Hi Dr. Manuel, just looking at item one for the moment:

You can wave your hands saying that there was not enough time, but the current model is that the sun was formed out of the same nebula that a massive star formed in first, and its explosion precipitated the collapse of the sun's portion of the nebula. This didn't need to take more than a hundred thousand years. There was plenty of time for this to happen. Look at the creation of new open clusters for what processes are thought to have created our own system.[/b][/quote]
Happy Easter, Tim and antoniseb!

Here is a quote from the Bible that illustrates how science really works, "Now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully." Saint Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:12 (NRSV).

Sadly you two are trying to defend here the ad hoc and individually unlikely explanations that others proposed for tiny pieces of the long list of observations that collectively show the solar system formed in this manner:

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

In 1975, Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I were indeed peering through a mirror, dimly when we first proposed this scenario for the formation of the solar system.

Look at the dates of the measurements cited for the15 Major Space Age Observations.

Those post-1975 observations simply confirmed the validity of:

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

I do not have time now to respond to the two observations you two responded to most recently, but I will do so soon.

Meanwhile, Happy Easter!

With kind regards,

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

Yes Happy Easter. Joy and rebirth all around!

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thank you, Tim and antoniseb, for your efforts to defend the model of a hydrogen filled Sun.

Earlier, I told you that “Like almost everyone involved in isotope measurements, I initially accepted the model of cosmological synthesis of the elements and the classic nebular model that an ordinary, well-mixed interstellar cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium formed the solar system.  I experienced first hand the confusion and acrimony of the space age, as measurement after measurement on isotopes in the solar system yielded results none of us expected.”
  
“The early solar system was highly radioactive! Short-lived isotopes and their decay products are “atomic clocks” that deny
i) the time we had assumed between element synthesis and the formation of solids, and
ii) the time needed for geochemical differentiation.”

Unfortunately leading scientists overlooked some observations for decades and ignored one interpretation of the 15 Space Age Observations.

They were, like Tim, convinced that “fundamental physics, absolutely rules out a heavy element model for the solar interior.”

Instead of an open and frank discussion of the data as they were acquired (1960-present), this view was considered unthinkable for four decades.

Not surprisingly, that view now appears as something radical and ill-conceived.

Scientific leaders now hide from the fray leaving you two to defend their positions.

That isn’t fair to either of you. You simply do not have the background training to address the observations they selectively chose to ignore.

For example in his last message, Tim writes, “It looks like it could be mass fractionation. It also looks like it could be charge fractionation ..... the fractionation seems to be correlated with the first ionization potential for the atoms (hence the monicker "FIP effect").”

Yes, Tim, the date support your first statement, but Don Reames does not mention the possibility of simple mass fractionation in the Sun.

If H = mass of heavier particle and L = mass of lighter particles, his data show the following trend:

.(Z).........(H/L)...Enrichment
...8...........1.0..........=1.0
..26..........3.5......... ~10
34-50..4.9-5.7......~100
50-56..7.4-8.6.....~1000

You are therefore right, Tim, to conclude that Reames could be seeing simple mass fractionation. But you then refute that possibility in your final conclusion:

“I will also add that it simply cannot be ignored that all we know (or think we know) about fundamental physics, absolutely rules out a heavy element model for the solar interior.”

Don Reames’ data do not support your second statement, Tim, that “the fractionation seems to be correlated with the first ionization potential”, FIP. The values of FIP are compared with the enrichments below:

.(Z).........(FIP)...Enrichment
...8...........1.0..........=1.0
..26..........0.6......... ~10
34-50..0.3-1.0......~100
50-56..0.3-0.8.....~1000

One might arbitrarily select elements from Z = 34-40 and from Z = 50-56 so the values of FIP would correlate with enrichments, Tim, but the raw data show no clear correlation between enrichments and values of FIP.

Likewise antoniseb says “...... the current model is that the sun was formed out of the same nebula that a massive star formed in first, and its explosion precipitated the collapse of the sun's portion of the nebula.”

How does this explosion of a nearby star explain the close link of primordial He-4 with excess Xe-136 from the r-process in meteorites?

He-4/Xe-132 Xe-136/Xe-132

-----6,230-------000000.338
---- 7,010-------000000.338
----11,200------000000.354
----13,900------000000.354
----40,100------000000.461
----47,400------000000.477
----83,300------000000.583

How could material ejected from a supernova maintain He-4 and Xe-136 so tightly together that they would exhibit a 99+% correlation?

