Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen

[ToSeek]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109075137.htm

Any comments from those more knowledgeable than me?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-01-09 11:36 ]</font>

[Silas]

Hm.. I guess it isn't impossible...

When I was taking cosmology, the prof gave us the four equations that can be solved to give the interior conditions of a star... Pressure, temperature, gravity, um...mumble... something else... (It's been a while, and I was a maths student...) If the sun had a solid, non-fusing core, the equations would have a different solution, and (in theory) the sun would have different characteristics...

Also, since the sun is, to most appearances, a fairly ordinary, if somewhat brightish, star -- wouldn't the same origin be necessary for all G0 stars?

Heavily dubious...

Silas

[GrapesOfWrath]

That news release says that he has been trying to convince others of that hypothesis for forty years. The evidence for it can't be too strong--maybe the latest is stronger?

[Bob S.]

Some of his theory isn't really new. Now, is it or is it not true that heavier elements are cooked up in the cores of larger stars and get scattered to the cosmos when those same stars explode? So naturally one could assume that our solar system with its abundance of heavy elements (relative to what? I don't know) came from the dusty remains of an ancient supernova.

What bucks intuition is the implication that our sun then formed around the remaining supernova core. Afterall, aren't the remnant cores of supernova also supermassive, many times the mass of our sun? Aren't they spinning neutron stars, and any mass falling on them would be crushed also to neutron density? Or am I missing something?

[Silas]

On 2002-01-09 11:14, Bob S. wrote:
Some of his theory isn't really new. Now, is it or is it not true that heavier elements are cooked up in the cores of larger stars and get scattered to the cosmos when those same stars explode? So naturally one could assume that our solar system with its abundance of heavy elements (relative to what? I don't know) came from the dusty remains of an ancient supernova.

What bucks intuition is the implication that our sun then formed around the remaining supernova core. Afterall, aren't the remnant cores of supernova also supermassive, many times the mass of our sun? Aren't they spinning neutron stars, and any mass falling on them would be crushed also to neutron density? Or am I missing something?



I'd have to hope that he's only talking about iron that originally came from a supernova core, scattered to the nine winds, and gravitationally clumped along with all the other star stuff when our sun began to form...

If one phrases it "weakly," sure, it makes sense: the gases in space are richer in iron, now, than 12 billion years ago, and thus newer stars have more iron in 'em than old ones did.

(Just as babies born today have radioactive strontium and cobalt and uranium atoms in 'em because of bomb tests, whereas babies born in 1940 didn't have 'em...)

If *that's* all the guy is saying, then it's old news... So I 'spect he's got a lot more in his bonnet...

Silas

[The Bad Astronomer]

No, he thinks the Sun is mostly iron.

I have many, many problems with this theory. One involves formation: does every star form this way? That implies billions of supernovae, and also brings uip a chicken-and-egg problem; how did the first stars form?

If the Sun is special, why? And why does it look spectrally just like a lot of other GV stars in our neighborhood?

I have not read his paper in detail, but he makes a point of there being too few neutrinoes from the Sun. This is an old problem, and may very well be solved with neutrinoes having mass (they change flavor on thier way from there to here, so we don't detect 2/3 of the ones created int he solar core). And how does his model produce the neutrinoes we do see?

I have been to some, um, alternative talks at AAS meetings (where this was announced) and I am quite sure others brought up these and similar points. I doubt that will make a press release though.

[frenchy]

The BA's points have been made and many others have been repeated many many times to the person in question.

He doesn't have a working model for his Iron-Sun, only a basic idea, a disputed interpretation of isotopic ratios, hand waving and back of the enveloppe type arguments. I personally give no credence to his idea until he actually gives quantitative predictions for helioseismology and abundance evolution in the Sun and the solar system.

As far as the Sun being a nearly unique object in the Universe, why not? But then again why? A few isotopic ratios are not convincing when the rest of astrophysics argues against his idea.

[Bob S.]

No, he thinks the Sun is mostly iron.

I have many, many problems with this theory. One involves formation: does every star form this way? That implies billions of supernovae, and also brings uip a chicken-and-egg problem; how did the first stars form?

I guess the implication would be that only stars with rocky inner planets would be formed this way. Stars without planets or stars with inner gas giants would form by the standard model.

I don't have so much of a problem with the idea that buried deep within the heart of the sun is a core of solid iron plasma. (Wouldn't heavier elements sink to the core of the sun just as they do on other worlds?) And we may never see it or detect it because we can only see the outer shell. But the author suggesting that the main source of heat of the sun comes from gravitaitonal compression of this iron core (like what powers the fires deep within our own world) is a bit of a stretch.
I guess that's why it's here in "Against the Mainstream". eh? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Donnie B.]

It's interesting to note that one of the first scientific theories of the sun's composition was that it was a ball of iron glowing white-hot due to gravitational compression.

That theory was abandoned in stages; first, because it wouldn't stay hot long enough for the 5 billion year age of the Earth (as deduced from the ages of the oldest rocks); second, spectroscopy showed the sun's light was primarily from ionized hydrogen, with a dash of helium; and third, our understanding of thermonuclear reactions provided an abundant source of energy that would last over geologic time.

I don't think the discrepancies in the current model of solar functioning are large enough to suggest such a radical reinterpretation.

One silly question: if the planets are made from detritus ejected by a supernova, what made it stop so close to the sun? Why isn't it all rushing madly away from the supernova remnant at ludicrouspeed?

[Russ]

I'll take a stab at some serious thoughts here. (adjusts glasses, ahem)

While I'll grant to Dr. Manuel there is a "small" ball of Iron at/near the core of the Sun, I find it highly doubtful that it is a major component.

If the Sun were infact mostly iron I think it would show up in the mass-to-volume (density) ratio. Per my "baby astronomy" class in college, the density of the Sun is consistant with a compsition of 99.XXXX% hydrogen.

Does anybody know if it is possible to calculate if it is possible for the Sun to look/behave as it does, having a mass that is (arbitrarily selected) 51% Iron? I select 51% because it is the minimum whole percentage that permits the Sun to be "mostly iron" as Manuel claims.

I have no scientific calculations to support this but my sense of the "Force" is that the answer is no. An iron ball with 51% the mass of the Sun would have a huge surface gravity and would cause the Hydrogen layers to fuse faster and, therefore, release more energy than is currently observed.

Anybody have any better thoughts?

[The Bad Astronomer]

One silly question: if the planets are made from detritus ejected by a supernova, what made it stop so close to the sun? Why isn't it all rushing madly away from the supernova remnant at ludicrouspeed?


That's not silly at all! Remember, though, that the first extrasolar planets discovered were around a pulsar, a supernova remnant.

Not all of the star blows outward; there can be a "stalled" part that can recollapse onto the remaining remnant (neutron star). Some theorists think this material can be enough to further collapse the neutron star into a black hole! But there is evidently (literally) enough material that does not escape to form planets in some cases.

Not that I am advocating this guy's theory. I just want to note that some objections to it don't really apply. There are already enough problems with his theory!

[frenchy]

Although I agree there is evidence for the possibility of planetary formation after a SN Dr Manuel's idea as he states it requires that the matter from which the planets form are chemically differentiated, i.e. heavy elements near the SN remnant (the proto-Sun) and lighter elements on the edge (to allow the formation of giant planets). AFAIK there is no evidence for this.

On a similar topic, he argues that the Sun was also formed as a chemically differentiated object and not homogeneous as is generally assumed based on our coarse understanding of star formation.

As far as the iron core goes, helioseismology constrains the temperature in the core to better than 1%. The PP reaction rate has a quoted uncertainty of a few percent (5% max if memory serves). If one screws with the chemical composition of the core, one cannot reproduce the seismic Sun. One then has to postulate other wierd stuff such as unforeseen physics dealing with opacity, equation of state or nuclear reactions. While not impossible, it seems improbable. And the more recent solar neutrinos results from SNO would confirm our current understanding of solar physics.

One other point, non-standard models of the Sun can be made for the current Sun. That isn't too hard, just tweak the structure a little and correct the sound speed with other tweaks and so on. The trick is to have the non-standard models agree with the current Sun after 4.6 billion years of evolution when the non-standard physics has a good chance of changing the way the Sun evolves (wrt standard models).

[Emperor]

This is not my theory but in the book I am presently reading the author mentions that all stars have cold cores .
He notes that the super giants such as Betelgeux and Antares contradict present theories of star formation because these stars having huge masses somehow did not adhere to the effects of gravity whereby a star such as our sun accumulated its mass and when its supposedly nuclear core ignited then it pushed away the remaining debri to later form our planets .This then he states must mean that gravity has an ignition limit, that is to say that no matter how slow or fast a proto star forms then the pressure is built up to the same point of ignition hence this means that the two huge stars mentioned above accumulated their mass contradictive to gravity and its effects , how then could these two stars acquire their masses ! .

I tend to agree with the author that we presently observe that all things burn from the outside inwards so his theory that stars have cold cores seems feasible to me that the two mentioned stars are not two bloated super giants but just two huge stars whos ignition burning from the outside inwards is only at the molten stage and is then the reason why these stars are red , but hey you make your own mind up or read the book because I am open to all kinds of open minded views and find this alternative theory feasible and I tend to agree in parts or should I say it opens up new areas to investigate .

[The Bad Astronomer]

Emporer, please post the name of the book and its author. I'm curious.

[frenchy]

It's true that in most cases one only has direct observations of the surface of stars.
In the Sun however, one has meutrino emission which is emitted directly in the core and which might be held has evidence for a cool, but not cold, central core. Helioseismology is also a fairly direct 'observation' of the solar interior. It is an interpretation of surface observations but the theory is fairly straightforward.

The seismology of other stars is also can also be considered in the same way and more and more stars are studied that way and nothing exceptionally surprising has been found so far.

Finally, looking at many stars in clusters enables us to test fairly accurately stellar models as we compare stars of different mass and evolutionary stages but same age and initial chemical composition.

All the evidence so far points to the fact that our models of stellar structure and evolution are pretty good. I know of no alternative model which even attempts to reproduce the wealth of observations that standard models do.

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-01-10 13:03, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Emporer, please post the name of the book and its author. I'm curious.


Bad Bad Astronomer, Phil! You mispelt his name!

The (spelling police 'r us) Curtmudgeon

[Emperor]

[quote]
On 2002-01-10 13:03, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Emporer, please post the name of the book and its author. I'm curious.

