|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2006 : 13:35:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Have you been reading and following the arguments? We know the average density of the sun. Doing some basic calculations (Dave started to earlier), it's clear that a solid iron surface means that for the average density of the sun to match what the math tells us, the non-iron portion of the sun is going to have to be very, very light.
Yes, it would, which is why I showed you that earlier video of the air bubble inside the water shell.
quote:
Yet your model also calls for silicone and other relatively (to hydrogen) heavy elements, and lots of them! This isn't handwaving, it's basic logic.
The "atmosphere" between the "surface" and the top of the photosphere is only .007R. It's very thin in comparison to the whole radius of the sun, therefore whatever elements makeup these layers is minisule compared to the volume that is *inside* the shell. Even the standard model includes *some* iron, and *some* silicon, and *some* calcium. The presense of these heavier elements in the atmosphere is frankly the very least of my worries or concerns as it relates to the *average* density of the whole sun.
quote:
Here's what Dave said earlier: If half the mass of the Sun is from iron....
Then the first thing we have to ask ourselves is where is that all that iron located? Is it mostly located in the outer crust, held their by the electromagnetic fields of the universe and surface tension like the water bubble video, or is most of this iron part of the neutron star crust? Do I really know yet? Not really. I just know from the nuclear analysis, that it's mostly made of iron. I know anything yet about how that iron is arranged on the sun, other than I know that at least *some* of that iron forms an outer crust.
quote:
....That's about 12% of the Sun's volume, so the other 88% of the Sun's volume contains the other 50% of the Sun's mass, making its average density about 0.705 g/cm3, or 70% of that of water at STP.
Ok. I'd say the average density of the inside 88% of the water shell video was less than the average desnity of water in the outer shell as well.
quote:
Now, the average density of the sun is 1.4 g/cm3. What you need to do is somehow explain how the 50% of the sun that's not iron, but also still full of heavy and dense things is half as dense as a sun that, under the gas model, is made up largely of the lightest elements out there.
But that was also true in the water shell video, and a solid "crust" would certaily have "surface tension", and one made of mostly metals would also be influenced by the electromagnetic fields of the universe, just like the water. I don't see any problem.
quote:
Does this make any sense? Am I just completely missing something?
All of it makes sense, but does the water shell analogy make sense to you as well? That I think is the key here. If there is a neutron core, then then the shell is relatively thin, and the plasma between the core and the shell would have to be extremely light and highly pressurized, or "chaged" in some way as to "push against" the neutron core. That's my first choice. If there is no neutron core, then the crust would need to be relatively thick, and the center would need to composed of light elements as in the water bubble video.
quote:
I am not trained in math or science and am only just now trying to catch up on all of this. But we know the density, and this density is fine assuming that its made up of light elements like hydrogen and helium. If you want to posit that its actually mostly made up of things denser than hydrogen and helium-- like iron and silicon (or whatever)-- then you're left trying to explain why the sun isn't any more dense than it is! This seems to be a basic obstacle, but perhaps I'm crazy in thinking this to be so.
I'm struggling to understand your concern here, but I think I see why you're concerned. I think you are under a false impression here. If I was suggesting the whole sun (by size) is made of solid iron, there would be a *serious* problem, and I think that's what you believe I am suggesting. I'm not. I'm simply suggesting that whatever "structures" exist in the sun, and were we to count up the elements (by weight), most of the overall mass of the sun would come from iron. There is a big diefference between these two ideas. I think you are suggesting that we aren't starting with the same mass, but we are starting with the same mass. I'm simply going to end up with "less" hydrogen, and "less" helium to make up for the extra iron in my model, but I still cannot exceed the total mass in my model *without* going back to that rock on a string explanation.
Since the sun could have a more dense outer shell like the water shell video, it may very well be that the inside of the sun is less dense than the outside crust. Again, the crust might be very thin, and technically the crust need not even contain much of the iron, expecially if there is nuetron crust somewhere in the core. There are many possible configurations that might work, as long as I don't exceed the total mass the gas model theory is predicated on.
Think more in terms of having a pickup truck, where you can carry a total load of 1 ton. You can have a ton of feathers on the truck or a ton of iron on the truck, or a combination of some feather and some iron. As long as you don't exceed a ton, it's not a problem.
The only thing that I have to conform to, and be careful about, is that I do not *exceed* an "average density" that is about the same as current theory. My model is obviously going to contain a lot fewer feathers than your model. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/18/2006 13:47:26 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 13:52:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you are suggesting that we aren't starting with the same mass, but we are starting with the same mass. I'm simply going to end up with "less" hydrogen, and "less" helium to make up for the extra iron in my model, but I still cannot exceed the total mass in my model *without* going back to that rock on a string explanation.
