Could Gravity power the sun?

[Dannel Roberts]

Could gravity power the sun?

 

Under the commonly held beliefs the sun is powered by E=MC Squared. That means the energy coming out is equal to the mass of the used up part of the sun times the speed of light squared. There is no doubt when we explode a uranium bomb or a hydrogen bomb that a lot of energy comes out. The amount of energy is related to the mass of the bomb material. When the bomb explodes E gets bigger and M gets smaller or after the explosion there is more energy and less mass.

 

If the sun's energy is coming from E=MC squared then its mass is getting smaller every day. Under the commonly believed gravity theory, the pull of the gravity is related to the total mass of the sun. By simple math then, the gravitational pull of the sun should be decreasing. What would be the effect of a lower gravitional pull from the sun? The size of orbits of all the planets going around the sun would be increasing. When the size of an orbit increases, the length of the year of that planet increases. Are our years getting any longer? To my knowledge they are not. What's my conclusion? The mass of the sun is not getting smaller and the energy is not coming from E=MC squared.

 

So, what could be powering the sun? When you favor the conservation laws, you must have the same amount of energy going in as you have coming out. There is a massive amount of energy coming from the sun. To counter that there must be a massive amount of energy going to the sun. What's the energy going to the sun? First of all its something we can't see. Second, it has to be something that can be detected. If I throw a ball out in space around the sun, what will happen? The ball will move towards the sun. The ball will continue to move faster and faster until it hit's the sun. What causes the ball to move towards the sun has been called gravity. My theory on gravity is that gravity is a particle and it pushes. Gravity forms long lines or streams and push everything they come in contact with. The gravity particles goes to the mass of the sun. I have more information on this under the thread "Gravity is a particle that pushes". I believe that gravity is the massive amount of energy going into the sun that counters the massive amount of energy that comes out. The same number of particles go to the sun as come from the sun.

 

For simplicity, to understand this concept, lets deal with just one type of particle coming from the sun. Let's deal with light. I agree with Newton, that light is a particle. Einstien called it a photon. Light is something that is coming from the sun. Let's just call it a photon for now. A massive amount of gravity goes to the sun and a massive amount of photons are coming from the sun. Particles in, particles out, it's total conservation. We have one big problem, how does the gravity particles become or change to a light particles? The particle simply changes its "State". The gravity particle goes to an atom, contiunes through the atom, then the gravity particle changes its state to something other than gravity. In this example the gravity changes its state to the light particle photon state. I have written a book called "Particle Mechanics - The Theory of Energy States". It is available at ParticleMechanics.com and many book stores. This book deals with the geometry and the mechanical working of particles and the changing from one state to another.

 

I named the generic particle a "Tadtron". A tadtron in the gravity state goes to the sun as part of a stream of particles. The tadtron changes its state to light. The light particles or photons travel out to a distant place like Pluto. The light tadtron hits Pluto and changes its state to "find the end of a gravity stream" state. The tadtron then finds the end of a stream of gravity particles, changes its state to gravity and goes back to the sun to continue this recycle process.

 

When I started writing this my wife gave me a good example of this recycle process. Think of the ocean as the sun. Think of the streams that flow to the ocean as gravity. Think of the steam that evaporates from the ocean as the light. Think of snow as the "find the end of a gravity stream" state. H20 is the tadtron. You can start anywhere in the process. Let's start with a crystal clear stream. You can't see it flow. If you throw a ball in the middle of the stream the ball will be pushed by the water. H20 is in a liquid state(Gravity). The stream of water goes to the ocean. The water evaporates or it changes its

state form a liquid to a gas. The steam (Light) leaves the ocean and goes up into the atmosphere. The H20 continues as a gas until it changes its state to a solid. The steam becomes snow and falls to the earth. The snow (find the end of a gravity stream) melts and becomes a liquid. It then goes into a stream and continues.

 

In the H20 example there are only 3 state of water. The sun produces more than just light. There are many other types of energies that come out of the sun. Scientists have identified and classified many of these energies. The energies are part of what is called the electromagnetic spectrum. A list of those energies are Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Ultraviolet waves, Near Ultraviolet waves, visible light, Near Infrared waves, Infrared waves, micro waves, short radio waves, long radio waves and electricity. This info is from an enclopedia under light. All the energies are considered to be closely related. I think they are much closer than just related. I believe they are all the same particle. The

particle is just in a different state.

