Sun's Origin and make up.

[Pluto]

Hello All

I have taken links from

Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

To explain the Origin and make of our sun. I know its against the Standard Sun Model.

There are a number of links so I will add maybe one or two links per day or so, by the end of all the links maybe the puzzel will form an image.

Solar abundances of the elements
Solar abundances of the elements

Abstract

The isotopic compositions of noble gases in the solar wind show high enrichments of light isotopes. When corrected for mass fractionation all five noble gases there can be resolved in terms of the two primitive noble gas components that have been identified in planetary solids. Reasons are presented for assigning the fractionation to a solar process that selectively enriches lighter nuclei at the surface of the sun. When abundances of the elements at the sun's surface are corrected for this fractionation, it is shown that atomic abundances for major elements in the bulk sun are (in decreasing order): Fe, Ni, O, Si, S and Mg. Solar elements at about the 1 percent atomic abundance level include He, C, Ne, Ca and Cr. These results suggest that fusion of hydrogen is probably not the sun's primary energy source.

The Standard Solar Model versus Experimental Observations
The Standard Solar Model versus Experimental Observations

Abstract

The standard solar model (ssm) assumes the that Sun formed as a homogeneous body, its interior consists mostly of hydrogen, and its radiant energy comes from H-fusion in its core. Two sets of measurements indicate the ssm is wrong: 1. Analyses of material in the planetary system show that - (a) Fe, O, Ni, Si, Mg, S and Ca have high nuclear stability and comprise 98+% of ordinary meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system; (b) the cores of inner planets formed in a central region consisting mostly of heavy elements like Fe, Ni and S; (c) the outer planets formed mostly from elements like H, He and C; and (d) isotopic heterogeneities accompanied these chemical gradients in debris of the supernova that exploded here 5 billion years ago to produce the solar system (See Origin of the Elements at http://www.umr.edu/õm/). 2. Analyses of material coming from the Sun show that - (a) there are not enough neutrinos for H-fusion to be its main source of energy; (b) light-weight isotopes (mass =L) of He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in the solar wind are enriched relative to heavy isotopes (mass = H) by a factor, f, where log f = 4.56 log [H/L] -- - Eq. (1); (c) solar flares by-pass 3.4 of these 9-stages of diffusion and deplete the light-weight isotopes of He, Ne, Mg and Ar by a factor, f*, where log f* = -1.7 log [H/L] --- Eq. (2); (d) proton-capture on N-14 increased N-15 in the solar wind over geologic time; and (e) solar flares dredge up nitrogen with less N-15 from this H-fusion reaction. Each observation above is unexplained by ssm. After correcting photospheric abundances for diffusion [Observation 2(b)], the most abundant elements in the bulk sun are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca, the same elements that comprise ordinary meteorites [Observation 1(a)]. The probability that Eq. (1) would randomly select these elements from the photosphere, i.e., the likelihood for a meaningless agreement between observations 2(b) and 1(a), is < 2.0E(-33). Thus, ssm does not describe the Sun. Other stars are too distant for measurements to determine their origin/evolution. Kluwer Academic/Plenum will publish observations summarized here in Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the Origin of Elements in the Solar System, organized by Glenn T. Seaborg and Oliver K. Manuel. Supported by the Foundation for Chemical Research, Inc.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

So.... this is wrong. Neutrino detectors were originally only detecting 1/3 of the sun's neutrinos not realizing they were changing flavor in route. Since 2001 all three flavors have been detected and flavor oscillation is science history.

Everything else quoted here is also wrong, easily explained, or misleading.

the most abundant elements in the bulk sun are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca

Wrong

Fe, O, Ni, Si, Mg, S and Ca have high nuclear stability and comprise 98+% of ordinary meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system;

Misleading. Talking about meteorites and element abundance therein and excluding comets in this context is very misleading.

(b) the cores of inner planets formed in a central region consisting mostly of heavy elements like Fe, Ni and S; (c) the outer planets formed mostly from elements like H, He and C; and

Easily explained. This is called diffusion and is understood in the standard solar model. Heavier elements are closer to the sun and lighter elements are further away.

I would say that this belongs in the alternate theories section, except it offers no alternate theory.

I also would suggest you look at CraigD's well-written reply to your previous solar thoughts: here

Or my reply to your previous contention that the sun makes iron: here

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

I think you are missunderstanding the workings of the sun.

