Regarding:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp...ron/index.html

This is an article about Oliver Manual's proposal.

From the article:

I'm limiting the quoted material, but there's more about problems with a supernova origin.

As for:
http://web.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

This is a very short paper by Oliver Manual. As others have noted, there is the neutrino problem. He is assuming the following layers: Iron core, surounded by silicon, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen/helium surface. It doesn't agree with your model, it doesn't say anything about a solid surface, I don't see mass percentages, or where he addresses the concerns raised here or by solar astronomers.

So your sole source is the opinion of a scientist that has been generally rejected based on evidence?

I'm sure he is, but this is your proposal. You wrote the paper and I am talking to you. It is your duty to gather material that will support your proposal, not mine. I'm happy to wait until you've had a chance to contact him for references to answer questions about the percentages of iron, silicon, and neon - what the evidence is, and how it was determined. I'd also like to see his comments on your model.

Now I must admit this statement has me baffled. How does the Sun create hydrogen, the simplest element there is? Or are you saying it's created as a byproduct of some other reactions, and does not occur "naturally" in the Sun, that is, primordially? Am I missing another explanation?

And to say that helium only forms in (or near, you're not clear above) supernovae is very odd as well. We know that simple fusion of hydrogen can create helium (and there are more complicated processes as well), and this occurs at relatively low pressures and temperatures as compared to the inferno of a supernova. Temperatures and pressures that are reasonable in, say, the center of a star.

So why would you make these statements? Is this elaborated upon in your website?

And a third thing: you seem to be saying that the elemental abundances in the Sun should mimic that of comets. This is certainly not a logical step to take, as we know very well that different bodies in the solar system are chemically differentiated. Jupiter is almost entirely H, He, methane, water, and ammonia, for example, while Mercury is for more abundant in heavier elements. Just their densities show this very well. Mercury is more than 4 times as dense as Jupiter. They cannot possibly be made of the same thing. Mind you, these densities have been measured directly via spacecraft.

Comets and the Sun are very different bodies: different sizes, different temperatures, and we're pretty sure they formed in very different regions of the solar nebula. Why would you assume they would have the same elemental composition?

Perhaps I have missed some important steps here, as I have not read everything on your website. If you have links, I'll read them.

So enlighten me on exactly what evidence from helioseismology tells us we have 90 percent hydrogen again? According to helioseismology, the inner part is MORE dense than the outer part. Xenon seems like a likely bet frankly.

I had another thought as well. Perhaps the mass problem is related to the earth and sun being charged and "pushing" against one another electromagnetically as well as attracting one another via gravitational forces.

There are ways to work with the mass issue, if you're willing to think creatively.

Actually, I personally spoke with him today about what you are calling his "model". That is simply an "onion skin" representation of the supernova explosion, it is not "his" model of the sun. His model does predict an abundance of iron, just like we see in the SOHO images. These ferrite emissions aren't coming from a tiny little hole in the core as the gas model would predict, but instead these ions spring from a whole SURFACE that spans a very wide distance. This layer has substance and rotates uniformly, day after day.

I consider Dr. Manual to be a good friend, and there is little we actually disagree on. I trust his work a whole lot more than most of the silly suggestions I see, like trying to determine solar composition from photon count alone.

He'd never "seen" a solid surface till he visited my website. Trust me when I tell you we are both on the same page and both tickled pink to find each other's work. You can go ahead and ask him if you don't believe me.

What concerns specifically? Most of the so called "concerns" I saw in the other threads were based on a blatent misconception that one can determine solar composition by photon count alone. This thinking demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary grasp of nuclear physics. There are valence shells to consider. There is energy distribution between materials to consider. You can't just count photons and say "hey, it's mostly made of hydrogen". That's exactly the simplistic logic that's being used to create a "concern". It frankly "concerns" me that no one complained that you can't just count photons to determine solar composition. I understood enough about valence shells and energy states of atoms in high school to correct that error in thinking. Dr. Manuel and his group aren't taken nearly seriously enough because most people don't even grasp even a rudimentarly understanding of nuclear chemistry. Dr. Manuel certainly does.