 

Add gravity to this list and classify all the energies as particles and you have a different view of how the universe works! These energies all move forward. They all move about the same speed. I named the particle a tadtron because I thought it would be similar looking to a tadpole. A head and a tail. The shape of the head and tail of the tadtron would determine the state. (Tadpoles also change into frogs).

 

Let's expand our example of the sun. A tadtron in the gravity state goes to the sun. It changes to a light tadtron. The light tadtron travels to the earth and strikes a photocell. The light tadtron changes to an electricity tadtron. The electricity tadtron travel through a wire to a light bulb. The electricity tadtron changes to a light tadtron and goes back to the sun to be part of the recycling process. This is the basis of the Theory of Energy States(TOES for short). Any energy can be changed to any energy. One particle in one particle out. Only the shape and charactistics of the particle change. There are many other particle states that can't be delt with on this thread. I think there many more energy states that we have yet to discover.

 

Have fun with this guys. It is my life's work in physics. I am hoping this will make some small contribution to science.

 

The main question, Could gravity power the sun? With my theory the answer is yes.

[jasonchild]

Could gravity power the sun?

 

Under the commonly held beliefs the sun is powered by E=MC Squared. That means the energy coming out is equal to the mass of the used up part of the sun times the speed of light squared. There is no doubt when we explode a uranium bomb or a hydrogen bomb that a lot of energy comes out. The amount of energy is related to the mass of the bomb material. When the bomb explodes E gets bigger and M gets smaller or after the explosion there is more energy and less mass.

 

If the sun's energy is coming from E=MC squared then its mass is getting smaller every day. Under the commonly believed gravity theory, the pull of the gravity is related to the total mass of the sun. By simple math then, the gravitational pull of the sun should be decreasing. What would be the effect of a lower gravitional pull from the sun? The size of orbits of all the planets going around the sun would be increasing. When the size of an orbit increases, the length of the year of that planet increases. Are our years getting any longer? To my knowledge they are not. What's my conclusion? The mass of the sun is not getting smaller and the energy is not coming from E=MC squared.

 

The estimated mass is thought to be M ~ 2 x 1030 kg (taken from a source that used a low-precision figure). The effective luminosity of the sun is thought to be 2 x 10^33 ergs per second, given Einstien's equation the mass loss is thought to be 7 x 10^19 grams/year.

Both of those figures are taken from http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1491.html

which also goes on to state that the orbital shift of the earth over the course of the suns existence (estimated) is roughly equal to the total mass of the earth (over 4.5 billion years).

 

So, what could be powering the sun? When you favor the conservation laws, you must have the same amount of energy going in as you have coming out. There is a massive amount of energy coming from the sun. To counter that there must be a massive amount of energy going to the sun. What's the energy going to the sun? First of all its something we can't see. Second, it has to be something that can be detected. If I throw a ball out in space around the sun, what will happen? The ball will move towards the sun. The ball will continue to move faster and faster until it hit's the sun. What causes the ball to move towards the sun has been called gravity. My theory on gravity is that gravity is a particle and it pushes. Gravity forms long lines or streams and push everything they come in contact with. The gravity particles goes to the mass of the sun. I have more information on this under the thread "Gravity is a particle that pushes". I believe that gravity is the massive amount of energy going into the sun that counters the massive amount of energy that comes out. The same number of particles go to the sun as come from the sun.

 

For simplicity, to understand this concept, lets deal with just one type of particle coming from the sun. Let's deal with light. I agree with Newton, that light is a particle. Einstien called it a photon. Light is something that is coming from the sun. Let's just call it a photon for now. A massive amount of gravity goes to the sun and a massive amount of photons are coming from the sun. Particles in, particles out, it's total conservation. We have one big problem, how does the gravity particles become or change to a light particles? The particle simply changes its "State". The gravity particle goes to an atom, contiunes through the atom, then the gravity particle changes its state to something other than gravity. In this example the gravity changes its state to the light particle photon state. I have written a book called "Particle Mechanics - The Theory of Energy States". It is available at ParticleMechanics.com and many book stores. This book deals with the geometry and the mechanical working of particles and the changing from one state to another.