Just out of morbid curiosity, IYO how much of the mass of the sun is contained in the Neutron star that is in the middle of the sun?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 13:52:53 [Permalink]
|
Michael, why does water have a surface tension? And why doesn't gravity play a role in the water-bubble video? For the analogy to make sense, Michael, your "shell" has to have a similar surface tension (does any solid have a surface tension at all?) and also be unaffected by gravity.
And even if the shell is "thin," it's easy to calculate the pressures needed to keep it from collapsing. Given that you can't exceed the mass of the Sun, then whatever is inside, pressurizing the "shell," has to be very, very hot, melting the shell. Plus, if you make the shell too thin (so as to reduce the required pressures and thus the heat), then pieces of it will simply shatter and fall under the stress of CMEs, leading to a loss of internal pressure and the collapse of the whole damn thing into the core.
Why would a neutron core have any iron in its "crust?" Is the crust somehow immune to gravity? Plus, you've never addressed the fact that neutronic matter doesn't form unless there's at least 40% more mass than there is in the Sun. Well, you've never addressed it except to say "acceleration in the Z axis," but that just won't work as an objection unless you can explain its mechanism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 13:54:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, you just have to make a plausible model constrained to that same average density figure,
Correct.
quote:
which appears to necessarily include an interior heated to at least a billion degrees (to maintain the pressure to keep the shell from crashing in on itself), which would melt any shell you care to name.
No. As with the water bubble analogy, the outside shell could be influenced by things like surface tension and EM fields and even charge repulsion from a charged core. There are many ways to explain this phenomenon. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 13:54:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Just out of morbid curiosity, IYO how much of the mass of the sun is contained in the Neutron star that is in the middle of the sun?
He said before: 50-70% of the total mass of the Sun. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 13:59:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No. As with the water bubble analogy, the outside shell could be influenced by things like surface tension and EM fields and even charge repulsion from a charged core. There are many ways to explain this phenomenon.
I've never heard of surface tension in a "non homogeneous" mix of metals and rock, Michael. Tell me how it would work.
Tell me also how "EM fields" might keep the shell supported without being detectable.
Tell me also how "charge repulsion" would work from a "neutron core" which is, by definition, chargeless? If you've got a charged core, instead, from whence did the charge come, and also what would be maintaining a charge on the shell of equal-but-opposite value when we can detect all sorts of charged particles being shed from the Sun?
Yes, there are many ways to explain the phenomenon, but everything you've mentioned so far appears to be completely implausible. Flying monkeys holding the shell up is an explanation which would make just as much sense, and be based upon the same amount of evidence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 14:12:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I know that you won't understand this but: The expansion of the universe could not possible have anything to do with the sun accelerating is some direction.
I know that you won't understand this, but it can.
quote:
That you would even make such a statement shows that you have no inkling of what the hubble constant or the expansion of the unverse mean.
I just have less "faith" that Arps work can be tossed yet.
quote:
Jumping Jesus Christ! You don't believe that is the case??? Well lets see, if the bodies in our solar system are not acclerating uniformly (nevermind that there is zero evidence that there is any sort of 'bulk' acceleration of the solar system) then the distances between the bodies MUST be changing. Do you have some evidence of this?
You didn't grasp my meaning. Gravity is going to hold everything in the same geometric relationships regardless of the tension on the string. If the sun experiences a greater force of acceleration than the earth, it will take more solar mass to hold the earth in a stable orbit with additional forces tugging on the string. The tension on the string simply increases, and the mass and the average density of the sun would have to be increased to compensate.
quote:
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT ACCELERATION IN THE Z AXIS WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN DETERMINING THE MASS OF THE SUN???
If you would be so kind as to prove to me that that there's a density problem in the first place, I'd be happy to worry about it.
quote:
Then you should not use this as reason to discount the mass of the sun as calculated by the rest of the scientific community. You will have to stick with the tried and true Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Ya, like you or anyone else can even prove that 'dark energy' even exists. Sheesh, the double standards that you guys buy into. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 14:17:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Tell me also how "EM fields" might keep the shell supported without being detectable.
Without being detectable?
quote:
Tell me also how "charge repulsion" would work from a "neutron core" which is, by definition, chargeless?
The crust is mostly made of iron atoms stripped of all electrons.
quote:
If you've got a charged core, instead, from whence did the charge come,
The iron atom that are stripped of all electrons on the crust of the neutron star.
quote:
and also what would be maintaining a charge on the shell of equal-but-opposite value when we can detect all sorts of charged particles being shed from the Sun?
Moving plasma arranged in layers.
quote:
Yes, there are many ways to explain the phenomenon, but everything you've mentioned so far appears to be completely implausible.
The fact you label something "implausible" doesn't make it so Dave.
quote:
Flying monkeys holding the shell up is an explanation which would make just as much sense, and be based upon the same amount of evidence.