[quote[So your sole source is the opinion of a scientist that has been generally rejected based on evidence? [/quote]

Most people who put forth non main stream ideas aren't taken real seriously. I can tell you this from direct experience. It doesn't suprise me one bit that his work wasn't accepted since it wasn't "politically correct". I was however "scientifically" correct as SOHO and TRACE and YOHKOH demonstrate. With these images, I don't think we can afford to ignore his work any longer.

If you saw a pea sized lump of ferrite in these images, I'd be right there with you cheering on the gas model. Since we see a whole SURFACE in these images, I'm going to have to listen to the good doctor of nuclear chemistry. It looks like he knew what he was talking about, even if others didn't take him seriously.

I think that's a cop out on your part. I have a day job and he's a far better reesource that I am on nuclear chemistry and anyone can see. If you want a real answer ask him. If you are posturing or just trying to make my life difficult, forget it. I've got better things to do.

From BBSO images, I would have to say that hydrogen seems to be created in the calcium ferrite interactions at the "surface". In other words, the electrical activity from the surface ionizes the ferrite and in this process hydrogen is created. That calcium ferrite interaction does seem to be generating these ions. That hydrogen is a byproduct of the electrical activity and calcium/ferrite interactions. There are of course other elements involved and seen in the SERTS data, so it could be more complex than simply ferrite ionization that releases the hydrogen. Either way, its a byproduct IMO, not a core element.

You are right, that was sloppy wording on my part. It's late my time and I should get some sleep. What I should have said is that there is a "specific kind" of helium that is only seen in connection with with special xenon, and supernovae. It can be created several ways, but only one way that is related to special xenon and supernova explosions. It can fuse as well as you point out. I doubt however that enough helium fuses from the electrical activity at the surface to sustain that layer for very long were it not for the presense of the neon to keep things relatively stable.

The hydrogen byproduct idea is explained on my website, but I believe my helium fopah was limited to this thread.

Actually the composition of Saturn and Jupiter aren't well understood, and these statements are based on gas model "predictions", not direct observation. If you could point me to spectral data on the Shoemaker-Levi 9 explosion, I'll bet well find plenty of heavy elements, both from the comet and Jupiter itself. That comet hit something that was VERY dense indeed, and at not a very great depth either.

They may not be composed of exactly that same thing. Mercury may contain xenon for all I know. The thing here to note is that the composition of Jupiter is based on gas model predictions, not upon direct observation. If the gas model is wrong, then so is the assumed composition of Jupiter. It may be mostly iron, whereas Mercury may be mostly gold. I really don't know. I can only know what I can "see" and what makes sense based on the laws of physics. Physics tells me that given a bunch of heavy material floating around in space, gravity will cause this material to cluster, and it won't much differentiate between light and heavy materials. Whatever is around is going to get sucked in. That is logical. To presume only lighter elements will go one way, and heavier ones will go another would not make much sense IMO.

Let's turn that around. Why would I assume they would not have the same composition, particularly in light of recent evidence that our solar system is recycled material from a supernova?

I frankly appreciate your attitude and your desire to understand the ideas that I am trying to convey. I really do appreciate it. I'll have to head for bed soon, but I do wish to continue this conversation until you finally feel compelled to move this thread from the "Against the Mainstream" forum over to the "General Astronomy" forum.

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.

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.

According to Wikipedia, the amounts of heavy elements found were consistent with what was expected to be found in a comet. So not plenty of heavy elements from Jupiter, sadly...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

You know, the continuous reference to the current model of Sun as Galileo's gas model, reminds of those crackpots that refer to the modern model of atoms as Bohr's model, which is a tell-tale of their ignorance of the matter.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

What's the point of this thread? It just seems to be another 'Jerry' style endless dance.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

*Bread and Butter, captain swoop!*...I was thinking the same thing. I've been reading this thread and in the process learning a great deal more about what's going on with the sun and consequently, what's not going on with the sun! Perhaps this is the point of this thread?

