge flames that gattered flames collapses on each other very fast to keep the light intact, and in this process they further said that sun is not alone to project this show, there are some other invisible power is in exist besides sun, sun continuosly taking the assistance from these sources [we can say it nutronium duct] and sun keeps its light fresh, without fail.

secondly in the yantra tantra and vidnyan magzine there was a article in which some old vedas and upnishdas instances are given in which it has written in SURYOPNISHADAS > that whatever the factors and ingrediants in the human body [means contents like loh,[iron],nytrogen, uria,sodium and others are exists in the sun. In rigveda there are no.of hymns on sun existed.

The honourable saint further said, that these foreign people we say that they eat and drink and live differently but they are very great, they have praised the efforts of Dr.Nelson in respect of sun, they told me to convey this scientists my blessings. They said that Socretis and Yeshu Christa both are very much respectful for them, they further told that Yeshu Christa were known everything in this universe, and you all are the childs of him they stated.

The honourable Saint further advise that "if anyone is studying or making any kind of thing that must be appreciate and that must be more praised rather than the critisism to others.

sunil

[om@umr.edu]

Thanks, sunil, for bringing the message from the honourable saint Achyut Maharaj:

" firstly they said don&#39;t look into the sky sun, look in your body, sun is with you."

There is no doubt that life itself, including every thought and every action, from birth to death, is driven by energy pouring forth from the Sun. In that sense, we are each nothing more than a reflection of the Sun.

The association of good with light and the association of evil with darkness is found in many religions. Zoroastor, the founder of Zoroastrianism, was one of the religious leaders who seemed to appreciate the control that the Sun has over our lives.

The co-author on many early papers about the Iron Sun, Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu, was an extremely talented PhD scientist, highly evolved spirirually.

Contrary to popular opinion, my experiences suggest that science and spiritual advancement are closely inter-twined.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[damienpaul]

and so, I remain unconvinced and wondering why religion has come into it....

[om@umr.edu]

Damienpaul,

Perhaps some people, like sunil, see both science and spirituality as paths to truth.

I cannot personally distinguish flashes of insight, or stumblings across unexpected findings, from enlightment.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[damienpaul]

as do I, but it has not answered many of the unanswered questions by the others, such as Anton, Duane etc.

Believe me, i love learning, I am intrigued by ALL forms of knowledge and paths to truths....but I am hard to convince at times and repition does not convince me either i&#39;m afraid.

Also, just be careful of the rules here regarding religion..

[om@umr.edu]

The Genesis Mission collected Atoms in the Solar Wind to find out:

1.) What is the Sun made of?

2.) Why is Earth different from other planets?

3.) Are the planets and the Sun made of the same stuff?

4.) How did the solar system form?

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate...ionoverview.pdf

We studied Atoms in the Solar Wind, in the Photosphere, in Solar Flares, in Meteorites, and in Planets to obtain the following answers to the same questions:

1.) What is the Sun made of?

Answer #1: One batch of elements from the interior of a supernova - mostly Iron (Fe), Oxygen (O), Nickel (Ni), Silicon (Si), and Sulfur (S) - formed the Sun. See: "Solar Abundance of the Elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222.

2.) Why is Earth different from other planets?

Answer #2: These same elements - mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si and S - formed Earth and the other rocky planets near the Sun. The nine stable Xenon isotopes in this batch of elements have approximately the composition seen in air. See: "Xenon in Carbonaceous Chondrites", Nature 240 (1972) 99-101.

3.) Are the planets and the Sun made of the same stuff?

Answer #3: Another batch of elements from the outer layers of the supernova - consisting mostly of Hydrogen (H), Helium (He), Carbon ©, and Nitrogen (N) - formed the giant, gaseous planets like Jupiter. The nine stable Xenon isotopes in this batch of elements have approximately the composition seen in so-called "interstellar" diamonds of meteorites. See: "Xenon in Carbonaceous Chondrites", Nature 240 (1972) 99-101.

Xenon in Jupiter is like the xenon in diamond inclusions of meteorites.

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

4.) How did the solar system form?

Answer #4: The solar system formed directly from the heterogeneous debris of a single, supernova that exploded here 5 billion years ago.

http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[damienpaul]

yes, the Genesis data will be fantastc&#33; No 2,3 and 4 sound fascinating (and I am sure i do not need repeat my skepticism of 1)

[om@umr.edu]

Fortunately the answer to question #1 should be unambigious and clear.