Ya sure Dave. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 14:28:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why would a neutron core have any iron in its "crust?"
They just do Dave, at least that's a part of the theory of how they work:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html
quote:
Is the crust somehow immune to gravity?
No, but evidently iron atoms stripped of their electrons is what forms the outer most layer of these objects.
quote:
Plus, you've never addressed the fact that neutronic matter doesn't form unless there's at least 40% more mass than there is in the Sun.
I don't have to. I posted a paper around here somewhere a while earlier that showed that they most likely remain stable as they slowely decay until they reach "critical mass" at around .5x solar masses.
quote:
Well, you've never addressed it except to say "acceleration in the Z axis," but that just won't work as an objection unless you can explain its mechanism.
I don't have to "address" that to use a neutron core. You're talking about the difference here of what it takes to "form" one in the first place vs. the size they can be while still remaining stable. It may very well indeed be they this neutron star was once 1.4 solar masses in size, but evidently it's decayed some since then, yet is large enought to still remain stable.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0201/0201434.pdf |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 14:45:44 [Permalink]
|
| A few other advantages to having a spinning neutron core in the middle is that that a spinning core could easily explain the five minute solar rhythm. If the core slowly rotates over time, that magnetic movement relative to the spin axis of the outer shell could also be used to explain the sun's 22 year magnetic cycle. It explains both of these things quite nicely, not to mention offering us an explanation for the sun's strong magnetic fields, and an energy source in the form of induction. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/18/2006 14:49:59 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 14:48:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The fact you label something "implausible" doesn't make it so Dave.
Jesus, Michael, talk about handwaving! Dave supplied numerous objections as to why it's implausible. Just because you say something might be plausible doesn't make it so. That's what you need to prove. You can't just say "there are numerous possibilities" and leave it at that. Pick one and show how it could work.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/18/2006 14:49:20 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 17:16:32 [Permalink]
|
Michael your analogies are patently superficial. That is, just like the ill-informed Big Bang scientists will explain expansion (that trite little subject) using a balloon, they don't really expect the balloon (or the little magic marker dots drawn on them) to actually prove anything. Yet, time and again, you offer weak superficial analogies not as a way to explain something, but as proof of its validity.
For instance, what's the ratio in density between the air and the water "shell"? How does that compare to the density of iron in reltion to the stuff inside it? In the air bubble "explanation" does the water "shell" equate to half the total mass of the bubble itself? Can you show this? What about the pressure ir air, etc., around the "shell"? How does that compare to the pressure around the iron crust of the sun? How does the sun's massive gravity play into the dynamics of its iron shell versus the gravity of the air bubble and how it plays into the dynamics of its water shell?
For that analogy to have any validity, you'd have to at least show me that the two systems share anything but superficial similarities. My guess is they don't.
You suggested that I might not understand you, but I do. I know you aren't saying that the sun is solid iron. But under the gas model, iron atoms are only 0.003% of the total (because iron is heavy, its mass is 0.14% of the sun). In YOUR model, you say it's ca. 50% of the total mass. That's a radical difference!!!
If I told you that a big metal ball were 75% aluminum (density 2700 kg per cubic meter) and 24% titanium (4500 kg), with 1% heavy stuff like lead (11,300 kg), you could take the volume of the ball and its mass and give me its density. Fine.
But suppose after studying the ball, you told me that the aluminum and titanium were just the outermost part, and that really, the ball is 50% lead. This changes things-- because the mass can't change. We've already measured it. But if the ball is now not 1% lead, but 50% lead, and 2 or 3% aluminum, how the hell are we going to keep the mass the same and keep the density the same (because mass and volume are the same, the density won't change)? The answer is that you have to have the other 48% be made of really light materials.
With this analogy, you're cool, because air is really light, and so you could posit an interior of sand and air and be fine. But applying this to the gas vs. iron models, you're in trouble. You've rid yourself of the lightest elements-- hydrogen and helium, and added much much more of the very dense iron.
Standard solar model:
Hydrogen: 71%
Helium: 27%
Oxygen: 1%
Carbon: 0.4%
Nitrogen: 0.01%
Mozina model:
Iron: 50%
Other dense, heavy stuff: 48%
Light stuff like hydrogen and helium: 2%
How can you posit a radical new make-up for the sun and not be concerned that the density and mass of the sun cannot change? You're taking a really dense element and saying it's now the dominant element in the sun, and you're taking two of the lightest elements and saying they only make up a small part of the sun, and yet you're also saying (because the physical world demands it) that the overall density is the same.
I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 18:38:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If the sun experiences a greater force of acceleration than the earth, it will take more solar mass to hold the earth in a stable orbit with additional forces tugging on the string. The tension on the string simply increases, and the mass and the average density of the sun would have to be increased to compensate.