When the proponents of this nearby supernova model have not addressed the above correlation of He-4 with Xe-136, is it fair to ask antoniseb to do so?

Values of FIPs for He-4 and Xe-136 differ by a factor of 2, and values of their masses differ by a factor of 34!

Xe-136 is highly enriched in some meteorite minerals, depleted in others. How does a nearby supernova explain these “mirror image” isotopic anomalies seen for example in Te, Xe, Ba, Nd, Sm, Nd (Depletions and excesses of the same isotope)?

Why are r-products from the supernova accompanied by isotopically normal He, Ne and C?

Does antoniseb think this nearby supernova produced the r-products in Jupiter, in the Earth, in iron meteorites? What about 8% of Xe-136 in the Sun, as Pepin suggests?

Where is the remnant of this supernova?

Did this supernova produce six levels of monoisotopic O-16 that are characteristic of six different types of meteorites and planets [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 30 (1976) 10]?

As noted earlier, separate “ad hoc explanations have been proposed for each observation, but collectively they tell a totally unexpected story about our place in the universe, the birth of the solar system, the origin of its elements, and the composition of the Sun.

I have taken the time to respond here to two of a multitude of ad hoc explanations proposed for each of 15 Space Age Observations over the past 45 years. I cannot meet my other responsibilities and continue to write such detailed responses.

This week Yashmeet Singh and I will be preparing to present a paper, “Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core” at the Mid-America Regional Astrophysics Conference on Saturday afternoon at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City. If you are in the area, I invite you to attend.

"What Makes the Sun Shine?" will be addressed in a posting next week on the source of luminosity in an iron-rich Sun.

With kind regards,

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

Sadly, I can't travel this weekend, and budget would normally forbid such an excursion, but thank-you.

Yes. I think it is likely that several Supernova have contributed matter to our system. If several supernova blew a cloud [superbubble] out of the galaxy [similar to more recent observations of starburst regions elsewhere] in the early star forming era 8 Gyears ago, and it collided with a cloud in the disk again 5 Gyears ago [toward the peak of the rapid star forming period] we could certainly have a mixture of sources, including primordial hydrogen, helium, and lithium, rapid-process nuclei, slow-process nuclei, and fusion products.

Even without a Supernova kick, it did start flying away 5 billion years [and 25 galactic orbits] ago. There's no reason to expect it to be nearby. If it has no companion, there's little likelyhood of seeing it.

I look forward to it.

Just as a side question, what fraction of the main-sequence stars in the galaxy do you think shine like the sun and have neutron stars and half a solar mass of Iron inside them? If we start detecting rocky planets around most nearby stars in a decade or so, will that be a problem for the Iron Sun theory?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thanks, antoniseb.

There was a news story a couple of years ago about a "lonely neutron star".

As I recall, it was a rare find to see a lonely neutron star streaking through space.

The story said the parent star was probably part of a binary star system, and the neutron star was probably thrown from the rest of the SN-debris by this "sling shot" action.

However, neutron stars are massive and occupy tiny volumes (density = 10e15 that of ordinary matter). They are usually seen near the center of supernova debris.

It thus seems unlikely that a Supernova kick caused a neutron star to start flying away from the solar system 5 billion years ago. :unsure:

With kind regards,

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

There are quite a few neutron stars that are not binaries. The Crab Pulsar is an example, as is the Vela Pulsar. However, these are relatively new supernovae and are still close to their debris, and quite hot. Geminga is also relatively new, but not as new as these. Where is Geminga's debris? Is it the Gum nebula?

In all three of these cases, and in fact in every known case of a supernova debris nebula and a neutron star, the neutron star has a velocity relative to the debris field. This velocity is typically about 100 km/sec, but has been much higher in some cases. The Crab pulsar is too recent to be far off-center. The Vela pulsar is clearly off-center, and Geminga is way off-center.

At 100 km/sec the neutron star or black hole that is the remnant from the event that triggered the collapse of the proto-solar nebula five billion years ago would be 1.5e19 km away from us [1,600,000 light years] if we weren't all travelling around the same galactic center. Still, it shows that it could be nearly anywhere in the galaxy by now.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thanks, antoniseb.

I will try to find the news story about the "lonely neutron star". I believe it says this was the only known example of a "naked" neutron star streaking through space.

Another surprise was the luminosity of this "naked" neutron star. That observations will be considered when we discuss "What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?"

Another issue, "How Can the Sun Maintain Mass Separation?", is automatically resolved in the solution to "What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?"