Consider these two (TRUE/FALSE) statements of question #1.

1. The interior of the Sun is 91% H and 9% He, like its surface, with only trace levels of the elements (Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca) that comprise 99% of rocky planets and meteorites.

(TRUE/FALSE)

2. The interior of the Sun is 99% Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca, like rocky planets and meteorites, covered with a thin veneer of the two lightest elements, H and He.

(TRUE/FALSE)

There is little "wiggle" room left&#33;

I hope results from the Genesis Mission meet our expectations &#33;

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[damienpaul]

what would you consider to be proof dr. m?

how would you convince a reasonably education lay person like me?

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by damienpaul@Oct 16 2004, 08:09 AM
What would you consider to be proof dr. m?*

How would you convince a reasonably educated lay person like me?

Damienpaul,

I cannot convince anyone of anything, just as school teachers can&#39;t teach anything to anyone. Reasonable people want to consider new ideas and do so for their own benefit.

Pages and pages of experimental measurements posted above clearly indicate that the first statement is FALSE and the second statement is TRUE:

FALSE : 1. The interior of the Sun is 91% H and 9% He, like its surface, with only trace levels of the elements (Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca) that comprise 99% of rocky planets and meteorites.

TRUE : 2. The interior of the Sun is 99% Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca, like rocky planets and meteorites, covered with a thin veneer of the two lightest elements, H and He.

For example, figures posted one (1) page back show overwhelming evidence for mass separation in the Sun.

Any reasonably educated lay person will:

A. Accept that interpretation, or

B. Offer other reasonable explanations for the experimental measurements, e.g.,

1. How does a reasonably educated lay person explain the enrichment of light mass isotopes in the solar wind, if this is not from mass separation in the Sun?

2. How does a reasonably educated lay person explain the enrichment of light mass s-products in the photosphere, if this is not from mass separation in the Sun?

For a reminder of the data, see:

Fig 1. The Sun&#39;s Surface Composition

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/Figure1withCaption.gif

Fig 2. Evidence of Mass Separation in the Sun

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/Figure2withCaption.gif

Fig 3. Composition of Bulk Sun Indicated by Isotope Mass Fractionation in the Solar Wind

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/Figure3withCaption.gif

Fig 4. Composition of Bulk Sun Indicated by Mass Fractionation of s-Products in the Photosphere

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/Figure4withCaption.gif

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[damienpaul]

ummm no need for sarcasm, I was being serious with my question and I was just asking Dr. M. I&#39;m sorry but being put down like that does not convince me, its kind of hurtful, and the comment "just as school teachers can&#39;t teach anything to anyone." is especially insulting as I am a teacher, and have been quite successful thank you very much.

I&#39;ll rephrase for you if you want, what data from Genesis would serve as even further conclusive evidence of an Iron Sun? and how can this be translated for the reasonably educated lay person like me (or refer to me as an ordinary moron if you want,) All I am requesting is some information, a non-sarcastic answer thats all, or in your mind am I below you?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by damienpaul@Oct 16 2004, 10:10 AM
its kind of hurtful, and the comment "just as school teachers can&#39;t teach anything to anyone." is especially insulting as I am a teacher

Hi Damo,

In this case, I think that Dr. Manuel made an unlucky choice of words. I doubt he was aware of you being a teacher, and was working on the concept that teachers can guide, but the learning is done by the student. I think he should make a quick apology for an unintended insult. I think the rest of the aire of sarcasm in his recent posts reflects some frustration on his part that his ideas are not sprouting here, and he blames the soil, not the seeds.

As to his conclusions, I&#39;ve voiced an opinion on this before. His little true/false quiz is a fine example of Reagan-esque simplicity. It isn&#39;t hard to find analogies that convey a wrong idea to a simplistic audience. He&#39;s found a good collection of these.

I wish he&#39;d weighed in with a detailed opinion about JM Hearndon&#39;s papers- they outline a very believable scenario that undermine&#39;s Dr. Manuel&#39;s Iron Sun thesis. I guess trying to address that in full would be way too much work.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by damienpaul@Oct 16 2004, 10:10 AM
ummm no need for sarcasm, I was being serious with my question and I was just asking Dr. M. I&#39;m sorry but being put down like that does not convince me, its kind of hurtful, and the comment "just as school teachers can&#39;t teach anything to anyone." is especially insulting as I am a teacher, and have been quite successful thank you very much.

