Well since it looks like Michael will require us to make a complete review of physics and astronomy I will not continue this topic either.
The simplest argument for why an iron dominated sun, indeed a sun dominated by any particle at least as heavy as an iron nucleus, is not viable is that it will collapse under its own gravity.
In fact novae and supernovae get triggered exactly when the fusion in star in question has turned so much of the ligther elements into iron and elements heavier than iron. These heavy elements can not continue to drive the fusion process and when this happens then star can no longer avoid a gravitational collapse.
Well since it looks like Michael will require us to make a complete review of physics and astronomy I will not continue this topic either.
The simplest argument for why an iron dominated sun, indeed a sun dominated by any particle at least as heavy as an iron nucleus, is not viable is that it will collapse under its own gravity.
In fact novae and supernovae get triggered exactly when the fusion in star in question has turned so much of the ligther elements into iron and elements heavier than iron. These heavy elements can not continue to drive the fusion process and when this happens then star can no longer avoid a gravitational collapse.
A neutron core would be at least as dense as iron.
It would be more correct to suggest that it is "presumed" that supernovae get triggered exactly when the the fusion in the star has turned mostly to iron and heavier elements. That 'theory' however has never been proven. That is the problem with the gas model IMO. The gas model has a lot of "theoretical" support from many dedicated scientists over the years, but there is very little observational support to suggest these gas model theories actually apply to a real life sun based on satellite imagery. I could 'see' the structures under the photosphere which is why I predicted a stratified layer existed at a very shallow depth. You'll note that the top of this surface is located at about .995R, a very shallow depth indeed.
After making my original post, as I was learning about helioseismology as Mark pointed out, I found the site The Standard Solar Model, which has fairly easy to understand equations like and , along with tables showing the nuclear reactions. Perhaps you should consider expressing your observations within this kind of framework. Quoting from the site:
Quote:
The standard solar model serves two purposes; (1) it provides estimates for the helium abundance and mixing length parameter in the Sun by forcing the solar model to have the correct luminosity and radius at the Sun's age, and (2) it provides a benchmark to compare "improved" solar models which have additional physics, such as rotation, magnetic fields, and diffusion or ad-hoc improvements, such as turbulent diffusion, overshooting, and metal rich cores...
There are certainly unanswered questions regarding stellar evolution, interactions between galaxies, and there are obviously questions regarding what happens to matter under extreme conditions and on grand scales. I think highly of your perspective, Michael, and I admire your effort.
After making my original post, as I was learning about helioseismology as Mark pointed out, I found the site The Standard Solar Model, which has fairly easy to understand equations like and , along with tables showing the nuclear reactions. Perhaps you should consider expressing your observations within this kind of framework. Quoting from the site:
Quote:
The standard solar model serves two purposes; (1) it provides estimates for the helium abundance and mixing length parameter in the Sun by forcing the solar model to have the correct luminosity and radius at the Sun's age, and (2) it provides a benchmark to compare "improved" solar models which have additional physics, such as rotation, magnetic fields, and diffusion or ad-hoc improvements, such as turbulent diffusion, overshooting, and metal rich cores...
There are certainly unanswered questions regarding stellar evolution, interactions between galaxies, and there are obviously questions regarding what happens to matter under extreme conditions and on grand scales. I think highly of your perspective, Michael, and I admire your effort.
Thank you, and thank you for your suggestions. I am working with Dr. Manuel on a jounal publication at the moment, but I hear you on those points. I think that the recent heliosiesmology evidence makes it possible now to create mathematical models with real and observed data. I am indeed moving in that direction.
Your theory is an awesome concept. I am no scientist I and my question is probably relatively simple. Looking at the pictures you have of the sun and watching the formations as they rotate it appears as if there are mountains and crevices in the pictures. If this is true wouldnt the temperature, pressure, and friction of moving through the hydrogen atmosphere make these mountains more rounded? It appears as if they are sharp pointy things protruding from the surface of that element. I would imagine that they would be more like giant smooth bumps rather than sharp peaks and valleys.