Sure but I did provide the link to its introduction to emphasize a point it makes . its at http://www.spaceskeptic.com/ebook/ebook.php it also turns out that their are two site links one being http://www.spaceskeptic.com and http://www.spaceskeptic.co.uk . Have been trying to get back on the site and could only find it through http://www.google.com .

Have tried sending the author a message but their is no link or address except through a private message on the forums , perhaps you may have more luck than me , I registered as starman because I believe I have had contact with the author on another site .

[Mnemonia]

"We think that the solar system came from a single star, and the sun formed on a collapsed supernova core," Manuel says. "The inner planets are made mostly of matter produced in the inner part of that star, and the outer planets of material form the outer layers of that star."


This fails to explain Kuiper belt objects and the Oort cloud, where most of the solar system's non-gaseous mass is located if you don't count the Sun.


Analyses of meteorites reveal that all primordial helium is accompanied by "strange xenon," he says, adding that both helium and strange xenon came from the outer layer of the supernova that created the solar system.


I don't see how "strange xenon" could not be formed by a nearby supernova. There seems to be no direct evidence that our own Sun was the producer.

Of course he could be right, but it sounds to me like he wishes the Sun was more unique than it probably really is.

[Hat Monster]

And, of course, it would be a real pain to form gas giants, let alone four of them, under the conditions he thinks formed the Sun.

[Peter B]

Emperor, is that book you mention the one by a certain J Reyes? The J Reyes who apparently is also known as Emperor (as pointed out by DStahl)?

[Argos]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-01-16 19:14 ]</font>

[NottyImp]

"If the Sun is special, why?"

I suppose you could use a version of the Anthropic Principle here. If iron-rich stars are the ones most likely to form rocky inner planets (as opposed to close orbit gas-giants), then given our current understanding, they're the ones most likely to have life in the system able to observe them. Self-selecting really. Just a thought.

[flamethrower]

"We think that the solar system came from a single star, and the sun formed on a collapsed supernova core," Manuel says.

I can agreeably imagine a slow moving neutron star emmersed in a dense molecular cloud for example, an extended period of time accreting enough material onto itself to become the core of a new star.

I wonder how a necessarily >.88 solar mass neutron star by accretion can, at one solar mass, sustain nuclear fusion reactions for the ~4.5 Billion years of our sun's apparent age, let alone its entire 8 Billion-year history as it evolves off the main sequence toward a cold death.

And shouldn't helio-seismology be able to find such a massive solid at the sun's core in the same way as terrestrial seismology observes the effects of Earth's iron core on propagation of seismic waves across the interior?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: flamethrower on 2002-01-19 22:52 ]</font>

[lpetrich]

All stars have cold cores? That's news to anyone who has ever studied stellar structure.

Everything burning from the outside inward? Stellar-structure calculations predict the exact opposite -- nuclear "burning" starts at the center, which is the hottest and most compressed part, and proceeds outward.

Also, the Sun has been shining for something like 4.6 billion years at approximately constant luminosity, which is consistent with continued nuclear reactions, but not with gravitational collapse.

As to massive stars like Betelgeuse and Antares being too massive, my understanding is that there is such an upper mass limit, but that it is something like 60 to 100 solar masses, above the masses of B and A.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Stars with a Heart of Iron. Pg 25 December 2 2003

Early in the evolution of the universe, the lightest of elements are formed in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. The heavier elements are formed within the cores of stars, with the heaviest elements forged from the crucible of exploding stars. The standard model asserts that these heavy elements could only form after the universe was billions of years old, as the result of a heavy star living out its entire life. According to the proposed uniform expansion of space theory, the effect of gravity is so intense near the beginning of time that the entire lifetime of a star could be over in the first million years of the universe’s existence.

The proposed theory addresses one of the concerns that The Bad Astronomer had regarding the Iron core theory proposed by Professor O.K Manuel. A more current link to the professor Manuel’s work is web.umr.edu/~om

The following topics are mentioned in this posting
1. A brief amateur explanation of Professor O.K. Manuel’s work
2. Evidence of Iron distribution and sifting within galaxies
3. Arguments that entirely gaseous stars are unstable
4. Iron cores provide stability
5. Arguments that the mathematical modeling used to presently describe stellar structure may not be that accurate.
6. Future post, quasars and galaxies

Professor Manuel

Part of the problem for Professor Manuel is that he is not part of the Astronomical Club. He is a Nuclear Chemist who analyzed the elements found within meteorites and moon samples. He discovered traces of Strange Xenon. He realized that this element, at the relative concentrations found, could only be formed as a result of a star going supernova over about 5 billion years ago. (I am probably off a little on the date). This meant that our sun had to have at it’s core the remnants of a super nova since it is the only star close enough to eject this kind of material. He subsequently checked data from NASA’s Galileo probe for strange xenon on Jupiter and sure enough he found it there. He had no theoretical bias as to how the universe formed; he just looked at the elements there and concluded that there had to be a nuclear fusion explosion. (Such an element would not be found in the traditional model in which the solar system formed from the collapse of a hydrogen cloud.)

He also points to the evidence indicated by the high iron content of the cores of planets. If our sun formed only from a gas cloud, then it would be anticipated that the heaviest elements would have sifted towards the center sun billions of years ago. If our sun exploded, it would have ejected some of the heavy elements out, which became the cores of the planets. The reason the material did not flow directly back into the sun after the nova is that our star must have had a very high rate of rotation. Also if there is significant material already around orbiting the sun, it would impart it’s angular momentum to the gathered ejected material.

It would be interesting to see if someone familiar with stellar physics tried to model a stellar structure with an iron core with an H - He atmosphere above an Iron core which produced the observed level of neutrino production.

Evidence of Iron

Another possible indication of an Iron core for our Sun is the existence of an Iron core in our Earth and most of the Planets. If our solar system did not form from ejecta from a supernova but from the gaseous particles in space, it would be anticipated that a kind of sifting of elements should occur within galaxies and solar systems as matter coalesced in space. Heavier elements and structures should accumulate towards the center. If the Earth has a substantial iron core, so too should the sun but to an even greater degree.

An indication that such sifting exists even on a galactic scale is evidence by the two types of variable Cepheid stars observed in Galaxies. It is with some hesitancy this factor is presented as evidence since it is somewhat ambiguous. Type 1 Cepheid stars have a regular cycle and tend to be located in Spiral arms of galaxies near Population I stars, such as our sun. I suggest that these variable stars have some iron at their core to provide stability. Type 2 Cepheid stars are irregular variable stars that tend to be located at the outer boundary of galaxies, and at the core. The reason for their irregularity is that they lack a sufficient iron core and will have a tendency to oscillate apart. The ambiguous aspect of this example is the observed occurrence of Type 2 at the core of galaxies. If matter coalesced with the heaviest and largest clumps forming to the center, irregular Cepheid stars should be found at the edges but not at the core. The reason for this exception is because of the increased density of the gas fond at the core of galaxies. It allows the creation of some stars with a minimal amount of iron at their cores.

Gas Stars are unstable

It is argued that stars composed of mostly hydrogen that are formed at the beginning of the universe are extremely unstable and explode or nova due to a positive feed back process. As the pressure increases in a gaseous star due to the rapid influx of matter, the energy production increases, temperature increases, which then expands the core of the gaseous star. This expansion then shoves outwards the atmosphere above it. Once the atmosphere is moving outward from the core, there is a pressure decrease at the core. This then causes the rate of energy production at the core to decrease, which also tends to further decrease the pressure in the core. This loss of pressure within the star then allows the atmosphere of the star to fall back to the core. When the atmosphere finally falls back to the core, the pressure dramatically increases, so the rate of energy production is even greater than when the process originally started off at. This process cycles over and over with increasing intensity until the star novas (throws off the outer atmosphere). The process of a star throwing off its atmosphere increases the core pressure enough to begin the formation of heaver elements. If a star novas with some heaver elements within, the result is a type II supernova.

Iron (and neutron) cores

Iron cores are necessary for the stability of stars at the quasar stage of a galaxies development. The stability that an iron core provides is from the cores ability to absorb energy, damping the cycle that would normally lead to a nova. If the atmosphere starts to collapse on an iron core, the temperature is increased. The iron core can absorb this heat without the associated increase in energy output. It is also possible, at the right pressure, for some of the atoms of Iron or other heaver elements, to fuse with other elements forming radioactive nuclear matter, resulting in further absorption of energy. Also since the core retains heat, it tends to maintain at a constant temperature even if the atmosphere were to “bounce” off the core, decreasing the pressure. Just as the Iron core absorbs heat, it also can release the heat if the atmosphere were to expand above the core. This constant heat source stabilizes the stellar core, preventing novas from occurring. Most stable stars in the universe in this theory are therefore composed of iron; it is the only way stability can be established, (my opinion).

Are present modeling methods accurate?

There is a tendency to think the status quo is right, particularly if the existing models of stellar evolution have been around for a while. It should be pointed out that present theoretical determinations of the structure of our sun are based upon a process called numerical integration, and numerical iteration, which is based upon guesses as to the interior structure of our sun and repeated adjustments are made in order to maintain stability.(“This layer must be this thick in order to….. etc.) There are more than a few graduate students who have chaffed at the assumptions necessary to account for stellar stability. I used to know of one student who no matter how he worked the numbers concluded that stars should blow up. None of these techniques, I think, adequately transfers to a simple and consistent basis describing energy production from stars, particularly when applied to variable stars.

The next posting will be called quasars and supernova fires and it will provide a model for the production of iron and neutron cores in quantities sufficient to resolve one of the issues mentioned by the BA.

(A brief aside. A couple of years ago I contacted the American Astronomical Society about presenting a paper on the uniform expansion of space. I could not get a sponsor, but when I stated over the phone that I predicted that most stars have to have iron cores for stability, I did get some interest. Now I know why, Professor Manuel was already registered at the conference to present a paper stating that our sun had an iron core).

Snowflake.

[Eta C]

I have not read his paper in detail, but he makes a point of there being too few neutrinoes from the Sun. This is an old problem, and may very well be solved with neutrinoes having mass (they change flavor on thier way from there to here, so we don't detect 2/3 of the ones created int he solar core). And how does his model produce the neutrinoes we do see?