Regardless

I will post the rest of the links 2 by 2 as the song goes.
Try to read the links and the evidence that supports it.

The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

Abstract

The Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that selectively moves light elements like H and He and the lighter isotopes of each element to its surface. The Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova. It consists mostly of iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon and sulfur made near the SN core, like the rocky planets and ordinary meteorites. H ions, generated by emission and decay of neutrons at the core, are accelerated upward by deep magnetic fields, thus acting as a carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun. Neutron emission from the central neutron star triggers a series of reactions that generate solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, solar mass-fractionation, and an outpouring of the neutron decay product, H, in the solar wind. Mass fractionation appears to have operated in the parent star as well, and likely occurs in other stars.

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars

Abstract

Repulsive interactions between neutrons in compact stellar cores cause luminosity and a steady outflow of hydrogen from stellar surfaces. Neutron repulsion in more massive compact objects made by gravitational collapse produces violent, energetic, cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission). This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial Big Bang nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures.

And one for the road

The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Diss
The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation

Abstract

The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars. Neutron repulsion in compact objects produced by the collapse of stars and collisions between galaxies may power more energetic cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. On a cosmological scale, nuclear matter cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures may extend to a similarity nuclear and stellar structures.

If we do not challenge the standard models than what would our next generation think of us.

As for alternative theories based on ad hoc ideas thats another issue.

The above links are written within the scientific community and consideration to science given.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I will post the rest of the links 2 by 2 as the song goes.
Try to read the links and the evidence that supports it.

Well, the problem with that is: the links you provide are article abstracts that offer no article to read. Are you really suggesting people read them... pay for them? Have you?

Something else of interest is how they are all written by the same person. In fact, instead of posting links to all his abstracts 2 by 2 as you say - let me stop you by giving a link to his website. All his papers (not abstracts) can be found there.

As far as a response further than the one I have already given to his theories - a perfectly reasonable response to his extraordinary claims can be found here.

And here is the typical response the scientific community gives his theories:

from CNN:

"This cannot be correct. I can think of at least half a dozen different lines of evidence that say that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium with only a tiny amount of iron," said David Hathaway of NASA's Marshal Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

"Solar astronomers don't 'assume' that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. We deduce it from several different lines of evidence," he said.

"We measure the composition of the sun's interior using helioseismology, the study of solar oscillations produced by sonic noise within the sun. We find 90 percent hydrogen and 8 percent helium."

Added Jeffrey Larsen, an astronomer at the University if Arizona in Tucson:

"A supernova is incredibly energetic. You don't form planets in the aftermath of one of these, since the outer layers of the star are literally blasted off into space for thousands of light years," he said.

"The space next to an exploded star is very, very, very clean. We're standing here on a planet, so we didn't have a supernova in our past."

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

If you think that CNN is correct and that you are happy with that, than thats ok.

Some people want to live in their comfort zone,,,,,,,,,,so be it.


CNN will eat their own words one day.

I'm sorry that you could not open the folder.

Maybe you should try

Through Prof Oliver's web site

as for

Curious About Astronomy: Was the Sun made in a supernova?

Are you joking. This is kids material.

If you want to understand the workings of the stars than do more research.
Knowing sometimes stops learning.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

If you think that CNN is correct and that you are happy with that, than thats ok.

Some people want to live in their comfort zone,,,,,,,,,,so be it.


CNN will eat their own words one day.

CNN is quoting David Hathaway from NASA's Marshal Spaceflight Center and Jeffrey Larsen, an astronomer at the University if Arizona in Tucson. Are you questioning CNN's integrity to quote these people (thinking they would misquote them) or are you questioning Hathaway and Larsen's scientific credentials?

In any case, the scientific community, CNN, and every school child knows the sun isn't made of iron. It is an alternate theory.

-modest

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Pluto

...I think you are misunderstanding the workings of the sun....

No, HE is not misunderstanding.

If we do not challenge the standard models than what would our next generation think of us.....

Pluto,

The Standard Model IS the Standard Model because it has been challenged over and over by at least two generations of astronomers and physicists, maybe three, starting around 1900. Arthur Eddington was one of the first scientists to try to determine the sun's composition and source of energy.