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Well, I don't know about the second, but the first, Manuel's nuclear chemistry, is clearly flawed. As other's have pointed out, its predictions do not match the observed structure of the sun and iron, while present, is not as prevalent in the sun as his model predicts. And, when one considers that one of the bases for his model are the old measurements of the solar nu flux, it's clear (to me at least) that Dr. Manuel's model does not explain the observations as well as the SSM does.

(oh, and by the way, Galileo knew nothing about nuclear fusion processes, so the standard solar model has clearly undergone some modifications since his day. A better starting point for the current solar model is the seminal paper The Origin of Chemical Elements by Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow from 1948. Of course, the SSM has undergone further modification since then.)

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

(bolding mine)
All references I can find put the first stars and galaxies forming between 300 million to 1 billion years after the big bang. Are you inferring that scientists "adjusted" these figures after seeing hubble data? Cite please!
http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/index.html
Edit to add URL link with timeline.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Michael,
You quote a reference but don't understand it's context The olivine in the earth are chemically different than the particles that were collected!

You see there's olivine in the earth's mantle and assume it must have come from the supernova explosion the article talks about. There are other processes beyond supernovae that can form olivine.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Fissioning of elements lower than iron on the periodic table takes energy input, rather than the series after iron which can release energy on fissioning. While alpha-particle emission can be a source of helium (alpha particles being emitted in certain radioactive decay), and radioactive decay products can include free neutrons which decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino, some hydrogen production would therefore not be entirely impossible. One should expect higher neutrino counts to account for the ionized solar wind with a greater than 90% constituency of hydrogen nuclei, and an 8% helium composition. as well as an appropriate ratio of radioactive and decay products. To be produced in a "ferrite alloy" layer, it would at least have to be composed in part of iron-60, as lower atomic weight iron nuceli are stable, and its decay products (cobalt-60 and eventually nickel-60) should be measured in appropriate abundances in the sun if this is an ongoing and stable process accounting for hydrogen and helium production.

However, while production of hydrogen and helium nuclei may be technically possible, there is not a known mechanism for fissioning elements based on electrical charges, and considering iron and below require more energy to fission than is initially required to fuse them into nuclei, this is a net energy loss situation. Neutron collision and antimatter interaction can fission elements, but electrical interaction has not been shown to do the same. Accelerating beta particles (free electrons) to extremely high speeds and colliding them with targets can produce a shower of particles, but it is doubtful that this would be either consistent or stable for the production of the proportions of hydrogen and helium.

It is also not certain that the decay of iron-60, which releases an electron (beta particle) and not a neutron and subsequently a proton, as required for creation of hydrogen nuclei. Iron-59, a synthetic isotope with a decay time of 44 days, undergoes the same decay. Actually, all isotopes of calcium and silicon as well undergo beta-decay, releasing an electron. What about neon? There are no unstable isotopes of neon.

Lacking a fission method of producing hydrogen nuclei, and having no mechanism for electronic or magnetic interaction to fission stable nuclei, there appears to be a dearth of methods for producing the hydrogen abundance in the sun and solar wind.

Hmm. They find sulfur consistent with volcanic activity and iron, silicon and magnesium. I fail to see how that suggests that Jupiter is made of mostly hydrogen. In fact, these elements aren't just consistent with comets, but with planetary bodies in general. Again there is absolutely NO evidence based on these observations to suggest that Jupiter is mostly hydrogrogen.

Hopefully the point of this conversation is to exchange ideas. I have no idea who "Jerry" might be.

The term "crackpot" here is demeaning and you know it. It's interesting that nobody here has tackled even a single observation on my website, but somehow you're convinced *I'M* the crackpot? How does that work? Just tackle even ONE website observati