If he's basing much of his argument on the solar neutrino problem then he's definitely wrong. The "problem" has been resolved in the last two years via exactly the mechanism the BA suggests here. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/) measured the total neutrino flux from the sun. This included all three flavors. The total flux was nicely in line with the predictions of the standard solar models.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Let me add my two cents regarding the evidence provided by helioseismology.

Go to GONG's website on helioseismology (http://gong.nso.edu/helioseismology.html), and learn what these oscillations can tell us about the interior of the Sun. Here is a quote:

"Helioseismology utilizes waves that propagate throughout the Sun to measure, for the first time, the invisible internal structure and dynamics of a star. There are millions of distinct, resonating, sound waves, seen by the doppler shifting of light emitted at the Sun's surface. The periods of these waves depend on their propagation speeds and the depths of their resonant cavities, and the large number of resonant modes, with different cavities, allows us to construct extremely narrow probes of the temperature, chemical composition, and motions from just below the surface down to the very core of the Sun."

I'd have to dig for the reference, but I've read that they've been able to detect the sudden drop in the hydrogen abundance and rise in the helium abundance with the transition into the solar fusion core. All of this is just nonsense --- unless Dr. Manuel can provide a theory for the interior structure (and energy generation) that matches those inferred from the helioseismology and neutrino measurements to fractions of 1%, as is currently the case for the standard solar model.

I'll second the quote from Wolfgang Pauli, quoted just above me.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Spaceman Spiff

Some of the current research about our sun is beginning to show, based upon the study that Helioseismology, that the sun has an interior of iron. How much is a matter of debate, but the research indicates that a core of hydrogen is clearly wrong. If you wish to check this out yourself

Title - Seismic Test of Solar Model, Soplar Neutriono and Implication for Metal-rich Accretion
Authors - Winnick,R.A Demarque,p Basu,S
Affiliation - Department of Astronomy, Yale university,
Journal, - the Astrophysical Journal, Volume 576, Issue 2 pp 1075 1084

This is a copy of the abstract
Abstract
The Sun is believed to have been the recipient of a substantial amount of metal-rich material over the course of its evolution, particularly in the early stages of the solar system. With a long diffusion timescale, the majority of this accreted matter should still exist in the solar convection zone, enhancing its observed surface abundance, and implying a lower abundance core. While helioseismology rules out solar models with near-zero metallicity cores, some solar models with enhanced metallicity in the convection zone might be viable, as small perturbations to the standard model. Because of the reduced interior opacity and core temperature, the neutrino flux predicted for such models is lower than that predicted by the standard solar model. This paper examines how compatible inhomogeneous solar models of this kind are with the observed low and intermediate degree p-mode oscillation data, and with the solar neutrino data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Collaboration. We set an upper limit on how much metal-rich accretion took place during the early evolution of the Sun at ~2 M⊕ of iron (or ~40 M⊕ of meteoric material).

While this abstract relates primarily to iron within the convection zone, it does state that “selioseismology rules out solar models with near-zero metallicity cores” Our sun has a metal core, how big it is, is a matter of discussion.
Snowflake.

[The Bad Astronomer]

snowflakeuniverse, I believe you are severely misunderstanding that article. By "metals", astronomers mean anything heavier than hydrogen and helium. That includes oxygen, calcium, magnesium, etc. and not metals the way laymen think of them.

So a zero-metallicity core means just H and He, with no Ca, Si, S, Mg, etc. It does not mean metal like iron.

When they say it is over-abundant, they also don't mean there is a vast amount of metals in the core. They mean it has more than what is usually considered to be normal. Normal can mean as little as one atom per 100,000 being a metal.

There is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen indicating an iron core in the Sun, and a vast amount of evidence (which I have posted in other threads) that the core is not a big ball of iron.

[Spaceman Spiff]

snowflakeuniverse, I believe you are severely misunderstanding that article. By "metals", astronomers mean anything heavier than hydrogen and helium. That includes oxygen, calcium, magnesium, etc. and not metals the way laymen think of them.

So a zero-metallicity core means just H and He, with no Ca, Si, S, Mg, etc. It does not mean metal like iron.

When they say it is over-abundant, they also don't mean there is a vast amount of metals in the core. They mean it has more than what is usually considered to be normal. Normal can mean as little as one atom per 100,000 being a metal.

There is no evidence whatsoever that I have seen indicating an iron core in the Sun, and a vast amount of evidence (which I have posted in other threads) that the core is not a big ball of iron.

Let me add a few more cents (sense) to what the BA said.

First, advanced models of the Sun now include the effects of heavy element differentiation (diffusion) over time. Heavier elements have some tendancy to drift toward the center of the Sun over long periods of time, though the Sun's convection zone keeps things well-mixed in its upper layers. Second, 40 Earth masses of meteoric material as an upper limit to the amount of heavy element accretion? The Sun's heavy element content is approximately 2% by mass, 40 Earth masses is just 1.2x10^-4 of the Sun's total mass, or about 0.5% the mass of the present convective envelope. Astronomers should and will continue to "punch at" the standard solar model, and this is a good jab but it looks to be a small brush at best. In any case, this has no bearing on the "iron core" idea, in fact if it has any relevance at all, this paper suggests that the Sun's convective envelope might have been enriched in the heavier elements (by this small amount), and that the deeper interior of the Sun has fewer of the heavy elements that had been presumed (even with diffusion), with a slight excess just beneath the convective boundary. However, the authors conclude that their best non-standard model does not match the helioseismology data as well as those of the standard model.

Finally, here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209134) is a paper that uses helioseismology to set an upper limit to the heavy element abundance in the Sun's core.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Let's see if I got this right:


Iron (and neutron) cores
Iron cores are necessary for the stability of stars at the quasar stage of a galaxies development. The stability that an iron core provides is from the cores ability to absorb energy, damping the cycle that would normally lead to a nova. If the atmosphere starts to collapse on an iron core, the temperature is increased. The iron core can absorb this heat without the associated increase in energy output. It is also possible, at the right pressure, for some of the atoms of Iron or other heaver elements, to fuse with other elements forming radioactive nuclear matter, resulting in further absorption of energy. Also since the core retains heat, it tends to maintain at a constant temperature even if the atmosphere were to “bounce” off the core, decreasing the pressure. Just as the Iron core absorbs heat, it also can release the heat if the atmosphere were to expand above the core. This constant heat source stabilizes the stellar core, preventing novas from occurring. Most stable stars in the universe in this theory are therefore composed of iron; it is the only way stability can be established, (my opinion).

That's exactly backwards on what the mainstream says about stellar evolution according to this (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101stars.html)

Death of a Massive Star
Massive stars burn brighter and perish more dramatically than most. When a star ten times more massive then Sun exhaust the helium in the core, the nuclear burning cycle continues. The carbon core contracts further and reaches high enough temperature to burn carbon to oxygen, neon, silicon, sulfur and finally to iron. Iron is the most stable form of nuclear matter and there is no energy to be gained by burning it to any heavier element. Without any source of heat to balance the gravity, the iron core collapses until it reaches nuclear densities. This high density core resists further collapse causing the infalling matter to "bounce" off the core. This sudden core bounce (which includes the release of energetic neutrinos from the core) produces a supernova explosion. For one brilliant month, a single star burns brighter than a whole galaxy of a billion stars. Supernova explosions inject carbon, oxygen, silicon and other heavy elements up to iron into interstellar space. They are also the site where most of the elements heavier than iron are produced. This heavy element enriched gas will be incorporated into future generations of stars and planets. Without supernova, the fiery death of massive stars, there would be no carbon, oxygen or other elements that make life possible.

So the mainstream says that when a star (and this would happen ONLY in large stars) ends up with an Iron Core the consecuences are that the star explodes and turns into a supernova. So, basically Dr. Manuel's hypothesis must explain a LOT of what is currently observed in addition to the evidence he claims supports his hypothesis. No wonder he has spent 40 years trying to convince Astronomers about it.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Spaceman Spiff

First off, it is important to establish how much iron in the core of the sun we are talking about. I think you have the idea that I believe that 50% or more of the core of the sun is Iron. I do not, It does not correspond to the observed core temperatures found from SOHO, nor does it correspond to the amount of Iron expected from a star that became a supernova 5 billion years ago (Unless adjusted for the effects of a uniform expansion, according to my proposed theory.) It is my contention that as much as 1/70 of the mass of the sun is in the core, mostly as iron plasma.

I think it is interesting to note that as we know more about our sun due to the observations of SOHO, the amount of “metals” is increasing. Adding the effect of metals in the core of the sun is necessary for making sure the standard model adheres to observation. I mentioned previously the paper that asserted as much as 40 Earth masses of metals should be in the suns atmosphere. If this is indicated in the atmosphere, how much should be in the core?

The observation of metals in the atmosphere of the sun and the core was even mentioned in the reference you posted as “proof” of the lack of iron in the sun.

It is logical to conclude there must be some kind of iron core in the sun, as described in the following posting to Bad Astronomer.

Before you dismiss the idea of an iron core of any kind because you seem to think we know everything already and such an idea is preposterous, consider the following look at the second paragraph of the article you suggested as the most current accurate description of metals in the sun by H.M Antia and S. M. Chitre called “Helioseismic limit on heavy element abundance”.

1. The very first sentence in the second paragraph states the following

“ In general, the computed luminosity in a seismically computed solar model is not expected to match the observe solar luminosity.” (The Standard Solar Model does not produce enough luminosity.)

2. The second sentence of second paragraph states the following

“it is possible to constrain” (make an adjustment to make the model conform to observation.)

3. The third sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The main source of error in these estimates is the uncertainty of the z profile” (we have no idea what is in the interior of the sun so we are going to have to guess)

4. The fourth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“In all these works the plasma screening of nuclear reaction cross-sections was calculated using intermediate screening formulation of Groboske et al” (O.K. another attempt to adjust things in order to work things out)

5. The fifth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The treatment of screening in stellar nuclear reaction rates is not yet adequately understood (Dzitko et al. ) (O.K so even the adjustment techniques are questionable)

I could go on and on and on, when it comes to the core of the sun, we are just guessing because we do not really know absolutely what is in there, The big general picture is right, but the details are still being resolved.



Snowflake

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Bad astronomer

Thank you for your response.