 

If I understand what you are saying...the sun is not loosing mass given your tadtron-photon exchange you say is taking place. Correct?

 

In the H20 example there are only 3 state of water. The sun produces more than just light. There are many other types of energies that come out of the sun. Scientists have identified and classified many of these energies. The energies are part of what is called the electromagnetic spectrum. A list of those energies are Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Ultraviolet waves, Near Ultraviolet waves, visible light, Near Infrared waves, Infrared waves, micro waves, short radio waves, long radio waves and electricity. This info is from an enclopedia under light. All the energies are considered to be closely related. I think they are much closer than just related. I believe they are all the same particle. The

particle is just in a different state.

 

I was under the impression that those were indeed the same particle. The wavelength of the photon being related to the wavelength;

 

(taken from: http://acept.la.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/photoelectric/photoelectric.shtml

 

With the energy level (and thus spectrum) being related to the photons wavelength. From your post I take it that your theory doesnt deviate from this, am I correct?

 

Add gravity to this list and classify all the energies as particles and you have a different view of how the universe works! These energies all move forward. They all move about the same speed. I named the particle a tadtron because I thought it would be similar looking to a tadpole. A head and a tail. The shape of the head and tail of the tadtron would determine the state. (Tadpoles also change into frogs).

 

What speed is this? I sent you an email regarding an issue similar to this, and will await your private answer...but I just had to address it in my reply on these boards...

 

Let's expand our example of the sun. A tadtron in the gravity state goes to the sun. It changes to a light tadtron. The light tadtron travels to the earth and strikes a photocell. The light tadtron changes to an electricity tadtron. The electricity tadtron travel through a wire to a light bulb. The electricity tadtron changes to a light tadtron and goes back to the sun to be part of the recycling process. This is the basis of the Theory of Energy States(TOES for short). Any energy can be changed to any energy. One particle in one particle out. Only the shape and charactistics of the particle change. There are many other particle states that can't be delt with on this thread. I think there many more energy states that we have yet to discover.

 

I take it you have done away with the standard (and widely accepted) concept of electron orbit traversal? As in, photons are emitted when electrons decend from an excited energy level (orbit in the "basic" atomic theory) to its base state.

 

Have fun with this guys. It is my life's work in physics. I am hoping this will make some small contribution to science.

 

As I see it, if you are indeed correct, this would be quite a large contribution to many aspects of science (physics, chemistry and cellular biology specifically)...

 

 

jCc

 

EDIT: How does your theory deal with blackholes? The common thought is that they are formed by highly condensed matter; colapsed stars. Relitivity deals well with that issue (though my reading into quantum mechanics hasnt delved into that topic), how does Particle Mechanics fare?

[Tormod]

Under the commonly held beliefs the sun is powered by E=MC Squared. That means the energy coming out is equal to the mass of the used up part of the sun times the speed of light squared.

 

This is incorrect if anything I have learned about relativity is correct.

 

Fusion, which is what drives the sun, creates energy by fusing elements into other elements. The new element will be slightly lighter than the sum of the initial elements, and this is the energy that is released. The hydrogen-helium process requires four hydrogen atoms and a neutron, and results in one helium atom plus 2 free electrons. (*very* briefly explained).

 

In the sun, about 4 million metric tons of matter is converted to energy every second. While this may sound like a lot, the total mass of the sun is about 2 billion trillion times this, so it has enough energy sources to burn for at least ten billion years.

 

However, it is not expected to burn as a yellow sun for more than 1-2 billion years more. It will grow and turn red.

 

And remember - only a fraction of the hydrogen is not turned into helium. The rest remains in the sun as helium. The hydrogen/helium ratio is one way to estimate the age of the sun.