I also need to find a reference to the discrepance between the number of neutron stars observed versus the number expected. As I recall, the ratio (observed)/(expected) is very, very small.

That may help us decide, antoniseb, if the accretion of ordinary atomic matter back onto neutron stars is unusual.

Again, antoniseb, I deeply appreciate your kindness in posting this discussion in the forum of Universe Today. I will try to assist the effort by adding a link to the discussion on my web page.

With kind regards,

Oliver


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

Hi Dr. Manuel,

I'll keep this light because I know you're prepping for a lecture, and I want it to be as good as you can make it.

For a long time I have been studying papers on neutron stars with a special eye towards population and visibility. I have not seen anything credible saying there are too few neutron stars observed. Keep in mind that the pulsing-lifetime of a pulsar that doesn't get spun up by matter accreting from another star is much less than a million years. If a new one gets formed every 400 years in our galaxy, and if only five percent are oriented so that we see the beam, we should only see a few dozen of them.

I'll be interested in seeing the source [that claims there are too few observed] when you post it, but as I said above, take your time, don't cut into the talk-prep this week.

That is probably Geminga. There's quite a bit published about observations of this object and its presumed optical couterpart. It will be hard to reconcile the Geminga observations with your theory without claiming either that the object is an anomoly or that the measurements are wrong.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

You may be right, antoniseb.

I am pressed for time, but your comments merit a reply.

Walter, Wolk and Neuhaeuser reported the discovery of an isolated neutron star in 1996 [Nature 279 (1996) 233] .

Here are a few pertinent quotes from the first paragraph of their paper,

"Our Galaxy should contain between a hundred million and a billion neutron stars; .......Only about 600 pulsars are known ......... How many old neutron stars exist is unknown, but based on the above numbers, about 2,000 isolated ones (not in binary systems) should be detectable ..... To date, however, evidence for only one has been presented ..... it also highlights the significant problem of accounting for the absence of others that should be visible.”

Readers may also want to read the 2000 ESO press release on Geminga:

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2...0/pr-19-00.html

Sorry, antoniseb, I do not have time to explain in more detail.

Far from presenting problems for the model of an iron-Sun, these observations on Geminga were cited as evidence in support of the iron-Sun.

With kind regards,

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

You are invited to hear and discuss
The Sun's Iron-Rich Interior and Neutron-Rich Core
The Mid-America Regional Astrophysics Conference
Linda Hall Library
Kansas City, MO.

That will be next
Saturday afternoon
April 16, 2004.

We hope to be there by 10:00 am to distribute reprints of papers and respond to questions.

Linda Hall Library, one of the largest scientific libraries, is located at 5109 Cherry Street, Kansas City, Missouri--in the heart of the campus of the University of Missouri at Kansas City.

The Linda Hall Library’s web site is:
http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/

We will review evidence that the solar system:

1. Formed directly from fresh, highly radioactive supernova debris [Science 195 (1977) 208],

2. Inherited from this parent star the chemical gradients presently seen across its planetary system and within the interior of the Earth [Geochemical Journal 15 (1981) 245], and

3. Continued to operate as an energy source triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed SN-core on which the Sun formed [J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197].

http://www.ballofiron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg
  
I hope to see you there!

With kind regards,

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

Dear Antoniseb,

I was disappointed at the contrast between your last posting:

"For a long time I have been studying papers on neutron stars with a special eye towards population and visibility. I have not seen anything credible saying there are too few neutron stars observed."

and the first paragraph of the paper by Walter, Wolk and Neuhaeuser reporting their landmark discovery of the isolated neutron star [Nature 279 (1996) 233]:

"Our Galaxy should contain between a hundred million and a billion neutron stars; .......Only about 600 pulsars are known ......... How many old neutron stars exist is unknown, but based on the above numbers, about 2,000 isolated ones (not in binary systems) should be detectable ..... To date, however, evidence for only one has been presented ..... it also highlights the significant problem of accounting for the absence of others that should be visible.” :unsure:

Please, antoniseb, slow down. You are a moderator. You do not have to be an authority on every topic.

Nothing is accomplished by a dialog with those who, like Tim, know absolutely that “fundamental physics, absolutely rules out a heavy element model for the solar interior.”

