Stars and Black Holes

[Jay-qu]

yeah but thats just mass - and thats only observable

 

what I began with is a more acurate way to approach the question, but I think it should be in another thread, this one is about stars and black holes :eek:

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Sometime ago I was discussing the composition of the inner core of our sun.

 

I mentioned that the standard model used to date cannot explain the workings of the sun.

 

I said the probable cause is, maybe that the inner core is a degenerated matter. Most said no, and most of the reading I came across said the same.

 

Interesting, some scientists also claim that the sun's core is degenrated matter, being of neutrons.

 

see link

 

Here is some recent info on sun's workings.

 

http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

 

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/IsotopesTellSunsOriginOperation.pdf

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2006/NuclearCycleCosmos.pdf

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2006/OCofSunsCNOCycle.pdf

[Eclogite]

All the papers are by Professor Manuel. Manuel is a maverick. This does not mean he is wrong, just that he is more likely to be wrong than right. I should be interested if you could find any examples of other researchers supporting his claims, or even citing his papers in their own research.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eclogite

 

What part do you question.?

 

He is not the only one thinking along these lines of thoughts.

 

Have you read his papers?

 

==================================================

We need to know

 

1) What processes are within the inner core of the sun

2) These processes, are they common in other stars.

3) What triggers a supernova and where does the energy come from.

 

and much more questions.

 

Too many people sit on the fence and think things will change and be explained.

 

We are at the door step of change.

[Eclogite]

What part do you question.?

I question the context. He is a minor professor at a small Texas college, if my meory serves me correctly. He has no particular exciting research to his name. Typically, he would not be the source of a well founded revolutionary idea.

He is not the only one thinking along these lines of thoughts..

Name one other.

Have you read his papers?

.

I've dipped into them and had a brief discussion with him (or someone alleging to be him) on another forum.

We need to know

1) What processes are within the inner core of the sun

2) These processes, are they common in other stars.

3) What triggers a supernova and where does the energy come from.

.

We do.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eclogite

 

I bring ideas to this topic hopping that someone can add light to the topic, rather than attacking the person who wrote the papers.

 

I'd rather discuss the topic.

 

Has anyone got something to add.

[InfiniteNow]

I'd first like to see you respond to the request made by Eclogite for supporting and corroberating evidence of the claims before we move into new topics of discussion Harry. One study does nothing to support a point, but 5 or 6 studies by nonassociated researchers... that's different. Thanks.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Thats a cop out.

 

Sitting on the fence line waiting for the info.

 

Look at the logic, If you have any insight on the subject, you would jump to it.

 

The functioning of our sun and stars is one of the most important issues to date. It holds the key to how the universe recycles.

[InfiniteNow]

Hello All

 

Thats a cop out.

 

Sitting on the fence line waiting for the info.

 

Look at the logic, If you have any insight on the subject, you would jump to it.

 

The functioning of our sun and stars is one of the most important issues to date. It holds the key to how the universe recycles.

Dammit. I meant to neg rep you but wasn't paying close enough attention, so you'll get lots of love for this ridiculous post. I really wish that I had processed it as a neg rep though, because you still can't show any supporting evidence and responded with an attack.

 

"Hey Harry, can you show me some other people who think the same thing?"

 

"That's a cop out! If you knew your *** from your elbow, I wouldn't have to support my claims!"

 

 

:) Good grief. Enjoy the mistaken up rep I gave you. I don't foresee too many people appreciating your inability to do more than post a link and make claims without support on this site.

[Eclogite]

I bring ideas to this topic hopping that someone can add light to the topic, rather than attacking the person who wrote the papers.

I am not aware that I attacked the person. I am rather surprsised that you would say so. This is what I said:

I question the context. He is a minor professor at a small Texas college, if my memory serves me correctly. He has no particular exciting research to his name. Typically, he would not be the source of a well founded revolutionary idea.

Are you denying that he is the professor at a small Texas college?

Are you stating he is in charge of a large, globally influential, internationally recognised department?

Are you denying that his other research is pretty mundane as research goes?

Are you suggesting that major breakthroughs typically come from persons engaged in such mundane research?

 

Sorry, Harry, but I have not attacked him at all. I have accurately and objectively described him, his position and his research. I am not clear why you would have a problem with this. May I remind you that each one of these points was made in response to a request you made of me.