As far as I have been able to tell, it is only within the last few years that the standard model of solar structure has started to include the effect of metals. This has started to change, now that SOHO has given us a rough look at the interior and discovered that the temperature distribution are not quite right. The core is too cool and a band in the interior is too hot.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that some consideration for metals should have been made. Assuming that the solar system coalesced from the same cloud of material, it would be expected that just as the planets formed around iron cores, so to should the sun. Before the sun had enough mass to support fusion, metals would accumulate in the core, just like metals accumulated in the Core of Earth and the core of Jupiter. Evidence of a metal core was always there, its effect was not considered.

Once the sun accumulated enough matter, fusion would begin. Still, there would be an influx of metals via meteorites. Because there is evidence of a meteor era based upon craters on the moons, there had to be an influx of meteors falling into the sun at the same time. The radiative energy would prevent the atoms of large metals from falling down to the core so the atoms would be suspended between the radiative zone and the outer turbulent convection zone. These suspended atoms are responsible for the temperature spike detected by SOHO at about .68 R. If the amount of metals suspended is as much as 40 Earth masses, (as indicated by a previous study mentioned earlier by Winnick,R.A Demarque,p Basu,S of Yale), then how much more should there be trapped in the core? 70 solar masses?



The metals that accumulated in the sun before fusion occurred would be contained in the interior not only by self-gravitation but also from the same radiant pressure that suspend atoms in the convection zone. The sun has a metal core, with Iron plasma representing the largest constituent.

Evidence of this iron core is also indicated by SOHO. The core is cooler than expected from models based upon a core of hydrogen. This cooler core would be expected since the core would no longer be an active zone for fusion.

While an iron core would decrease energy production at the center of the sun, overall there would be an increase in energy production since there would be a larger volume of hydrogen subjected to higher pressures just above the plasma core. This is also observed and explains the problem noted by by H.M Antia and S. M. Chitre in their published article “Helioseismic limit on heavy element abundance”. The problem they alluded to was “ In general, the computed luminosity in a seismically computed solar model is not expected to match the observe solar luminosity.”

So the sun has metal mixed in it’s atmosphere, and it has a metal core. This is indicated by SOHO and expected as a result of our understanding of the evolution of the solar system. The next issue is how much.

I will soon be making a posting called, “Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago?’. In the posting I will propose that as much as 1/70 of the mass of the sun is located in the core as Iron plasma. This amount is compatible with the observations of SOHO and Professor Manuel’s work, if my proposed uniform expansion of space theory is applied.

Snowflake

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Sigma_Orionis

Thank you for your response.
You noted that my explanation of the instability of young stars appears to conflict with the current description of an supernova explosion of a massive star that is older.

There is no conflict or ambiguity; For one thing it is an evolutionary process that builds up the iron core that is necessary for a supernova. I am just arguing that without iron cores to absorb energy, there is a positive feed back process that results in instability. Usually the result of this instability would be a nova, not a supernova.

Is there any evidence of this instability associated with the lack of an iron core?

Generally the existence of an iron core can be inferred by the observation of metal in the atmosphere in a star. (Although many stars with no iron in the atmosphere can have iron in their cores. (My opinion, most astronomers do not even consider metals in the cores of stars)). Population II stars have 1/10 to 1/100 the observed evidence of metals, and they make up the majority of variable stars, that are variable due to the atmosphere expanding and then collapsing.

You also made note of the difficulty of Professor Manuel having his proposed explanation of the core of the sun being mostly iron. In order for this to happen, as you note, a star would have to be much bigger. The mass issue would not be a problem if the effect of gravity were a function of cosmic time. If the effect of gravity in the past was more than 10 times what it is now, the suns present mass would be sufficient to become a supernova. This will be a topic I will be posting called “Did the sun blow up 5 billion years ago”


Snowflake

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hi Spaceman Spiff

First off, it is important to establish how much iron in the core of the sun we are talking about. I think you have the idea that I believe that 50% or more of the core of the sun is Iron. I do not, It does not correspond to the observed core temperatures found from SOHO, nor does it correspond to the amount of Iron expected from a star that became a supernova 5 billion years ago (Unless adjusted for the effects of a uniform expansion, according to my proposed theory.) It is my contention that as much as 1/70 of the mass of the sun is in the core, mostly as iron plasma.

I think it is interesting to note that as we know more about our sun due to the observations of SOHO, the amount of “metals” is increasing. Adding the effect of metals in the core of the sun is necessary for making sure the standard model adheres to observation. I mentioned previously the paper that asserted as much as 40 Earth masses of metals should be in the suns atmosphere. If this is indicated in the atmosphere, how much should be in the core?

The observation of metals in the atmosphere of the sun and the core was even mentioned in the reference you posted as “proof” of the lack of iron in the sun.

It is logical to conclude there must be some kind of iron core in the sun, as described in the following posting to Bad Astronomer.

Before you dismiss the idea of an iron core of any kind because you seem to think we know everything already and such an idea is preposterous, consider the following look at the second paragraph of the article you suggested as the most current accurate description of metals in the sun by H.M Antia and S. M. Chitre called “Helioseismic limit on heavy element abundance”.

1. The very first sentence in the second paragraph states the following

“ In general, the computed luminosity in a seismically computed solar model is not expected to match the observe solar luminosity.” (The Standard Solar Model does not produce enough luminosity.)

2. The second sentence of second paragraph states the following

“it is possible to constrain” (make an adjustment to make the model conform to observation.)

3. The third sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The main source of error in these estimates is the uncertainty of the z profile” (we have no idea what is in the interior of the sun so we are going to have to guess)

4. The fourth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“In all these works the plasma screening of nuclear reaction cross-sections was calculated using intermediate screening formulation of Groboske et al” (O.K. another attempt to adjust things in order to work things out)

5. The fifth sentence of the second paragraph states the following.

“The treatment of screening in stellar nuclear reaction rates is not yet adequately understood (Dzitko et al. ) (O.K so even the adjustment techniques are questionable)

I could go on and on and on, when it comes to the core of the sun, we are just guessing because we do not really know absolutely what is in there, The big general picture is right, but the details are still being resolved.



Snowflake

Here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9706192) is another, independent, set of observational constraints. The total heavy element abundance by mass within the Sun's core is at most 3.4%, of course with its own and different set of associated uncertainties.

The current review comparing the standard solar model (SSM) with time dependencies, neutrinos and helioseismology is here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0010346). As for the statement by Antia and Chitra regarding "There is no guarantee for the resultant seismic model to yield the observed solar luminosity,...", I don't know precisely what they are getting at. Nor do they say by how much one might miss it, without tweaking the pp reaction cross section, as they suggest. The paper by Bahcall et al. linked just above shows that the SSM clearly nails the solar luminosity. Maybe Antia and Chitra are simply stating that the pp cross section hasn't been confirmed in total experimentally.

Nevertheless....

Yes, there remain uncertainties, including those pertaining to cross sections of some of the fusion reactions. Here is a review (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210127)of the current uncertainties in the standard solar model. Nobody says nor have I said that the book on the Sun is closed. Science books are never closed. Here is a summary (http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/abs:+EXACT+standard%5fsolar%5fmodel/0/1/0/2002,2000,2001,2003,1999/0/1?skip=0&amp;query_id=6f238b0ba022e436)of papers placed upon astro-ph archive over the past 4 years, with the key words "standard solar model" appearing in the abstract. Please distinguish between those articles that ended up appearing in peer reviewed journals and those THAT DID NOT or possibly have not yet.

There is a difference between open and honest inquery, such as those outlined in the references I have provided (and from which you have quoted, above), and unsubstantiated and wild speculation. The extreme iron abundance in the Sun's core that you suggest is the tamest. Your exploding Sun and uniformly expanding space (which Tim Thompson (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=177545#177545) and I have (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=174683#174683) told you is not observed --- that it does not expand uniformly is NOT an assumption) do not have enough merit for serious scientific discussion.

You are suggesting that the core of our Sun (which is approximately 25% of the Sun's total mass, if we think we know anything about the Sun) is perhaps 1/70 the total solar mass in iron. So that makes the iron content in the Sun's core out to be 0.057 (5.7%) by mass. You don't state what the mass abundances of the other heavy elements should be. What the consequences would be --- other than a higher required core temperature to generate sufficient pressure --- or which of the present uncertainties in the SSM would have to conspire together to allow for such a possibilty, or whether such a conspiracy can occur to do so, I have no idea. This isn't my field of expertise.

You may be right that some important ingredient is missing infrom our understanding of the interior workings of our Sun, but that doesn't give your idea merit on its own. As it is said "stopped clocks are correct twice per day." Should atmospheric physicists pay attention to somebody who stands up and yells that "since we don't understand EVERY last detail behind the mechanisms resulting in rainbows, my leprechaun idea deserves merit"? You haven't given one reason (that is physically motivated) as to why a solar physicist should pay any attention. So I guess you'll need to keep working on it.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Hi Sigma_Orionis

Thank you for your response.
You noted that my explanation of the instability of young stars appears to conflict with the current description of an supernova explosion of a massive star that is older.

There is no conflict or ambiguity; For one thing it is an evolutionary process that builds up the iron core that is necessary for a supernova. I am just arguing that without iron cores to absorb energy, there is a positive feed back process that results in instability. Usually the result of this instability would be a nova, not a supernova.

The mainstream says this (http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/novae.htm) about the causes for novae


Is there any evidence of this instability associated with the lack of an iron core?

Well that is the crux of your argument. AFAIK there is none, have you found any evidence or maybe references to someone making such a correlation?



Generally the existence of an iron core can be inferred by the observation of metal in the atmosphere in a star. (Although many stars with no iron in the atmosphere can have iron in their cores. (My opinion, most astronomers do not even consider metals in the cores of stars)). Population II stars have 1/10 to 1/100 the observed evidence of metals, and they make up the majority of variable stars, that are variable due to the atmosphere expanding and then collapsing.


The explanation for cepheids (Population I which are not iron poor or Population II) can be seen here (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980425c.html) I couldn't find any references about the mayority of cepheids being Population II, could you please give me one?



You also made note of the difficulty of Professor Manuel having his proposed explanation of the core of the sun being mostly iron. In order for this to happen, as you note, a star would have to be much bigger. The mass issue would not be a problem if the effect of gravity were a function of cosmic time. If the effect of gravity in the past was more than 10 times what it is now, the suns present mass would be sufficient to become a supernova. This will be a topic I will be posting called “Did the sun blow up 5 billion years ago”


Snowflake

You propose that gravity as a funcion of time in this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9619) thread. Well yes both proposals seem agree with each other, however they also have to agree with everything that has been observed and explained by mainstream theories in order to be taken seriously by astronomers. I am no scientist just a science enthusiast, so frankly all I can give is my opinion.