It would be much more productive if you use your time and your position as "moderator" to invite leading scientists to comment on our conclusions from:

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present), a summary of 45 years of measurements and observations that convince us:

"The early solar system formed directly from the highly radioactive, unmixed debris of a single supernova! The Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core and is iron-rich, like planets close to the Sun. Unmixed isotopes made by different processes of nucleosynthesis and values of the (Daughter/Parent) ratio from the decay of short-lived isotopes -

Rule Out:

i) Galactic mixing between element synthesis and the formation of planetary solids,

ii) Mixing of elements from the inner and outer regions of the solar system, and

iii) Separation into iron-rich planets close to the Sun and gaseous planets of hydrogen, helium and carbon far away."

These conclusions are further confirmed by linked variations observed between isotopes and elements in meteorite minerals and planets:

Isotopes....................Elements

.Xe-136..............Primordial He, C, Ne

Normal Xe.................Fe, Ni, S

..O-16......Six types of meteorites/planets

....etc...............................etc.

You might start, antoniseb, by inviting Dr. David Hathaway, a group leader of solar physics for NASA, to comment on our conclusions from II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present).

Dr. Hathaway told a UPI reporter this is "crackpot science"
http://web.umr.edu/~om/upinewsstory.html
He should be invited to share the basis for his conclusion.

I have e-mail addresses for Dr. Hathaway, as well as many other experts, e.g., Dr. John Bahcall (standard solar model), Dr. Ernst Zinner at Washington University (isotope anomalies and interstellar grains in meteorites), Dr. Al Cameron at Harvard/U. of Arizona (injections from a nearby supernova), Al's former student, Dr. David Arnett (Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis), etc.

Please try, antoniseb, to get input from some of these leading authorities on our conclusions from

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present)

before we move on to

III. What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?

Again, antoniseb, I appreciate your kindness in maintaining this open discussion about the iron Sun.

With kind regards,

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

Oliver, you keep calling antoniseb a moderator when he is not. His comments and opinions are his own and have arisen during the course of this discussion.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Thanks, Duane, for your comments.

I assume antoniseb himself will reply.

He certainly seemed to be acting as moderator since this story was moved here from Story Comments -> Discussion: Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/i...showtopic=2435

Here is a slightly corrected quote from antoniseb's first posting here:

"duane has done some great work looking at Dr. Manuel's claims about the Iron Sun theory, that basically says that the sun is not the same as most stars, and is a collection of mostly heavy elements with a hydrogen atmosphere.

Note, most serious astronomers regard this as a crackpot theory, but Dr. Manuel is willing to take the time to try and defend it. In it's favor, it does offer something of an explanation to some isotope abundance anomalies among other things.

You can look at a number of web-sites about this theory. Pointers to them are in the previous posts in this thread.

I suspect that Dr. Manuel is sincere in his belief in the theory, but in this discussion, I am hoping we can shoot it down [or prove it] without shooting at Dr. Manuel, who has demonstrated that he is a gentleman.

Previous posts in this thread can be seen in the Story Comments -> Discussion: Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/i...showtopic=2435

Personally I found this discussion interesting enough that I wanted to pull it out into a properly labelled thread. Note, Josh has suggested moving this thread to Alternative Theories, and I agree it belongs there. I don't know when the move will be made."

For emphasis, I made a section of the last paragraph bold.

The moderator - - - whether you, duane, antoniseb, or whoever - - - should invite Dr. Hathaway (solar physics), Dr. John Bahcall (solar neutrinos and standard solar model), Dr. Ernst Zinner (isotope anomalies and interstellar grains in meteorites), Dr. Al Cameron (injections of alien material from a nearby supernova), or Al's former student, Dr. David Arnett (Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis) to address the results posted in

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present), a summary of 45 years of measurements and observations.

Let's try to bring some closure to this phase before moving on to the discussion of

III. What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?

With kind regards,

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

Hi Dr. Manuel. My goal was for this to be an interesting conversation with the people on the UT forum. It was a very lucky thing that Tim joined in. I do not plan to take time out to invite experts in the field to join this thread. Clearly Dr. Bahcall has opted out. My previous interactions with Dr. Zinner have indicated that he believes he's too short on time for such a chat. They are, of course, welcome to join in. Invite them yourself if you like.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thanks, antoniseb.

After reading your post, I looked up e-mail addresses for Dr. David Hathaway, Dr. John Bahcall, Dr. Ernst Zinner, Dr. A.G.W. Cameron, and Dr. David Arnett.