One particularly good reason why the Sun cannot be made (largely) of (solid) iron is its average density (~1.4 g/cc); solid iron has a density of >7*.
The average density of the Sun is easy to calculate - its mass divided by its volume - from two well-measured inputs. The Sun's mass can be measured using Kepler's law, which Newton showed comes from the good old inverse square law for gravity, and the deflection of photons as they pass near the Sun, a result of Einstein's GR (so closing a loop with why we're all here!).
Michael The best of luck to
)
Michael
The best of luck to you.
Well since it looks like
)
Well since it looks like Michael will require us to make a complete review of physics and astronomy I will not continue this topic either.
The simplest argument for why an iron dominated sun, indeed a sun dominated by any particle at least as heavy as an iron nucleus, is not viable is that it will collapse under its own gravity.
In fact novae and supernovae get triggered exactly when the fusion in star in question has turned so much of the ligther elements into iron and elements heavier than iron. These heavy elements can not continue to drive the fusion process and when this happens then star can no longer avoid a gravitational collapse.
RE: Well since it looks
)
A neutron core would be at least as dense as iron.
It would be more correct to suggest that it is "presumed" that supernovae get triggered exactly when the the fusion in the star has turned mostly to iron and heavier elements. That 'theory' however has never been proven. That is the problem with the gas model IMO. The gas model has a lot of "theoretical" support from many dedicated scientists over the years, but there is very little observational support to suggest these gas model theories actually apply to a real life sun based on satellite imagery. I could 'see' the structures under the photosphere which is why I predicted a stratified layer existed at a very shallow depth. You'll note that the top of this surface is located at about .995R, a very shallow depth indeed.
Thank you both for a very enjoyable discussion.
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
Hi, Michael, After making
)
Hi, Michael,
After making my original post, as I was learning about helioseismology as Mark pointed out, I found the site The Standard Solar Model, which has fairly easy to understand equations like and , along with tables showing the nuclear reactions. Perhaps you should consider expressing your observations within this kind of framework. Quoting from the site:
There are certainly unanswered questions regarding stellar evolution, interactions between galaxies, and there are obviously questions regarding what happens to matter under extreme conditions and on grand scales. I think highly of your perspective, Michael, and I admire your effort.
RE: Hi, Michael, After
)
Thank you, and thank you for your suggestions. I am working with Dr. Manuel on a jounal publication at the moment, but I hear you on those points. I think that the recent heliosiesmology evidence makes it possible now to create mathematical models with real and observed data. I am indeed moving in that direction.
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
Dr. Manuel, Hilton Ratcliffe
)
Dr. Manuel, Hilton Ratcliffe and I have published a couple of papers recently that you may find interesting:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
Your theory is an awesome
)
Your theory is an awesome concept. I am no scientist I and my question is probably relatively simple. Looking at the pictures you have of the sun and watching the formations as they rotate it appears as if there are mountains and crevices in the pictures. If this is true wouldnt the temperature, pressure, and friction of moving through the hydrogen atmosphere make these mountains more rounded? It appears as if they are sharp pointy things protruding from the surface of that element. I would imagine that they would be more like giant smooth bumps rather than sharp peaks and valleys.
WARNING! DiHydrogen MonOxide kills!
One particularly good reason
)
One particularly good reason why the Sun cannot be made (largely) of (solid) iron is its average density (~1.4 g/cc); solid iron has a density of >7*.
The average density of the Sun is easy to calculate - its mass divided by its volume - from two well-measured inputs. The Sun's mass can be measured using Kepler's law, which Newton showed comes from the good old inverse square law for gravity, and the deflection of photons as they pass near the Sun, a result of Einstein's GR (so closing a loop with why we're all here!).
*If you prefer SI, ~1400 kg/m^3 and >7000 kg/m^3