[Editted for clarity]

[Spaceman Spiff]

For one thing it is an evolutionary process that builds up the iron core that is necessary for a supernova. I am just arguing that without iron cores to absorb energy, there is a positive feed back process that results in instability. Usually the result of this instability would be a nova, not a supernova.

A star needn't have an "iron" core to remain stable. This is just something you have created out of the vacuum.


Generally the existence of an iron core can be inferred by the observation of metal in the atmosphere in a star. (Although many stars with no iron in the atmosphere can have iron in their cores. (My opinion, most astronomers do not even consider metals in the cores of stars)).


That you would say such a thing means that:
1. you are not familar as to how stars are modeled astrophysically - heavy elements including iron are part of the computations; heck, the heavy element abundance, both in bulk and as a function of depth from the photosphere to the core, are crucial. They are crucial because they participate in setting the opacity, the pressure, the energy generation rate, the temperature gradient, and loads more.
2. you either are not familiar with or ignore the fact that astronomers do consider heavy element diffusion in their models. This fact is mentioned in the references I've quoted above.


Population II stars have 1/10 to 1/100 the observed evidence of metals, and they make up the majority of variable stars, that are variable due to the atmosphere expanding and then collapsing.


It is not just their atmospheres expanding and collapsing, it is a whole outer region of the star's envelope...
These pulsating variable stars do so primarily because of the presence of the Helium ionization zone that prevents gravity and pressure from establishing an equilibrium there. If this zone occurs neither too deep (where such oscillations from a thin zone are damped out) nor too high (where there is too little mass to push around to make any difference), the result is a pulsating star of a type such as the Cepheids or RR-Lyrae.

[Jpax2003]

As a non-physicist, I have some questions that might seem silly.

1. What effect would iron and other metals have on the magnetic fields of the sun? Also, how would they influence the 11 year solar cycle?

2. Are we observing spectra from iron and other materials?

3. What happens to the heavy material of larger impactors of the sun?

4. I've heard the corona is much hotter than the photosphere (millions of degrees). Is this hot enough to fuse anything that might find it's way there?

5. How accurate is helioseismology? Are we only seeing the near side, or do we have satellites orbiting that can see the other sides in order to get a better 3d picture?

6. Does helioseismology take impactors into account and how?

Perhaps this info is widely known, but I do not know it. I just think that perhaps it would be easier to answer the simple questions before trying to answer the larger ones.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft has revealed of the process and activity inside the Sun, the old Skylab included eight separate solar experiments and told us much, the Ulysses Mission - has also been telling us much the Deep Space Voyage - Ulysses explored the Sun's atmosphere over the solar poles in 1994 and 1995 but this tough little craft is still going on, &amp; in the future a Solar Orbiter
http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/SEMTWG1A6BD_index_0.html
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31705
NASA is working hard on ideas like Stero and SDO
http://stp.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/stereo/technology.htm
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Perhaps these future missions will answer the question and disprove his ideas once and for all ?


this is the guy Dr. Oliver , thinks we have an Iron Sun and has perhaps has some evidence to prove it, but he also needs to answer some of the flaws in his ideas.

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&amp;Topic=2421&amp;srow=41&amp;erow= 50
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abbre-resume.html

[alfricnow]

I do think the sun would have had a lot of heavy stuff at the begining of its life just from the cloud of debri it came from...
... but wouldnt all the intence heat have broken most of it down into the basic elements by now?

[Andreas]

I do think the sun would have had a lot of heavy stuff at the begining of its life just from the cloud of debri it came from...
... but wouldnt all the intence heat have broken most of it down into the basic elements by now?
You're misunderstanding either the subject or what happens in the sun. If you think molecules in the cloud, "breaking down to the basic elements" means that the heavy elements are still there (well, they are the basic elements).

If you're thinking the atomic nucleuses are themselves broken down to lighter elements, then that is impossible. The sun gets its energy from the fusion of light (hydrogen) to heavier (helium) elements. Splitting up nucleuses means you have to put energy into it (unless it's elements heavier than iron). Now since the energy comes from fusion, it can't be used for fission again, or you'd be using up all energy again.

[Ricimer]

I'll finish reading the rest of the thread when I get time, but I've personally talked to the guy, listened to him speak as well, at the annual MARAC meeting in Kansas City...a minor astronomy convention.

My opinion: He's wrong, and his ideas are based on a erroneous viewpoints. I'll talk about him in the next day or so when I've got time.

[alfricnow]

no what I was saying is the cloud of "dust" that made up the sun to start with must of had big chunks of iron and stuff in it and as time wore on with the intense heat all that stuff being multen and all it seems to me it would all be just layers of multen goo heavy near the cor lighter at the surface.

[Ricimer]

problem with the iron core is that it is so hot, it isn't anything resembling solid. And as a gas (or plasma rather) it mixes freely with the surrounding material.

Yes, there is iron in the core, but Dr. Manuel (the subject of the original post) says it's the majority of it.

And, the sun is actually powered by a neutron star core (not iron) with neutron emission providing the power...

[Kesh]

Taikonaut, why did you resurrect a thread that's more than a year old? #-o

Anyway, this is just ol' Doc Manuel. He spent 60+ pages equivocating about his theory on this Universe Today thread (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544). Despite the fact that his theory doesn't work, his typical response was "read my paper again."

Sound familiar? 8-[

His theory seems to hinge on his belief that the core of the sun is a neutron-star fragment (or an actual neutron star... he never clarified that), and the large amount of iron in the inner planets means that the sun is primarily iron.

It seems logic need not apply in his theory.

[George]

(Forgive me if this is somehow redundatant)

To have a supernova, don't you need an iron core > 1.4 solar masses? Also, I think this is the typical mass of a neutron star. So, is this iron core suppose to be huge? [Not that it is suggested the core is greater than the mass of the Sun (my Dad used to say Texas was bigger than the whole U.S. - but, like me, he likes to look stupid intentionally at times :) )]

The solar core is suppose to have a radius about 25% of the solar radius (about 1.6% of the vol. of the Sun). If much of this is replaced with iron, then fusion must occur from a shell around it. This shell would be at a lesser density. You need temperature and density for fusion. The H->He fusion shell would not have the predicted density unless the increase in iron mass increased the gravitational force. However, this would mean the Sun is heavier than measured - not likely big time.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

He has many ideas and thoughts on the issue, I think he says the interior of the Sun likely consists of elements that might be a little like the make up common metals, and meteorites,
he remarks that measurements can perhaps show the model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is obsolete.
http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf
He also points out to raw xenon isotope data, he also explains the mass fractionation, he most recently made news in Feb 2005
http://www.umr.edu/index.php?id=1586&amp;backPID=245&amp;tt_news=568

you can see more articles on his website

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

Their recent headline reads ' Far out: UMR scientist's views on solar system gain credibility ' but I don't think he has answered all the questions, and the theory seems to have flaws. Thanks Kesh for the universetoday link, I was wondering if there was any on-line info on his theory being questioned by other people

[Kristophe]

Flaws? Yeah, there's a biggie: Neutron stars are degenerate. Adding mass to them makes them do funny things like collapse. I think that would be bad for us.

[electromagneticpulse]

No, he thinks the Sun is mostly iron.

I have many, many problems with this theory. One involves formation: does every star form this way? That implies billions of supernovae, and also brings uip a chicken-and-egg problem; how did the first stars form?

I guess the implication would be that only stars with rocky inner planets would be formed this way. Stars without planets or stars with inner gas giants would form by the standard model.

I don't have so much of a problem with the &lt;i>idea&lt;/i> that buried deep within the heart of the sun is a core of solid iron plasma. (Wouldn't heavier elements sink to the core of the sun just as they do on other worlds?) And we may never see it or detect it because we can only see the outer shell. But the author suggesting that the main source of heat of the sun comes from gravitaitonal compression of this iron core (like what powers the fires deep within our own world) is a bit of a stretch.
I guess that's why it's here in "Against the Mainstream". eh? &lt;IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">


From my understanding (please correct me if i'm wrong) a supernova explosion goes off much like a super massive expansion into a red giant with enough force that the majority of the mass is sent out at just a fraction off the speed of light (depending on their mass).

Now if you got thousands of billiard balls and put them into a full circle around a central one. The last of the material the star can fusion is used up and the explosive force of the star stops, now everything of the star surrounding the core collapses this creates immense pressure on the middle, which causes fusion reactions past the efficiency limit (iron). This creates an explosive force far bigger than the original fusion force. Now back to the billiards, if the middle one explodes it is a basic representation of the explosion in the core of the star with the outer billiards moving a lot faster than the middle ones.

So we are left with a lot of matter spewed everywhere but still remaining matter, the sun would have started with a heck of a lot of iron alone. 0.14% of the sun is physically iron but it is also 26 times heavier than hydrogen. (if my math is right) The iron on the percentage alone is 2.784488 × 10^27 kg with earth being 5.9742 × 10^24.

Making a big assumption but the majority of the heavy stuff would be near the core of the old star so it wouldn't be a complete start over from a hydrogen cloud, the sun would start sweeping up hydrogen and helium like Jupiter would have. As it got bigger it pulled in more and more until it reached the size of the sun.


My main problems with his theory are:
1, Heavier elements as Bob S. said would sink to the core, they take much more energy to turn into liquid/gas/plasma's but as they radiate more heat on the surface they would sink get close to the core and get hot enough to move back out from the core. The majority being a heavy element the heat from fusion wouldn't be enough to keep the iron from sinking to the core and breaking up the reaction.
2, a star of iron wouldn't fusion and wouldn't produce the alpha and beta particles the sun releases or neutrino's for that matter.
3, the spectral analysis is completely wrong for that amount of iron.

[Kristophe]

The core of a star doesn't explode, though. It implodes. Fusion stops, the radiation pressure in the core drops to zero, and the core collapses in upon itself in a fraction of a second. Electron degeneracy is overwhelmed, the iron nuclei undergo photosidintegration, and the whole thing is essentially turned into neutrons, causing the core to rebound. Neutrino flux skyrockets, and the neutrinos tear the outer laters of the star apart.