I&#39;ll rephrase for you if you want, what data from Genesis would serve as even further conclusive evidence of an Iron Sun? and how can this be translated for the reasonably educated lay person like me (or refer to me as an ordinary moron if you want,) All I am requesting is some information, a non-sarcastic answer thats all, or in your mind am I below you?

I apologize, Damienpaul.

1. No insult or sarcasm was intended.

I am also a school teacher. Perhaps I should have quoted one of my colleagues:

"Learning is not a spectator sport."

If you have an explanation for the observations, by all means put it on the table. Neither you nor anybody else is above or below me. We&#39;re all here together, not of our own choice, and we&#39;re all trying to figure things out.

2. "What data from Genesis would serve as even further conclusive evidence of an Iron Sun?"

Atoms of the solar wind implanted in lunar soils left little doubt that the interior of the Sun is mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca.

These same seven elements comprise 99% of the material in meteorites. As shown at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference, the probability ( P ) that this agreement is meaningless is

P < 0.00000000000000000000000000000002 &#33; &#33;

See: "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference: Local and Global Helioseismology, The Present and Future (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517) pages 345-348, 27 October - 1 November, 2002, Big Bear Lake, California, USA.

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

Excess light-weight s-products in the photosphere independently show that Iron (Fe) is the Sun&#39;s most abundant element.

Fig 4. Composition of Bulk Sun Indicated by Mass Fractionation of s-Products in the Photosphere
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/Figure4withCaption.gif

Data from Genesis might insert a few more zeros in the above statistical analysis, making

P << 0.00000000000000000000000000000002 &#33; &#33;

but already the probability of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is hardly distinguishable from zero.

Thus, there is already conclusive evidence of an Iron Sun. It is highly unlikely that data from Genesis will change anything, unless Genesis scientists observe something that they think might be inconsistent with the Iron Sun conclusion.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu~om

[VanderL]

Hi Oliver,

Thus, there is already conclusive evidence of an Iron Sun. It is highly unlikely that data from Genesis will change anything, unless Genesis scientists observe something that they think might be inconsistent with the Iron Sun conclusion.

Which of the possible findings of the Genesis mission do you consider observations inconsistent with the Iron Sun model? Would short-lived isotopes surprise you?

Cheers.

[om@umr.edu]

VanderL,

They do not yet have data from the Genesis Mission.

When the data become available, we will have to see what they conclude from the results.

There is much room for misunderstanding, especially if isotopic heterogeneities in the early solar system are not taken into account, if nuclear reactions near the surface of the Sun are ignored, or if the dependency of mass fractionation on speed is overlooked.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[VanderL]

Hi Oliver,

Sorry I didn&#39;t ask the question more clearly, I was speculating if the upcoming result from the Genesis mission could possibly show data inconsistent with the Iron Sun model, and if so which result would make you change your mind on your hypothesis. Are there any particles or isotope ratio&#39;s that would be totally opposite to your expectation?
Wouldn&#39;t short-lived isotopes be a little difficult to explain, or are they common around the Sun?

Cheers.

[damienpaul]

apology accepted, thank you dr. M.

and thank you for your reply, that is interesting about the enrichment, but I have a question, how is that staggering probabilty calculated?

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by VanderL@Oct 16 2004, 11:10 PM
Wouldn&#39;t short-lived isotopes be a little difficult to explain, or are they common around the Sun?

VanderL,

If short-lived isotopes from the Genesis Mission are measured, I expect they will see short-lived isotopes from nuclear reactions near the solar surface.

As noted in references 33-35 of the following paper, nuclear reactions near the solar surface are making N-15, L-6, and Be-10.

See: "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", Proc. 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology, ESA SP-517 (2003) pp. 345-348.

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

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu~om

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by damienpaul@Oct 16 2004, 11:48 PM
How is that staggering probabilty calculated?

That probability was calculated with the assistance of a local Professor of Statistics.

Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca are each trace elements at the solar surface. H and He alone make up 99.9% of the atoms there.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[damienpaul]

is it at all possible for the stats professor to post here exatly how that probability was calculated?