Quote:
|
Originally Posted by From the article
"This cannot be correct. I can think of at least half a dozen different lines of evidence that say that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium with only a tiny amount of iron," said David Hathaway of NASA's Marshal Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
"Solar astronomers don't 'assume' that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. We deduce it from several different lines of evidence," he said.
"We measure the composition of the sun's interior using helioseismology, the study of solar oscillations produced by sonic noise within the sun. We find 90 percent hydrogen and 8 percent helium."
|
We do not find this using helioseismology. We find an inner layer that is MORE dense than the outer layers using helioseismology. The hydrogen/helium things is SPECULATION based on a number of assumptions that may or may not have merit.
Quote:
Added Jeffrey Larsen, an astronomer at the University if Arizona in Tucson:
"A supernova is incredibly energetic. You don't form planets in the aftermath of one of these, since the outer layers of the star are literally blasted off into space for thousands of light years," he said.
"The space next to an exploded star is very, very, very clean. We're standing here on a planet, so we didn't have a supernova in our past."
|
Now talk about statements that don't make much sense based on gas model predictions. First of all, it is ASSUMED in the gas model that all heavier elements come from supernovas from giant stars, the fact we are standing here at all is evidence we have a supernova in our past. His statement is simply illogical.
Both of these statements show a complete lack of understanding of nuclear chemistry and/or a poor understanding of gas model concepts. I frankly don't see any substance in either of these "objections".
Anyway, I'm REALLY tired now and I'm off to bed. I've really enjoyed most of the conversations the past few days. I think maybe we're making some headway.