His model was challenged, and knocked over in the 1950's with the understanding of hydrogen fusion. That model has been repeatedly challenged, and it has withstood ALL those challenges. Thousands of top-notch graduate students in Physics and Astronomy have attempted to prove the Standard Model wrong, and the result of their challenges has been to make it stronger.

By the way, what are YOUR credentials?

[Pluto]

Hello Pyrotec

You said

The Standard Model IS the Standard Model because it has been challenged over and over by at least two generations of astronomers and physicists, maybe three, starting around 1900. Arthur Eddington was one of the first scientists to try to determine the sun's composition and source of energy.

His model was challenged, and knocked over in the 1950's with the understanding of hydrogen fusion. That model has been repeatedly challenged, and it has withstood ALL those challenges. Thousands of top-notch graduate students in Physics and Astronomy have attempted to prove the Standard Model wrong, and the result of their challenges has been to make it stronger.

Do you understand what you just wrote.

1900,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1950??????????????

History repeats itself, standard models in many cases trap people into false level of knowing and this prevents people from learning and going beyond.


Modest said

CNN is quoting David Hathaway from NASA's Marshal Spaceflight Center and Jeffrey Larsen, an astronomer at the University if Arizona in Tucson. Are you questioning CNN's integrity to quote these people (thinking they would misquote them) or are you questioning Hathaway and Larsen's scientific credentials?

It is their opinion and yes I will question them and also I will contact them.

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

Here are two more links

The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Diss
The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation

Abstract

The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars. Neutron repulsion in compact objects produced by the collapse of stars and collisions between galaxies may power more energetic cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. On a cosmological scale, nuclear matter cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures may extend to a similarity nuclear and stellar structures.

Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun
Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun

Abstract

The Iron Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova and now acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, as did the precursor star, separating ions by mass. This process covers the solar surface with lightweight elements and with lighter isotopes of each element. Running difference images expose rigid, iron-rich structures below the fluid photosphere made of lightweight elements. The energy source for the Sun and ordinary stars seems to be neutron-emission and neutron-decay, with partial fusion of the decay product, rather than simple fusion of hydrogen into helium or heavier elements. Neutron-emission from the solar core and neutron-decay generate about sixty five percent of solar luminosity and H-fusion generates about thirty-five percent. The upward flow of H ions maintains mass-separation in the Sun. Only about one percent of this neutron decay product survives its upward journey to depart as solar-wind hydrogen.

I'm not posting these links to gain any favor but to learn more.

If you wish to be a critic over the links that's great I invite a scientific critic anytime.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I'm not posting these links to gain any favor but to learn more.

If you wish to be a critic over the links that's great I invite a scientific critic anytime.

Well, the problem is how you post 2 or 3 a day - not for the purposes of discussion - but just to create a list of his works. I have already provided a link to a list of ALL his works. All you're doing is keeping this thread at the top of the Astronomy and Cosmology forum as if meaningful discussion were happening here. It would seem if we are going to have such a discussion we should get past the list-posting phase...

Here are links to everything this guy's written:

Title:The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
Title:Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle
Title: The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and
Title: On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
Title: Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun
Title: Plasma Diffuser Sorts Light Atoms to Solar Surface
Title: Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate
Title: Solar Abundance of Elements from Neutron-Capture Cross Sections
Title: Live Fe-60 in the Early Solar System
Title: Nuclear Clustering and Interactions Between Nucleons
Title: The Structure of the Solar Core
Title: The Origin, Composition, and Energy Source for the Sun
Title: Surface Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core
Title: Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios
Title: An Iron-Rich Sun and Its Source of Energy
Title: Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete
Title: Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?
Title: The Need to Measure Low Energy Anti-Neutrinos (E < 0.782MeV) from the

Now, what about his works do you like/dislike? What do you think is proven by this theory and how could it be unproven for you?

-modest

[Pyrotex]

Okay, Pluto,
Modest is right. You have not said ONE THING that indicates you want to learn anything. You have not listened to ANY arguments or evidence this "fringe-cosmology" is invalidated by available evidence. You dismiss all appeals to mathematics.

You are looking very much like a Troll and a Pest. The burden is on YOU to demonstrate that you have any clue what you're talking about. Start discussing in good faith. Start addressing the evidence. We HAVE offered scientific criticism and you have NOT welcomed it at all. Start addressing the criticism. Stop dismissing everything.

Pyrotex -- Hypography Moderator