 

To repeat, it is probable, based on context and the radical departure from current mainstream theory, that the Professor's hypothesis is flawed. I have no wish to invest time in studying what is almost certainly a flawed theory. I am willing to devote some time to this if you can provide names of some other researchers who hold the same views.

 

You have characterised this as fence sitting. Let me be very clear. I am a long way from the fence - I am standing very firmly in a field with a sign that reads 'conventional, well founded, thoroughly validated, roundly substantiated theory'.

Let me see some other names of scientists who think the same as Manuel and I may well amble up to the fence to take a look at what is on the other side. I have to tell you honestly, from this distance it looks a lot like horse manure.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eclogite

 

When you start to label a person, rather than looking at his ideas, to me that is attacking that person.

 

Prof Oliver has presented and idea that has been around for some time.

 

The most interesting point is the density of the inner core of the sun.

 

This moves away from convention and standard model and I know that.

 

But! in my opinion he is onto something and it is worth discussing the possible points.

 

Do you dispute that our sun's origin was from a supernova.

[Jay-qu]

There is little doubt that our sun is a second or perhaps third gen star. Hence all the heavy elements hanging around :)

[Eclogite]

When you start to label a person, rather than looking at his ideas, to me that is attacking that person.

Point 1: you seem to be saying that if I labelled someone as a Nobel laureate, gifted raconteur, loving father and keen golfer, but ignored their theories on the role of pluripotential hair follicle stem cells in axon regrowth, that I would somehow be attacking them.

Point 2: I have not attacked him. I have stated that I think it is unlikely that his conjectures will turn out to have much substance to them.

Point 3: I am unskilled in mathematics. I have a slow mind, constrained by difficulty in assimilating concepts. My IQ is pedestrian. I have a keen interest in astronomy. Such time and effort as I have available to invest in learning more about it seems to be best spent in acquiring an understanding of current theory, not pursuing will-of-the-wisp, unconventional, poorly validated hypotheses. I do not see the survival value of that approach.

Prof Oliver has presented and idea that has been around for some time.

Excellent. Then you will be able to give us citations for earlier reserach on the concept. I look forward to this.

But! in my opinion he is onto something and it is worth discussing the possible points.

Which I may be in a position to do once I am convinced that the effort could be worth it.

Do you dispute that our sun's origin was from a supernova.

If you mean that our sun is the remains of a supernova, that the supernova, having exploded, left the sun as an intact remnant, absolutely not. If you mean (which is I think how JQ has read you) that the sun was formed from gaas and dust left by earlier supernovae events, then absolutely yes.

[HydrogenBond]

One of the conceptual problems with the need for super nova to form the sun is the ease at which plutonium can be made from uranium under almost ambient conditions. Here two extra protons are added to an atom in an endothermic reaction from U to Pu, without even needing gravity. But somehow the sun, with all its temperature, mass, gravity, EM force, etc., is assumed stuck at the bottom of exothermic fusion. To me it appears to be the fusion theory, which is limiting, and not the sun.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eglogite

 

For me to discuss those issues I need you to read up on supernova and compact stars and ultra dense matter such as neutron stars and quark stars etc.

 

 

This subject will become interesting.

 

But! do not wait for me to feed you info.

==================================================

 

Hello Hydrogen bond,,,,read up more on fusion within stars and the formation of light elements upto Iron and the formation of heavy elements above Iron during a supernova.

[Eclogite]

For me to discuss those issues I need you to read up on supernova and compact stars and ultra dense matter such as neutron stars and quark stars etc.

You may safely assume that I have done so. (And have been doing so for some time.)

But! do not wait for me to feed you info.

Harry, in my reasonably extensive (for a casual amateur) reading into the topic I have not run across anyone other than Manuel who is promoting his idea, or subscribes to it in any way. You have stated that there are others. Please provide citations for these others. If you cannot do so, then please retract the statement.

 

You are the one who is asking us to consider bizarre claims that lie outwith mainstream thought. The responsibility is on you to support these claims. You have offered the work of a single researcher. When challenged you have stated that others support his ideas. That may be true: so give us the references for their research. Is this too difficult for you?

[Qfwfq]

Are you suggesting that major breakthroughs typically come from persons engaged in such mundane research?

Ahem...

 

I don't see why this should be a filter. Someone might be doing "mundane research" or even making a living some other way, until an idea of theirs becomes recognized as being great. I'm not judging this guy's ideas I'm just pointing out that that's not the way to do judge them.