Stars expand into red giants because their luminosity output shoots through the roof when fusion jumps to the envelope surrounding the core. In order to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, the star expands. Supernovae are not in hydrostatic equilibrium. The shockwave from the core rebound and the pressure from the neutrinos overwhelm gravity. Fusion of elements heavier than iron take place in the outer envelope of the star as it's being torn apart.

A large percentage of metals in the sun would throw off all stellar models dramatically. Basically, none of the current models can readily deal with ultra high metalicity. Computers just sort of spit them back.

Besides, the current models work astonishingly well for conventional stars. Low metalicity models match observation readily. It ain't broke, so to speak...

[electromagneticpulse]

The core of a star doesn't explode, though. It implodes. Fusion stops, the radiation pressure in the core drops to zero, and the core collapses in upon itself in a fraction of a second. Electron degeneracy is overwhelmed, the iron nuclei undergo photosidintegration, and the whole thing is essentially turned into neutrons, causing the core to rebound. Neutrino flux skyrockets, and the neutrinos tear the outer laters of the star apart.

Stars expand into red giants because their luminosity output shoots through the roof when fusion jumps to the envelope surrounding the core. In order to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, the star expands. Supernovae are not in hydrostatic equilibrium. The shockwave from the core rebound and the pressure from the neutrinos overwhelm gravity. Fusion of elements heavier than iron take place in the outer envelope of the star as it's being torn apart.

A large percentage of metals in the sun would throw off all stellar models dramatically. Basically, none of the current models can readily deal with ultra high metalicity. Computers just sort of spit them back.

Besides, the current models work astonishingly well for conventional stars. Low metalicity models match observation readily. It ain't broke, so to speak...

Well I did say please correct me :D

That's my new thing for the day learnt :wink:

I realised after i posted that if that was correct the sun would have a high percentage of heavy (past iron) elements in it where as it doesn't.

Also i thought neutrino's passed through almost all matter unless it was extremely dense. Somehow i feel i'm building up to my 7 learnt things of short term memory :D

[Russ]

I note that no one posted a reply to my question from page one of this topic, so I will repeat:

If 51% of the Sun's mass was iron, would it not have less volume for its' current mass? I would think that its' density would just have to be higher.

Am I missing something here?

[Kristophe]

I note that no one posted a reply to my question from page one of this topic, so I will repeat:

If 51% of the Sun's mass was iron, would it not have less volume for its' current mass? I would think that its' density would just have to be higher.

Am I missing something here?

That's pretty much right. It also wouldn't be undergoing fusion, however, so it'd likely be a lot denser still.


Also i thought neutrino's passed through almost all matter unless it was extremely dense. Somehow i feel i'm building up to my 7 learnt things of short term memory

I'd imagine the Si shell surrounding a collapsing Fe core would be pretty darn dense. I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of stellar evolution, but this just happens to be the very chapter we covered in class yesterday. 3D computer models indicate that most of the shockwave is due to neutrinos slamming into the inner wall of the inert Si shell. I trust my professor's notes on it. He studies stellar collapse.

[electromagneticpulse]

Also i thought neutrino's passed through almost all matter unless it was extremely dense. Somehow i feel i'm building up to my 7 learnt things of short term memory

I'd imagine the Si shell surrounding a collapsing Fe core would be pretty darn dense. I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of stellar evolution, but this just happens to be the very chapter we covered in class yesterday. 3D computer models indicate that most of the shockwave is due to neutrinos slamming into the inner wall of the inert Si shell. I trust my professor's notes on it. He studies stellar collapse.

I would have to agree and even if most neutrino's did pass through it would be significant and just checked wikipedia for a little spruce up on supernova's and found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_1987A).
Model studies indicate that 99% of the energy radiated by supernovae is in the form of neutrinos.
total neutrino count of 10^58 with a total energy of 10^46 joules.

So with an already extremely dense core and giga yotta yotta loads of neutrinos (we need bigger SI prefixes) i think if one in a million hit the outer core would still have ripped it apart.

[antoniseb]

Today there have been several posts about the work of Dr. Oliver K. Manuel concerning the composition of the Sun (If you've read this thread, he claims that the Sun must have element and isotope abundances matching the Earths, and must therefore be mostly made of Iron. He also postulates that it has a small neutron star in its core which he says can generate enough energy to explain the Solar output.

TodayMichael Mozina wrote in the Advice for Bastions of the Establishment thread:
How do you KNOW (from a scientific perspective) that his life's work is simply "wrong". It seems to me that anyone is capable of dismissing an idea out of hand. It takes a true scientist to point out the error within the work. Where is the error you see in his work? Why are there now satellite observations that corroborate his theories? What are the "structures" seen in running difference images of the sun?

To which I give this somewhat oversimplified answer.
I have studied carefully the work of Dr. Manuel, and have never said that the entire body of his work was wrong. He has done some good and interesting work on measuring isotope abundances. I have however said that his Iron Sun idea is wrong.

Basically there are several reasons that it is wrong:
- His model of the Sun weighs too much
- His model of neutron stars as energy sources can't work, as the neutrons can't escape the gravity of the neutron star.
- His model of the Sun requires that there be a neutron star in the Sun which is NOT accreting the material around it.
- His model of the Sun requires a neutron star with a mass too small to exist. This is especially true when looking at Red Dwarf stars, and his notion that all stars have the same model as the Sun.
- His model requires that the Sun emit great numbers of low energy anti-neutrinos, which haven't been seen.
- His model can't explain why we see the neutrinos we do see coming out of the Sun, which confirm that the fusion model of the Sun is pretty much on target
- His model does not explain our observations from helioseismology

In short, for his model to be right, many observed phenomena in physics would have to be wrong. They aren't, he is.

[antoniseb]

Here is a link to a more comprehensive (though round-about) thread about the Iron Sun.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=23048

[Michael Mozina]

Today there have been several posts about the work of Dr. Oliver K. Manuel concerning the composition of the Sun (If you've read this thread, he claims that the Sun must have element and isotope abundances matching the Earths, and must therefore be mostly made of Iron. He also postulates that it has a small neutron star in its core which he says can generate enough energy to explain the Solar output.

TodayMichael Mozina wrote in the Advice for Bastions of the Establishment thread:


To which I give this somewhat oversimplified answer.
I have studied carefully the work of Dr. Manuel, and have never said that the entire body of his work was wrong. He has done some good and interesting work on measuring isotope abundances. I have however said that his Iron Sun idea is wrong.

Basically there are several reasons that it is wrong:
- His model of the Sun weighs too much

You'll note that you found no evidence of miscalculations in any of his work, you simply throw up objections, much as I might throw out the objection the the gas model crowd has never adequately explained the MECHANISM to explain the arcs. I'll tell you what, you work on explaining the fixed magnetic fields we see in these arcs in absense of the flow of electricity, and I'll work on this problem for you. Ok?

- His model of neutron stars as energy sources can't work, as the neutrons can't escape the gravity of the neutron star.

Why might that be? Suppose it's not a neutron star at all underneath the shell, but a simple fission reactor of sorts?

- His model of the Sun requires that there be a neutron star in the Sun which is NOT accreting the material around it.

Last time I checked, he suggested to me that neutrons were decaying into hydrogen atoms at the "surface".

- His model of the Sun requires a neutron star with a mass too small to exist. This is especially true when looking at Red Dwarf stars, and his notion that all stars have the same model as the Sun.

Again, you seem to be coming back to the mass problem. I'll work on that, while you work on the problem explaining those fixed magnetic loops in plasma without the flow of electrical current.

- His model requires that the Sun emit great numbers of low energy anti-neutrinos, which haven't been seen.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense however.

- His model can't explain why we see the neutrinos we do see coming out of the Sun, which confirm that the fusion model of the Sun is pretty much on target

Of course this "pretty much on target" is based on the notion of neutrino's changing flavors. Why do they do that? What is the mechanism that forces that change in the first place?

- His model does not explain our observations from helioseismology

Of course they do. Why does the sun act as a resonance cavity in the first place? How do you know it's not an iron shell that creates this resonance cavity in the first place?

In short, for his model to be right, many observed phenomena in physics would have to be wrong. They aren't, he is.

What OBSERVED phenomomenon are we talking about exactly? I observe those structures in the running difference images too. The one thing none of you want to do is explain them. Why is that? Why is everyone avoiding explaining those running difference images and the structures we see in these images? How do you know the sun does not have an iron layer releasing electrical arcs again? Why are all those x-rays concentrated in the arcs?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/burkelandyohkohmini.jpg

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

So if our solar system is composed of supernova remnants, and supernovas have burned everything but iron and heavier metals, why is our sun not composed mostly of iron again?

[antoniseb]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17308

So if our solar system is composed of supernova remnants, and supernovas have burned everything but iron and heavier metals, why is our sun not composed mostly of iron again?

This article does not say that our solar system is composed exclusively of supernova debris, it says that they found some matter that was clearly from a supernova. The current model is that the Solar System formed in an environment similar to the pillars of creation in the Eagle nebula. More massive stars than the sun exploded and compressed gasses and dust in the nebula to get us started. You knew this was the standard model. Your post implies that you didn't. That's an amusing rhetorical trick, but I'd prefer to keep all the cards in the table face up.

[Michael Mozina]

This article does not say that our solar system is composed exclusively of supernova debris, it says that they found some matter that was clearly from a supernova. The current model is that the Solar System formed in an environment similar to the pillars of creation in the Eagle nebula. More massive stars than the sun exploded and compressed gasses and dust in the nebula to get us started. You knew this was the standard model. Your post implies that you didn't. That's an amusing rhetorical trick, but I'd prefer to keep all the cards in the table face up.

Here is where the dancing begins. We know this sun cannot possibly be a first generation star, it's too young. We know a supernova went off in the vicinity, and that comets and planets like earth and venus and mercury and mars all have heavy metals and heavy elements, but somehow the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium? Notice a problem with that logic? Wouldn't we expect the heavy elements to be spread "relatively" uniformly around the solar system? Why is all the iron from the supernova somehow missing from our sun? Earth has heavy metals, but not our sun? Why is that?

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

Why are all the x-rays concentrated in these arcs, and what holds these magnetic flux tubes in place if not the flow of electricity though streams of iron? Why are all the photons from x-rays to Fe IX/X, Fe XII, FeIV all concentrated in these arcs if not because electricity is flowing through iron ions?

[Dark Helmet]

Well, the Sun will eventually be mostly Iron, after it Red Giant's.

But not quite yet full of Fe.