Acceleration is not a force. Be that as it may, are you saying that something is exerting more force on the sun than the earth (I think that is what you are saying) to continually accelerate it more than the earth?
Pray tell, what is this force?
Dave, thanks for the information about Michael's theory that the neutron star at the center of the sun is 50% to 70% of the suns mass. This seems to cause some arthmetic problems though if the sun is also primarily iron.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 19:43:11 [Permalink]
|
I wrote:quote:
I've never heard of surface tension in a "non homogeneous" mix of metals and rock, Michael. Tell me how it would work.
And Michael chose to be silent. I wonder why.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Tell me also how "EM fields" might keep the shell supported without being detectable.
Without being detectable?
Yes, an EM field large enough to uniformly support a "shell" of mostly iron ought to be detectable, since it'd have to be much larger than the 4,000 Gauss fields we regularly see in coronal loops.quote:
quote:
Tell me also how "charge repulsion" would work from a "neutron core" which is, by definition, chargeless?
The crust is mostly made of iron atoms stripped of all electrons.
Well, since you posted this reference, we can see that's not true, unless you want to cherry-pick the reference. It says, "At the top of the crust, the nuclei are mostly iron 56 and lighter elements..." It doesn't say the crust is mostly iron. It doesn't say what the ratio of iron nuclei to lighter nuclei is, but it does say that taken together (that's what "and" means), iron and lighter nuclei predominate at the top of the crust, with larger nuclei appearing as one goes deeper.quote:
quote:
If you've got a charged core, instead, from whence did the charge come,
The iron atom that are stripped of all electrons on the crust of the neutron star.
Nope, not according to your own source. It says that there are electrons throughout the crust.quote:
quote:
and also what would be maintaining a charge on the shell of equal-but-opposite value when we can detect all sorts of charged particles being shed from the Sun?
Moving plasma arranged in layers.
Why would moving plasma arranged in layers be electrically charged? What's sapping the plasma of electrons (or nuclei)?quote:
The fact you label something "implausible" doesn't make it so Dave.
No, the fact that I've just told you why your ideas are implausible makes them implausible.quote:
quote:
Flying monkeys holding the shell up is an explanation which would make just as much sense, and be based upon the same amount of evidence.
Ya sure Dave.
Glad you agree.
You also wrote:quote:
I posted a paper around here somewhere a while earlier that showed that they most likely remain stable as they slowely decay until they reach "critical mass" at around .5x solar masses.
...
I don't have to "address" that to use a neutron core. You're talking about the difference here of what it takes to "form" one in the first place vs. the size they can be while still remaining stable. It may very well indeed be they this neutron star was once 1.4 solar masses in size, but evidently it's decayed some since then, yet is large enought to still remain stable.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0201/0201434.pdf
Oh, good grief, you can't even read your own reference. How would a neutron star, trapped inside a lightweight (comparatively) shell, lose any mass at all? With a surface gravity over ten billion times that of Earth's, why doesn't it gain mass over time? Note also that your reference discusses the minimum mass of cold, static neutron stars, and clearly demonstrates that spinning neutron stars (and hot ones) must be larger than cold, static ones.
But this next bit of yours takes the cake:quote:
A few other advantages to having a spinning neutron core in the middle is that that a spinning core could easily explain the five minute solar rhythm. If the core slowly rotates over time, that magnetic movement relative to the spin axis of the outer shell could also be used to explain the sun's 22 year magnetic cycle. It explains both of these things quite nicely, not to mention offering us an explanation for the sun's strong magnetic fields...
Let's see how that would work... At the surface of a 10 km neutron star, it's magnetic field is a trillion Gauss. Let's work our way out. Magnetic field strength drops with the cube of the distance, so every doubling of R means a reduction in T by a factor of 0.125, leaving a little more than one milligauss at the photosphere. Since the measured value of the Sun's magnetic field is about one Gauss outside of sunspots, the prediction which naturally follows from your hypothesis is wrong by a factor of 1,000.quote:
...and an energy source in the form of induction.
So you want the resistance in your shell to be low enough to induce currents from milligauss magnetic fields, yet still high enough so that separation of charges within the shell can create thousands of giant electrical sparks every day? Wow! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2006 : 19:47:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Dave, thanks for the information about Michael's theory that the neutron star at the center of the sun is 50% to 70% of the suns mass. This seems to cause some arthmetic problems though if the sun is also primarily iron.
Yeah, unless Michael has a reference which shows that the iron in a neutron star's crust makes up a significant percentage of its total mass. I don't think he's got any such reference, though, especially since the one he tried to pass off doesn't support his contentions regarding the iron content of a neutron star's crust.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