 

A quote from The Nine Planets:

The Sun's energy output (3.86e33 ergs/second or 386 billion billion megawatts) is produced by nuclear fusion reactions. Each second about 700,000,000 tons of hydrogen are converted to about 695,000,000 tons of helium and 5,000,000 tons (=3.86e33 ergs) of energy in the form of gamma rays. As it travels out toward the surface, the energy is continuously absorbed and re-emitted at lower and lower temperatures so that by the time it reaches the surface, it is primarily visible light. For the last 20% of the way to the surface the energy is carried more by convection than by radiation.

 

So it seems to me the sun does not throw all of this energy out into space - it is reabsorbed in the layers outside the core and it takes an extremely long time for the light we see emitted to reach the surface and leave the sun.

 

If the sun's energy is coming from E=MC squared then its mass is getting smaller every day.

...

Are our years getting any longer? To my knowledge they are not. What's my conclusion? The mass of the sun is not getting smaller and the energy is not coming from E=MC squared.

 

We would not notice our years getting longer, nor see the planets slip away from the sun. The total mass of the sun is changing at such a small rate that it has hardly even been noticeable for the entire duration of humanity's existence.

 

When you favor the conservation laws, you must have the same amount of energy going in as you have coming out.

 

No. The sun is an open system and as such will die. It is losing energy and mass. This is backed up by observational evidence of thousands of stars, and also by the current models of the sun - including sunspot prediction, CMB ejections, the corona formations etc as studied by the SOHO observatory in space and many groundbased solar observatories.

 

There is a massive amount of energy coming from the sun. To counter that there must be a massive amount of energy going to the sun.

 

The energy of the sun is coming from the original 98% of the mass of the entire solar system that formed our star. This is the mass that is being converted into energy at a slow rate. The rest is in the planets, asteroids, comets, and gas.

 

To be short, I think there is no need for any new particles to explain the sun. It is not a mystery how it works, although I admit it is a marvellous wonder.

 

The main question, Could gravity power the sun? With my theory the answer is yes.

 

Gravity does power the sun in the sense that without gravity, there would be nothing holding the sun together so it would not form in the first place. But the engine inside the sun is fusion.

 

A marvellous read, which I often recommend, on how stars work is "The Magic Furnace" by Marcus Chown. Highly recommended reading.

[Qfwfq]

The Sun is powered by gravity, it's what causes the tremendous pressure at the centre and, initially, brought up the temperature. This is what causes the nuclear fusion to take place. Quite simple.

[nkt]

Tormod is pretty much correct.

 

It is the slight difference in mass between the Hydrogen and the Helium it gets converted into that is emitted as heat/light. Due to the massive multiplier in the form of c^2, this tiny difference is actually a hell of a lot of energy. This is what "powers" the sun.

 

The Sun doesn't really change size much, as it is just so darned big. Also, as the mass decreases, so does the gravity, and so the crushing force is reduced slightly, allowing the heat pressure in the center to expand the sun a little. Not that you would really notice this by eye anyway!

 

Add to this the fact that the entire sun is resonating, there are a lot of processes going on that we still don't understand, and we can see that there is a lot of mystery there. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for an "average" photon to actually get out of the sun from the core, too.

 

However, the basic process is now fairly well understood.

[UncleAl]

Could gravity power the sun?

No. It is an 18th century suggestion trivially disproven by integrating the gravitational potential energy of the sun's substance and comparing it to the sun's energy emission/time and its nominal age. The sun is not a lump of burning coal, a cooling lump of iron, or a bunch of Boy Scouts rubbing sticks together, either.

 

Thermonuclear fusion of light elements will convert about 0.1% of rest mass to energy. Heavy element fission is pehaps 10 times less productive than fusion (~10 MeV vs. ~1 MeV), and chemistry perhaps 300,000 times less productive than fission (~3 eV).

[Dannel Roberts]

If I understand what you are saying...the sun is not loosing mass given your tadtron-photon exchange you say is taking place. Correct?

 

I do not believe the sun is losing any mass.

 

With the energy level (and thus spectrum) being related to the photons wavelength. From your post I take it that your theory doesnt deviate from this, am I correct?

 

The particles are the same. They have a different shape. The shape of the tadtron in the light state will determine it's color. It can all be accomplished without wavelength. Drop two arrows in a pool of water. Drop one on it's side. Drop one in point first. The waves in the water will be different from the two arrows. All waves and vibrations are a result of the movement, the angle and the shape of a particle. Wavelengths are the effect. Particles are the cause. I will post more on light at a later date.