[antoniseb]

Well, the Sun will eventually be mostly Iron, after it Red Giant's. But not quite yet full of Fe.

The Sun will not make Iron. It will get to be a white dwarf with a whole lot of Carbon, Oxygen, and Neon.

[Michael Mozina]

The Sun will not make Iron. It will get to be a white dwarf with a whole lot of Carbon, Oxygen, and Neon.

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_000828.avi

It is already mostly made of iron. Perhaps you could get Lockheed Martin to explain the structures in this image. They have yet to respond to any of my questions about this image.

Keep in mind that these same structures stay visible over many hours in SOHO running difference images. What are they? Why do electrical arcs emit from this layer?

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

This composite image with Trace (blue) and Yohkoh (yellow) of solar moss activity demonstrates that the heat in the iron is concentrated in the arcs. The surface that emits those arcs, the one with all those structures in it, is millions of degrees cooler than the x-ray areas of the arcs.

[upriver]

Having to do with iron sun formation..... Read this Micheal.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32514

[Michael Mozina]

Having to do with iron sun formation..... Read this Micheal.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32514

VERY nicely done. Thanks for the link. It will take me awhile to fully digest it, but thanks for the link.

[Maksutov]

Here we go again folks. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=537942&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=425135&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437891&postcount=1)

The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.

[antoniseb]

The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.

*chuckle* yeah, ironic. Thanks Maksutov for bringing some light to this whole mess.

[Michael Mozina]

Here we go again folks. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=537942&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=425135&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437891&postcount=1)

The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.

Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.

The issue here is what *ERROR* in Dr. Manuel's work you believe invalidates his findings. I've yet to hear that explanation. I've also pointed out the similarities between the images that Dr. Birkeland created in his lab, and how well they correlate to the images from Yohkoh. Dr. Bruce has documented a variety of solar phenomenon that support this model. That is far more than I knew when I first began these debates. I think it is important that we look at all the historical scientific data that supports the electrical discharge theory that Dr. Bruce outlined over 50 years ago. If you have some objection to any of their work, I'm all ears, but so far, I've seen little in the way of scientific refute of any of it.

Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?

[Baloo]

Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.


Nice. Did you've studied also some basic concepts as
relatively "mystical" terms like "black body radiation"
?
(the context of this quote here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=436909&highlight=black+body#post436909))

If not any further discution will have the same faith as the other topics...

[N C More]

Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?

Well, I don't know for sure what Mak was specifically thinking but here's a few synonyms for the word "disprove". Should give you a rough idea:

abjure, abnegate, ban, begrudge, call on, contradict, contravene, controvert, curb, decline, disacknowledge, disallow, disavow, disbelieve, discard, disclaim, discredit, disown, doubt, enjoin from, eschew, exclude, forbid, forgo, forsake, gainsay, hold back, keep back, negate, negative, not buy, nullify, oppose, rebuff, rebut, recant, refuse, refute, reject, repudiate, restrain, revoke, sacrifice, spurn, taboo, turn down, veto...

[Fram]

Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.

The issue here is what *ERROR* in Dr. Manuel's work you believe invalidates his findings. I've yet to hear that explanation. I've also pointed out the similarities between the images that Dr. Birkeland created in his lab, and how well they correlate to the images from Yohkoh. Dr. Bruce has documented a variety of solar phenomenon that support this model. That is far more than I knew when I first began these debates. I think it is important that we look at all the historical scientific data that supports the electrical discharge theory that Dr. Bruce outlined over 50 years ago. If you have some objection to any of their work, I'm all ears, but so far, I've seen little in the way of scientific refute of any of it.

Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?

For starters, do you still claim that sunspots are black?

[Maksutov]

Yes, but now I've studied Birkeland's work and Dr. Bruce's work and Dr. Manuel's work. I've got a better set of scientific evidence to support the idea.

The issue here is what *ERROR* in Dr. Manuel's work you believe invalidates his findings. I've yet to hear that explanation. I've also pointed out the similarities between the images that Dr. Birkeland created in his lab, and how well they correlate to the images from Yohkoh. Dr. Bruce has documented a variety of solar phenomenon that support this model. That is far more than I knew when I first began these debates. I think it is important that we look at all the historical scientific data that supports the electrical discharge theory that Dr. Bruce outlined over 50 years ago. If you have some objection to any of their work, I'm all ears, but so far, I've seen little in the way of scientific refute of any of it.Simple. The chemical composition of the Sun through solar spectrography, orbital mechanics, nuclear physics, and other scientific disciplines, has been shown to be mostly hydrogen and helium. The other elements exist in only trace amounts. How many times do we have to repeat this?

Now explain to me what *EXACTLY* is 'disproven'?It's a variant of the past participle of the verb "disprove"
dis•prove

Pronunciation: (dis-prOOv')
—v.t., -proved, -prov•ing.
to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate: I disproved his claim.

In scientific terms, "disprove" is not often used, since the statistical studies that support such analyses allow for a certain amount of error re their conclusions. However, when the error is so small that it supports a 99/99 confidence interval/statement, then the use of the words "disproved" or "disproven" as a function of the insignificance of the error, is statistically sound.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of science, we tend not to use what might be construed as absolutist terms; thus the tendency to say "Such a hypothesis is very unlikely." followed by the math that shows just how unlikely the hypothesis is.

But within the absolutist world of fringe science, where words are tossed around without much regard as to their true meaning, "disproved" is quite effective at clearing the air.

Now, tell me what you know.


(without lapsing into the ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IS THE TRUTH syndrome, of course)

(and without saying, "Well, that's what it looks like...)

(and sine Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif


PS: great list of synonyms, N C More. Thank you1

[Nereid]

Here we go again folks. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=537942&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=425135&postcount=1)

And again. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437891&postcount=1)

The reappearance of this dispoven stuff seems almost ironic.The thread with the most recent posts on this topic was in UT (Mak's first link); just to refresh readers of how it ended (extracts from Michael's last posts):There seems to be a common consensus that there is a need for a more robust mathematical presentation. I'm working on it. Be patient with me.This mathematical presentation has become a necessary next step and I hear you [Duane and Nereid] both on this point.
[...]
I need to complete things that are crucial to moving this idea forward methodically.Nereid's last post (and end of the thread)Thank you Michael.

When you're ready, please let me know - via PM - and I will re-open this thread.

[Jerry]

There is certainly a lot of iron buried in the dust of Deep Impact, so if Deep Impact is primal, this should cause us to at least consider tweaking up the heavy element matrix in the sun. Also if Deep Impact is primal - where did the iron on/in Deep Impact come from if not a prior supernova?

I am extremely leary of the 'flipping neutrino' hypothesis for two reasons: Thirty years ago, astrophyscists expected to find higher hydrogen/helium ratios in Jupiter's atmosphere that the sun, but they turned out to be close to the same. Theorists immediately adapted the solar model, reducing the convections rates to a low enough level to explain why the solar surface helium levels have not risen since the solar system formed. There is nothing wrong with revising the theory so that it is compatible with the facts, but it would be wrong to state the ratios are 'as predicted' by prior theory: The Solar neutrino count is much lower than predicted by prior neutrino theory.

The other problem with flipping neutrinos is the solution causes a bigger problem that it solves: To flip, the neutrino must have mass, if the neutrino has mass it does not satisfy the nuclear energy budget problem the neutrino was created to solve in the first place. So the ancillary evidence that neutrinos apparently do flip does not help: There is a major puzzle piece that does not fit.

Many assumptions are made in building the current model of the sun. FWIW, I am not unhappy with it, and I don't have a better one - but no one should be complacent just because the current well-tweaked model 'almost' works. We should aways be looking for better basic models.

[Nereid]

There is certainly a lot of iron buried in the dust of Deep Impact,How much?so if Deep Impact is primal, this should cause us to at least consider tweaking up the heavy element matrix in the sun.Why? Wouldn't it partly depend on things like the amount of the comet lost to sublimation (which preferentially removed H), as the Sun doesn't have a comparable mass loss mechanism?Also if Deep Impact is primal - where did the iron on/in Deep Impact come from if not a prior supernova?Why one? Why not a dozen prior SNe? To address this question, don't you need to know something about the mixing time of 'inputs' to the ISM (such as SNR)?I am extremely leary of the 'flipping neutrino' hypothesis for two reasons: Thirty years ago, astrophyscists expected to find higher hydrogen/helium ratios in Jupiter's atmosphere that the sun, but they turned out to be close to the same. Theorists immediately adapted the solar model, reducing the convections rates to a low enough level to explain why the solar surface helium levels have not risen since the solar system formed.And are these (now adopted) convection rates unreasonable, under good models? Haven't you simply said that 'consistent' regions in parameter space were unreasonably set too small the initial (30 years ago) models?The other problem with flipping neutrinos is the solution causes a bigger problem that it solves: To flip, the neutrino must have mass, if the neutrino has mass it does not satisfy the nuclear energy budget problem the neutrino was created to solve in the first place.Whoa! Where did this come from? Surely it is precisely because the nuclear energy budgets require a certain neutrino flux, and that flux was not observed, that was the heart of the solar neutrino problem??So the ancillary evidence that neutrinos apparently do flip does not help: There is a major puzzle piece that does not fit.Perhaps you could explain what you mean in a little more detail?Many assumptions are made in building the current model of the sun. FWIW, I am not unhappy with it, and I don't have a better one - but no one should be complacent just because the current well-tweaked model 'almost' works. We should aways be looking for better basic models.:clap: :clap: A very nice summary of what science is all 'about'!

[Michael Mozina]

Nice. Did you've studied also some basic concepts as
?
(the context of this quote here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=436909&highlight=black+body#post436909))

If not any further discution will have the same faith as the other topics...


Yes. I've also failed to hear you explain how "black body radiation" explains any of these images, or how "black body radiation" explains the heat concentration in the arcs. Explain to me how black body radiation explains the concentration of x-rays in the arcs in Yohkoh images. Why do these results so closely match what Birkeland produced in his lab?

[Michael Mozina]

Simple. The chemical composition of the Sun through solar spectrography, orbital mechanics, nuclear physics, and other scientific disciplines, has been shown to be mostly hydrogen and helium. The other elements exist in only trace amounts. How many times do we have to repeat this?

This is a nice piece of handwaving, but you never expained a thing from a scientific perspective. WHAT (be specific now) causes those "structures" in running difference images? Why do these "structures" rotate uniformly and stay static over days?