I really want UT readers to have comments from these gentlemen on:

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present), a summary of 45 years of measurements and observations that convince us:

1. The early solar system formed directly from the highly radioactive, unmixed debris of a single supernova!

2. The Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core and is iron-rich, like planets close to the Sun.

3. Unmixed isotopes made by different processes of nucleosynthesis and values of the (Daughter/Parent) ratios from the decay of short-lived isotopes

Rule Out:

i) Galactic mixing between element synthesis and the formation of planetary solids,

ii) Mixing of elements from the inner and outer regions of the solar system, and

iii) Separation into iron-rich planets close to the Sun and gaseous planets of hydrogen, helium and carbon far away."

But I realize the futility of writing and trying to force them to participate.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Everything happens in God's time, not mine.

So let's just keep the discussion going. Perhaps it will, like salt fed to a horse, encourage an eventual drink from the fountain.

With kind regards,

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

I am delighted to keep the discussion going as long as issues continue to be cleared up. I am waiting for your synopsis [or notes & slides for] your What Makes the Sun Shine lecture. After we've looked them over, I expect to go back through the thread and look for questions we've asked you which haven't been answered yet [there's a few].

As much as we've cleared things up there's still quite a few places where you are using terms, or assuming processes which I think could be stated more explicitly.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I see antoniseb has replied, but I thought I would just add a comment to this:

He didn't actually move the topic Oliver, he started a new thread to try to put all the different discussions under 1 heading. (Well I assume that was his intention! :unsure: )

We had discussions going under 3 or 4 different threads, so his idea to pull it all togeather here was a good one, don't you agree?

It would be nice to see some responce from experts in the field, however busy they may be. It is unfortunant that only us amatures seem interested enough in your theory to debate it!

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Thanks, Duane.

Many of The 15 Space Age Observations have been overlooked for decades.

You can lead a horse to water, but ..... :P

So let's just keep feeding the horse salt.

Eventually, he will be compelled to come to the fountain of observations! :blink:

Thanks, to everyone - - - you, antoniseb, Tim and other Universe Today readers for pouring out salt.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.TheSunIsIron.com

Returned from recent travels & travails, I find myself with a few points for the Prof, et alia to consider.

• Not even one of the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) that we are asked to consider is actually an observation of the sun. Does not that weaken the idea that they can be used to determine the internal structure of the sun?
  
• Many more than 15 MSAO, these looking directly at the sun, are inconsistent with the iron sun hypothesis. Does that not weaken the iron sun hypothesis?
  
• According to Prof. Manuel, the MSAO of the solar atmosphere are all wrong, and need to be "corrected" according to his formula. So what is wrong, really, with all of the MSAO of the solar atmosphere, and why is it that only Prof. Manuel's MSAO are right, and everybody else's are wrong?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Cheers.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Uh Oh, is this lecture on the 16th [yesterday] or on Saturday [today]?

Either way, I hope it goes well for you.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thanks, antoniseb, for reminding me
to remind readers in the Kansas City area:

Today, Saturday afternoon, April 17, 2004.

We will review evidence that the solar system:

1. Formed directly from fresh, highly radioactive supernova debris [Science 195 (1977) 208],

2. Inherited from this parent star the chemical gradients presently seen across its planetary system and within the interior of the Earth [Geochemical Journal 15 (1981) 245], and

3. Continued to operate as an energy source triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed SN-core on which the Sun formed [J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197].

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

Linda Hall Library
5109 Cherry Street
Kansas City, Missouri

--on the U-Missouri at Kansas City

The Linda Hall Library’s web site is

http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/

I'm leaving now.
  
I hope to see you there!

With kind regards,

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

Sorry, I could not make it, as i was on the other side of the planet playing civilisation III...

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Here is an observation from a newsarticle about a 100KM wide comet seen falling into it's star:

Clouds of H & He, which are slightly enriched by heavier metals to about 1% of their total volume, within which are seen newly formed stars. The stars range from about 6Sm (Sm = solar mass) to 1Sm with no evidence of accretion on any supernova remnants.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Iron is the heaviest element a star fuses,heavier ones are produced by supernovas

Welcome back, Tim, from recent travels & travails.

Your comments from "Inquiring minds" remind me of yesterday's sermon on the views expressed by doubting Thomas, "Except I shall see in his hands . . . . , and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

No observation can force "Inquiring minds" to change their personal opinions, Tim, but they may wish to consider the following:

• Not even one of the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) that we are asked to consider is actually an observation of the sun. Does not that weaken the idea that they can be used to determine the internal structure of the sun?

Observations 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) concern direct observations on material coming from the Sun. Don Reames [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] may be surprised if informed that the Wind Spacecraft measurements on material departing the Sun were not "actually an observation of the sun."