 

 

What speed is this? I sent you an email regarding an issue similar to this, and will await your private answer...but I just had to address it in my reply on these boards...

 

There are two speeds with gravity. Speed one is the gravity in a stream going to an atom. Speed two is the particle looking for the end of a stream. Speed two is much faster than speed one. I do not know those speeds. I have no speed limits in my theory. I have no problem with something that can travel a billion times the speed of light or faster. There's a lot of things out there we don't know about. Instant travel is my speed limit.

 

I take it you have done away with the standard (and widely accepted) concept of electron orbit traversal? As in, photons are emitted when electrons decend from an excited energy level (orbit in the "basic" atomic theory) to its base state.

 

Completely.

 

EDIT: How does your theory deal with blackholes? The common thought is that they are formed by highly condensed matter; colapsed stars. Relitivity deals well with that issue (though my reading into quantum mechanics hasnt delved into that topic), how does Particle Mechanics fare?

 

I don't believe in collapsed matter. So, I don't believe in black holes. I watched a pretty good program on super massive black holes. They showed a picture of one. It gave off light like a regular star. They made excuses about the light. In other words the black hole ain't black.

 

This is a thought to expand your knowledge a little. I gave the "super massive black hole" a different name. I called it a Galactic Supermass. The Galactic Supermass has a massive amount of gravity going to it. Much more than our sun. Our sun recieves a push from the gravity going to the Galactic Supermass. Our sun is in orbit around it. All the stars in our galaxy are in orbit around it. When gravity is a particle, the effect of the push can easily be as far as light can travel. A force has a limit to its effect. A traveling particle doesn't.

[Dannel Roberts]

The hydrogen-helium process requires four hydrogen atoms and a neutron, and results in one helium atom plus 2 free electrons. (*very* briefly explained).

 

Let me recap this. There is a proton in each of the 4 hydrogen atoms. There's an extra neuton somewhere. You mash the 4 hydrogen protons plus the neuton together. The result is a helium atom and a bunch of energy. The helium has 2 protons and 2 neutons. The reaction turns 1 proton into a neuton and the other proton must have turned into energy. Has this ever been recreated in a lab? If so, did they capture the created helium atom?

[Qfwfq]

I do not believe the sun is losing any mass.

It is.

Let me recap this. There is a proton in each of the 4 hydrogen atoms. There's an extra neuton somewhere. You mash the 4 hydrogen protons plus the neuton together. The result is a helium atom and a bunch of energy. The helium has 2 protons and 2 neutons. The reaction turns 1 proton into a neuton and the other proton must have turned into energy. Has this ever been recreated in a lab? If so, did they capture the created helium atom?

Where did you get this idea from??? It would imply about a quarter of the rest energy becoming kinetic, not true at all.

 

The conversion is due to a change in binding energy.

[Tormod]

Let me recap this. There is a proton in each of the 4 hydrogen atoms. There's an extra neuton somewhere. You mash the 4 hydrogen protons plus the neuton together. The result is a helium atom and a bunch of energy. The helium has 2 protons and 2 neutons. The reaction turns 1 proton into a neuton and the other proton must have turned into energy. Has this ever been recreated in a lab? If so, did they capture the created helium atom?

 

Hm...forget my post, I don't know why I wrote that about the neutron. Sorry.

 

But it does sound like you have not looked at the very basics of hydrogen fusion.

 

Look here for a more detailed explanation of the process:

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/background/survey/galactic/starfusionhydrogen.html

[Tormod]

I don't believe in collapsed matter. So, I don't believe in black holes. I watched a pretty good program on super massive black holes. They showed a picture of one. It gave off light like a regular star. They made excuses about the light. In other words the black hole ain't black.

 

If you saw a black hole which shone like a star, you have not seen a black hole. In fact, nobody have seen a black hole. At any rate, it would not shine but it would emit radiation.

 

A force has a limit to its effect. A traveling particle doesn't.

 

What? First of all, all particles travel - there is no such thing as a stationary particle. And their effect is not universal nor instant over distance. There is very much a limit to a particle's effect...