It's a variant of the past participle of the verb "disprove"

A scientific disproof requires a bit of scientific evidence. You can't handwave a few times and expect that to take the place of a valid scientific arguement. Do you have any proof that Dr. Manuel's work is flawed in some way as it relates to solar composition? Yes or no? If yes, be specific. Do you have any "disproof" of any of Dr. Bruce's work that I cited?

In scientific terms, "disprove" is not often used, since the statistical studies that support such analyses allow for a certain amount of error re their conclusions. However, when the error is so small that it supports a 99/99 confidence interval/statement, then the use of the words "disproved" or "disproven" as a function of the insignificance of the error, is statistically sound.

Not if it's nothing but an appeal to authority. In other words, *IF* you have the scientific evidence to refute the life's work of Dr. Manuel, then put it on the table, and we'll look at it together and we'll decide if you've "disproved" his work in a scientific sense. *IF* you cannot do that, then you are essentially appealing to authority. Which is it?

Nevertheless, in the spirit of science, we tend not to use what might be construed as absolutist terms; thus the tendency to say "Such a hypothesis is very unlikely." followed by the math that shows just how unlikely the hypothesis is.

The term "unlikely" however is really inappropriate here. Either there is scientific evidence to refute Dr. Manuel's work or there is not. It's either right or it's wrong. There isn't a lot of "in between" here to choose from.

I've seen other "methods" applied to studying the solar composition that do NOT take into account the arrangement of these elements in any way, shape or form. Essentially it's a "photon count" where we really see nothing more than the flow of heat through the elements but it gives us little or no idea of the relative abundance of anything, although this *IS* the presumption of the method itself. Without knowing the heat distribution or the arrangement of elements however, this is a bit like looking that earth from a trillion miles away and trying to determine it's overall mass and composition. That's not likely to give accurate results.

Dr. Manuel's method however is quite sophisticated and is based on isotopes and things I know make sense. It may not give us the EXACT composition, but it sure tells us relative abundances in a "better" way than counting photons.

Now, if any of you actually CAN disprove what Dr. Manuel has demonstrated about the solar composition, I'm all ears. As it is, I never heard of Dr. Manual until I'd already reached the same conclusion based on an entirely different set of data. Dr. Bruce came to a similar conclusion 50 years ago, and Dr. Birkeland was already experimenting with lab model 100 years ago.

The bottom line here is NOTHING about the electrical model of the sun has been "disproven", nor has evidnence that the sun is mostly composed of iron been "disproven". It has been ALEDGED that it is inaccurate in some way, but I've yet to hear the exact form of the inaccuracy, or where you believe Dr. Manuel made his error in his calculations over the years.

There is a distinct difference here between "disproving" something scientifically and disproving something by popular vote.

[Michael Mozina]

The thread with the most recent posts on this topic was in UT (Mak's first link); just to refresh readers of how it ended (extracts from Michael's last posts):Nereid's last post (and end of the thread)

Well, I suppose that is up to you at this point Nereid. I respect your style and your decisions. I wasn't really trying to reopen the last thread, but I did want to learn to debate some of the elecrtrical aspects of this model now that I know there is scientific data to support that aspect of this model.

I've spent the last month or so educating myself with the work of Dr. Manuel, and I've been familiarizing myself with the work of Dr. Charles Bruce, and the work of Dr. Kristian Birkeland. I've made my own running difference images from FITS files now using photoshop, and I have a few images with graph overlays, and even some rudimentary math on separte overlays in Photosphop. I would say that I still have a lot to learn yet about IDL objects and mapping processes in general before I'll be entirely comfortable with bringing "qualitative" data to our discussion on some of these images. That being said, I do believe that some of the images from these satellites provide very useful information without a lot of "processing" on my part. I suppose it depends on your intent Nereid. I have always thought you were a fair moderator. I respect your choices and your style. My intent was only to engauge in a "friendly" debate in the electrical aspect of these ideas so I could develop a little skill at debating them from that angle. I did not come here to create any hard feelings or to cause trouble. I specifically did not ask you to reopen the last thread because I believe that I am probably still a few weeks away from having a full set of processed running difference images to work with and I don't want to jump the gun here on the running difference image sets.

I am however prepared to debate some of the work of Dr. Birkeland and Dr. Bruce as it relates to these images and my(their) model. I believe that their work gives us valueable insights into what is going on at the solar surface.

[Michael Mozina]

For starters, do you still claim that sunspots are black?

I did not ever claim there were NO photons of any sort coming from a sunspot. That is a strawman based on what I said. I said that I do not believe that black body radiation applies to these images, nor is it the cause of sunpots. The difference in the degree of visible light from these images is consistent with the notion of a displaced layer of neon that is not shining in these locations.

Notice the distinct difference between suggesting what I just suggested and suggesting there are no photons of any sort emitted from a sunspot?

The term "black" here is ambigious. It's RELATIVELY black. It's RELATIVELY dark in the visible spectrum.

[Michael Mozina]

Here is what I mean Nereid:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

The image on the left was created by Dr. Birkeland in his lab with an electromagnetic cathode sphere (terella) by cranking up the amps and intensifying the magnetic field around the sphere. The image on the right shows the concentration of x-rays is focused in the arcs themselves rather than say the core. These image require little or no processing to notice that the relative distribution of heat. I shows the energy flow of photon concentrations follow the arcs, just as in Birkeland's experiments. We don't need know a whole lot about the details of either image to know they share similar visual behaviors and have a similar heat distribution fingerprint. I would say that these images suggest that the heat concentration seen in the iron ion arcs is caused by the flow of electricity, just as in Birkeland's experiments.

Dr. Bruce also cited a number of solar phenomenon that were consistent with his electrical discharge theory over 50 years ago. It seems to me that these images speak to us about some issues, even without a lot of processing.

[Fram]

I did not ever claim there were NO photons of any sort coming from a sunspot. That is a strawman based on what I said. I said that I do not believe that black body radiation applies to these images, nor is it the cause of sunpots. The difference in the degree of visible light from these images is consistent with the notion of a displaced layer of neon that is not shining in these locations.

Notice the distinct difference between suggesting what I just suggested and suggesting there are no photons of any sort emitted from a sunspot?

The term "black" here is ambigious. It's RELATIVELY black. It's RELATIVELY dark in the visible spectrum.

You said about sunspots:
They are VERY dark to the naked eye. They have other types of photons flowing through them of course, but in that region, the visible light simply disapears, and we can see highly defined "sides" to this "layer" of "penumbral filaments". What the deal with the BLACK hole in just these specific locations, and along the sides of the penumbral filament layer?
Do you still stand by this statement?

[Baloo]

Even if this is an ATM topic I dare to make a firm prediction: this thread is already doomed. Hope I'm wrong! :)

Yes. I've also failed to hear you explain how "black body radiation" explains any of these images, or how "black body radiation" explains the heat concentration in the arcs. Explain to me how black body radiation explains the concentration of x-rays in the arcs in Yohkoh images. Why do these results so closely match what Birkeland produced in his lab?

First of all I didn't say that I've explained all the images you've provided. What I've really did it was to prove why your interpretation on a specific image is wrong.
The image is on your website here (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg) and my explanation is here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437468&highlight=black+body+G-band#post437468).
So to clarify this: my blackbody demonstration didn't involve those X-ray images, ok? It was directed to a specific image. You've rejected my explanation whitout providing any reason. And for this I won't waste my time again to prove you anything since you're selectively choose what to consider only if it's fits your needs.

By the way, you've provided again an image whitout saying what it shows, how it was taken, filtered and analyzed. That's the way you're working? Putting two images aside and see if they are alike?

[Van Rijn]

Even if this is an ATM topic I dare to make a firm prediction: this thread is already doomed. Hope I'm wrong! :)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Yes. I've also failed to hear you explain how "black body radiation" explains any of these images, or how "black body radiation" explains the heat concentration in the arcs. Explain to me how black body radiation explains the concentration of x-rays in the arcs in Yohkoh images. Why do these results so closely match what Birkeland produced in his lab?

First of all I didn't say that I've explained all the images you've provided. What I've really did it was to prove why your interpretation on a specific image is wrong.
The image is on your website here (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg) and my explanation is here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=437468&highlight=black+body+G-band#post437468).
So to clarify this: my blackbody demonstration didn't involve those X-ray images, ok? It was directed to a specific image. You've rejected my explanation whitout providing any reason. And for this I won't waste my time again to prove you anything since you're selectively choose what to consider only if it's fits your needs.


Heh. Looking at that thread reminded me of my post in response to yours:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=437480&postcount=302

I think we're at the point where we can provide "form letter" responses to Michael. He's asked the same questions repeatedly, and they have been answered by many different people. The "blackbody temperature" issue and what it applies to has been explained at least eight or nine times by now.

[Jerry]

How much? (Fe)I don't know Olivine is about 50% iron by weight, so significant levels of Olivine mean significant levels of iron.


Why? Wouldn't it partly depend on things like the amount of the comet lost to sublimation (which preferentially removed H), as the Sun doesn't have a comparable mass loss mechanism?
Yes. But the heavy metal and Helium content of the outer solar system is clearly higher than predicted by the basic solar model - this is (I assume) one of the reasons at least one researcher has proposed that Neptune and Uranus were once closer to the solar center. As ToSeek has already noted, the proponents of this solution are using the Deep Impact result to bloister their case.

Why one? Why not a dozen prior SNe?

To address this question, don't you need to know something about the mixing time of 'inputs' to the ISM (such as SNR)?And are these (now adopted) convection rates unreasonable, under good models? Haven't you simply said that 'consistent' regions in parameter space were unreasonably set too small the initial (30 years ago) models?

'Set too small' is a nice way to say the model is wrong.
If it doesn't correctly predict the composition, the history, or orbits of the outer planets, what is left? It looks to me like you can use about as many SN as you want.


The other problem with flipping neutrinos is the solution causes a bigger problem that it solves: To flip, the neutrino must have mass, if the neutrino has mass it does not satisfy the nuclear energy budget problem the neutrino was created to solve in the first place.

...Whoa! Where did this come from? Surely it is precisely because the nuclear energy budgets require a certain neutrino flux, and that flux was not observed, that was the heart of the solar neutrino problem??Perhaps you could explain what you mean in a little more detail?

http://int.phys.washington.edu/PHYS554/winter_2004/neutrino2.pdf
The