• Many more than 15 MSAO, these looking directly at the sun, are inconsistent with the iron sun hypothesis. Does that not weaken the iron sun hypothesis?

Are you pulling our leg, Tim? A multitude of observations looking directly at the surface of the Earth, are also inconsistent with the iron-rich Earth hypothesis.

• According to Prof. Manuel, the MSAO of the solar atmosphere are all wrong, and need to be "corrected" according to his formula. So what is wrong, really, with all of the MSAO of the solar atmosphere, and why is it that only Prof. Manuel's MSAO are right, and everybody else's are wrong?

You are, Tim! :P Neither the Earth's nor the Sun's atmosphere needs to be "corrected". The Sun is mostly Hydrogen and Helium. Earth is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen. Apples are red on the inside, too!

Bless you, Tim, for speaking on behalf of the "Inquiring minds" that want to know.

With kind regards,

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

So, how did the lecture go? Can you post the slides and notes? What, in your considered opinion, makes the sun shine?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I'm very much enjoying this discussion and my knowledge of some of the issues involved is increasing considerably as a result of this debate - thankyou to all involved.

__________________
Scarla O'

So, how did the lecture go? Can you post the slides and notes? What, in your considered opinion, makes the sun shine? [/b][/quote]
Thanks, antoniseb, for the message.

In my opinion, the lecture went very well:

Many students picked up papers to study.

I asked them to participate in the on-line discussions here at Universe Today or at PhysicsLink.com

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/v...srow=31&erow=40

Aston's nuclear packing fraction explains what makes the Sun shine. In fact, these data show the source of energy released:

..i) By fission of heavy elements.

.ii) By fusion of light elements.

iii) By the iron-rich Sun.

I hope to post the experimental data for all 2,850 known isotopes later today or tomorrow.

Inquiring minds will want time to study these results in detail.

With kind regards,

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

Welcome, Scarla O'

If you can print a pdf file, you may want to study a recent review on "The Standard Solar Model vs. Experimental Observations".

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/beyond2002.pdf

I will be happy to try to answer any questions.

Again, Scarla 'O, welcome! Your active participation will benefit everyone.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://umr.edu/~om

OM: (Posted on Apr 19 2004): Neither the Earth's nor the Sun's atmosphere needs to be "corrected".

Well, I am only relying on what you have said yourself:

OM: (Posted April 8, 2004, emphasis mine): Readers who take a Table of "Solar" Abundances (e.g., from Aller, Suess, Urey, Cameron, Anders, Grevesse, or even the table at the back of B2FH) and use the fractionation equation log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L) to correct these surface abundances will understand one of the reasons why we conclude that the Sun is composed mostly of Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca.

So, if you didn't actually mean what you actually said, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what, exactly, you really did/do mean?

OM: Are you pulling our leg, Tim? A multitude of observations looking directly at the surface of the Earth, are also inconsistent with the iron-rich Earth hypothesis

Actually, no they aren't. All one needs to do is follow the lead Archimedes set a few thousand years ago. The average density of the crust is 2.7 gm/cm^3, whereas the average density of the entire Earth is 5.5 gm/cm^3. This simple observation clearly establishes the presence of higher density material inside the Earth. It will not, by itself, show what that material is, or how it is distributed, but it does set us on the path of looking for a dense core. And, since Earth is a "solid" body, one cannot build a high density core out of elements of low atomic mass. Hence, a core of higher atomic mass elements is required. All one needs is a little physics.

Now, the density of material in the photosphere, derived from spectroscopy, is roughly 2x10^-7 gm/cm^3. But, the overall density of the sun is a mere 1.4 gm/cm^3, much less even than the crust of Earth. One hardly needs to appeal the dense iron to create an overall density that is hardly greater than water. The gas laws & radiative transfer handle that problem just fine. Hence, a look at the photosphere, and a little physics, quickly leads to the conclusion that the core of the sun is not likley made of heavy elements.

OM: Don Reames [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] may be surprised if informed that the Wind Spacecraft measurements on material departing the Sun were not "actually an observation of the sun."

Actually, since Reames in fact did not look at the sun, I rather doubt that he would object to someone saying that he was not observing the sun. And I am quite certain that he would not suggest that his results were relevant to the specific details of the deep solar interior.

But this does lead me to another question. you cite Reames a lot, but I cannot see how his results are even relevant to the issue. Why do you think they are relevant? Specifically, what does the Reames result show, that is consistent with your hypothesis?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell