Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hello Qfwfq

 

You misunderstood where I was coming from.

 

I was looking at the origin of our solar system.

 

And refering to many papers, they say the main theory is from a supernova.

If this is correct than I assumed that a neutron compact core was formed. Its formation gives it billions of years of life.

 

After 5 billion years that compact core formed a solar envelope.

 

The question is.

 

What changes occured within the inner core?

Did some of the neutrons stay compact.

Did another form of compact occur?

 

Regardless

 

The density of the inner core would need to be very dense to control the over heating. That is hold back the flow of heat from the inner core.

 

The other point is that, the solar envelope needs to be help back, preventing an expansion, that creates a red giant.

 

Some scientist tell me we have a Hydrogen core.

Some say He core

Some say Iron core

Some say a superfluid of some form

Posted
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.

The fact that Manuel's research to date might be described as mundane is absolutely no justification for an astrophysicist to use it as a filter.

However, for the amateur struggling to come to terms with the accepted, conventional theories it is a very good filter. It is on that basis I was employing it. (And advising Harry - and everyone else - to do the same.)

Posted
You misunderstood where I was coming from.

 

I was looking at the origin of our solar system.

 

And refering to many papers, they say the main theory is from a supernova.

If this is correct than I assumed that a neutron compact core was formed. Its formation gives it billions of years of life.

 

After 5 billion years that compact core formed a solar envelope.

I begin to grasp the nature of the problem here. You have misunderstood the current theories of the formation of the sun.

 

Your earlier posts (here and on other threads) suggest you believe there is a neutron core, the remnants of a supernova, at the heart of the sun. This is wholly unconventional and matches in absolutely no way any aspect of current theory on the origin of the sun in particular and stars in general.

 

You also note that many papers refer to the sun originating from a supernova. This is true, but not in the way you appear to mean. The sun formed from the collapse of part of a GMC (giant molecular cloud). Supernovae are implicated in this in two ways.

1. The dust and gas in the cloud originated in supernovae explosions.

2. The collapse of the cloud may well have been initiated by a nearby supernovae explosion.

 

Comments please Harry.

 

You go on to say "Why not discuss the topic, rather than going around it."

As I have repeatedly said I shall discuss the topic when you provide the citations for the other scientists that support Professor Manuel's position. This is the third or fourth time I have asked for this. Why are you unprepared to respond? Might it be because such scientists do not exist? Might it be, as I noted earlier, that Professor Manuel is a lone maverick, with a decidedly unconventional idea?

Posted

Hello All

 

I'm now reading thru the stanard theory or so to speak on star formation and core compositions.

 

There are links missing in the explanations.

 

Core collapse.

 

What is the energy exchange during a core collapse?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

If our sun was formed 5 billion years ago

 

What is the estimate of its original mass?

Posted

Not sure, if you want to find an approximation yourself look up the luminosity of the sun, find out its total wattage, convert that to a mass via E=mc^2 and times by the amount of seconds in 5billion years.. then add that number to the current mass. This should give a fair approximate, though there are loads of other factors to take into account

Posted

Hello Jay

 

 

If it was that simple.

 

I would have done it earlier.

 

Has someone got links relating to the above search.

 

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

The question is what is the minimum mass and what is the maximum mass estimate.

 

Over 5 billion years do you think the sun has lost half its mass.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

Hello All

 

 

Michael Mozina

 

Sent me this: re: the link

 

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/PlasmaDiffuserFinal.pdf

 

FYI, our Physics of Atomic Nuclei paper has now been "officially" published. Our work has now been published in the Journal of Fusion energy as well as the Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya Fizika). You'll note that Dr. Manuel's work has now been published in the following publications:

 

1. Science

2. Nature

3. Proceedings of the 11th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference

4. Geochemical Journal (Japan)

5. Meteoritics

6. Comments on Astrophysics

7. The Journal of Fusion Energy

8. The Journal of Radioanalytical & Nuclear Chemistry

9. Physics of Atomic Nuclei

10. Yadernaya Fizika (Russian)

11. The American Institute of Physics (AIP) Proceedings volume #822, pp. 206-225 (2006)

12. The Institute of Physics (IOP) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Beyond Standard Model Physics, pp. 307-316 (2003)

13. European Space Agency (ESA)

SP-500, pp. 787-790 (2002)

SP-517, pp. 345-348 (2003)

 

The workings of our sun is under fire.

 

Read the link.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

Hello All

 

I thought this maybe of interest to some.

 

Star on a Hubble diet

 

Pismis 24-1’s “weight loss” may continue in the future: ground-based observations indicate that Pismis 24-1 could even be a triple star system. Although each of the three stars would then only average 70 solar masses, they would still make it to the top twenty-five for “Milky Way heavyweights”, but only for a few million years as they would be sure to end their lives as supernovae and then turn into black holes.

 

Jesús Maíz Apellániz’s team plans to study the Pismis 24 cluster further and to look at other systems in the hope of establishing just how massive a star can be.

 

Massive stars can be the precursors of either black holes or neutron stars, formed in the supernovae that are the final spectacular flaring of a collapsing massive star and the main sources of the heavy elements in the Universe. By studying massive stars astronomers gain a deeper insight into our current understanding of black holes, supernova explosions and the chemical composition of the Universe.

Posted

Harry,

 

Human friendliness is worth more than any theory. Thank you. I really don't know anything about stars or black holes I never really took an interest in them but I will read this your post here and the threads through out it maybe then I will actually learn instead of preach.

Posted

Harry doing fine. Trying to start a research center to eventually build a hospital for mental health. I have been in a state of schizophrenia for 10 years and I am finally over it. I realized there were almost too many theories and not enough research on the matter as to my own way of founding this. But I would love to read I did read some of your stuff on stars and blackholes and honestly I didn't know what you were talking about I understood to some degree I am learning that the "Enter Key" I shouldn't be afraid of. This site is giving me therapy.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...