[Dannel Roberts]

Hm...forget my post, I don't know why I wrote that about the neutron. Sorry.

 

But it does sound like you have not looked at the very basics of hydrogen fusion.

 

Look here for a more detailed explanation of the process:

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/background/survey/galactic/starfusionhydrogen.html

 

Actually I have looked at fusion. Fusion is a Theory that occurs in a place far far away(stars). It's one of those theories that everyone accepts as fact because "The Math works out".

 

Fission was a theory. The idea was to split an atom to get a release of energy. It became real. We have made bombs with it and have built many power plants that generate lots of electricity. Fission can be recreated in the lab.

 

Fusion was a theory. This theory combines elements to get a release of energy. The hydrogen bomb was believed to be a fusion bomb. I think it was just a much more powerfull fission bomb. I believe they just divided the hydrogen (deuterium) and had the release of energy. I don't know of anyone who has recreated fusion in the lab and got more energy out than they put in.

 

My observation is that splitting an atom to get energy works. Fission is real. Fusion is still a theory.

[C1ay]

I do not believe the sun is losing any mass.

So coronal mass ejection and the aurora borealis are just figments of my imagination? There is no solar wind? All of the photons that leave the sun are replaced somehow? The sun's mass is a constant?

[Dannel Roberts]

So coronal mass ejection and the aurora borealis are just figments of my imagination? There is no solar wind? All of the photons that leave the sun are replaced somehow? The sun's mass is a constant?

 

Coronal mass ejection is different than losing mass to E=MC squared. Most of the mass in a coronal mass ejection returns back to the sun due to gravity. I don't know if some mass may actually leaves the solar system due to the ejection. The aurora borealis is just another "state" of a Tadtron that leaves the sun. Solar winds are also another Tadtron "State". All are particles. The tadtrons go in as gravity and come out as a Photon, infrared light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, Gamma rays, etc. The theory of energy states(TOES) is based on a particle in and a particle out(PIPO). It's a total conservation of energy.

 

Aurora borealis is a huge study just in itself. Solar winds are also a big study. I think we know very little about them. They are real. Something is behind them.

 

You have some very good points about "stuff" coming from the sun. I wonder how much "stuff" is coming from the sun that we are yet to discover.

[jasonchild]

Honestly, in my opinion, you have yet to provide a single shred of convincing evidence, argument, mechanic or mathamatical construct to validate your claims. As such I view your points as philosophical constructs (inventive ones at that) but nothing more. ;) Not to say I am not interested in what you have to say...

 

jCc

[C1ay]

Coronal mass ejection is different than losing mass to E=MC squared. Most of the mass in a coronal mass ejection returns back to the sun due to gravity. I don't know if some mass may actually leaves the solar system due to the ejection. The aurora borealis is just another "state" of a Tadtron that leaves the sun. Solar winds are also another Tadtron "State". All are particles. The tadtrons go in as gravity and come out as a Photon, infrared light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, Gamma rays, etc. The theory of energy states(TOES) is based on a particle in and a particle out(PIPO). It's a total conservation of energy.

 

Aurora borealis is a huge study just in itself. Solar winds are also a big study. I think we know very little about them. They are real. Something is behind them.

 

You have some very good points about "stuff" coming from the sun. I wonder how much "stuff" is coming from the sun that we are yet to discover.

;) Suggested reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/cme.htm

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/cmes.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29

http://www.phy6.org/outreach/edu/aurora.htm

Then explain how the mass of the sun is constant...

[jasonchild]

The tadtrons go in as gravity and come out as a Photon, infrared light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, Gamma rays, etc.

 

So, gravity is a much lower-energy form of the tadtron...or the other way around?

 

 

There are two speeds with gravity. Speed one is the gravity in a stream going to an atom. Speed two is the particle looking for the end of a stream. Speed two is much faster than speed one. I do not know those speeds. I have no speed limits in my theory. I have no problem with something that can travel a billion times the speed of light or faster. There's a lot of things out there we don't know about. Instant travel is my speed limit.

 

...

 

How do you know there are "two speeds" to gravity if you have no idea what they are and more so indicate a superluminal norm?