To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Origins Of The Universe.
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Harry Costas
7th February 2009 - 11:28 PM
G'day Grumpy

You said

QUOTE
Actually the information paradox recently conceded by Hawking indicates that the information is "smeared" around the EH by the warping of space/time and could, in theory, be recovered. Yes, matter will eventually cross the EH, if you are willing to wait a few million years.


Update with new readings,,,,,,,,,,,your wasting my time.

Cusa
8th February 2009 - 12:13 AM
Hawking said that GR predicting singularities was it predicting its own downfall. This failure of GR is at its extreme.

Mitch Raemsch
Grumpy
8th February 2009 - 03:16 AM
Cusa

Between you and Costas there is a race to the bottom of the pile.

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
8th February 2009 - 06:47 AM
G'day Grumpy

You are a lost case.

I know who you are.

Geoff Mollusc
8th February 2009 - 08:29 AM
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 8 2009, 06:47 AM)
I know who you are.

No worries there Grumps ..... if he knows as much about your identity as astrophysics, he's not a slightest clue. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

AlexG
8th February 2009 - 06:46 PM
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 7 2009, 03:48 PM)
Alex?

You have always been wrong about that. Those equations are incomplete. Those equations are not accurate.

What is an acurate is that the theory predicts that the blue shift to energy of light goes infinite where time in the Schwarzchild metric slows down to zero at the event horizon.

MItch Raemsch

Mitch, when it's a choice between accepting Einstein's equations or accepting your blather, I go with Einstein every time.
Cusa
8th February 2009 - 09:10 PM
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 8 2009, 06:46 PM)
Mitch, when it's a choice between accepting Einstein's equations or accepting your blather, I go with Einstein every time.

Right. But you must recognise that those equations are not accurate. If you think they are can you prove it?

No. Those equations are going to get better in the future.

Mitch Raemsch
Grumpy
8th February 2009 - 09:17 PM
Harry Costas


QUOTE
I know who you are.


So??? Am I about to get a visit from an internet nutjob??? Spit it out, what's your point??? Tell us what you think you know, dumbass.


Grumpy cool.gif
AlexG
8th February 2009 - 09:47 PM
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 8 2009, 04:10 PM)
Right. But you must recognise that those equations are not accurate. If you think they are can you prove it?

No. Those equations are going to get better in the future.

Mitch Raemsch

The experimental results confirm the equations, idiot.
Cusa
8th February 2009 - 09:50 PM
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 8 2009, 09:47 PM)
The experimental results confirm the equations, idiot.

But the accuracy is low Alex.

Mitch Raemsch
Harry Costas
9th February 2009 - 09:29 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Sometimes equations are not whatthey seem and sometimes are read out of context.

This link is quite interesting.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601033
A darkless space-time

Authors: A. Tartaglia, M. Capone
(Submitted on 9 Jan 2006 (v1), last revised 25 Apr 2007 (this version, v5))

QUOTE
Abstract: In cosmology it has become usual to introduce new entities as dark matter and dark energy in order to explain otherwise unexplained observational facts. Here, we propose a different approach treating spacetime as a continuum endowed with properties similar to the ones of ordinary material continua, such as internal viscosity and strain distributions originated by defects in the texture. A Lagrangian modeled on the one valid for simple dissipative phenomena in fluids is built and used for empty spacetime. The internal "viscosity" is shown to correspond to a four-vector field. The vector field is shown to be connected with the displacement vector field induced by a point defect in a four-dimensional continuum. Using the known symmetry of the universe, assuming the vector field to be divergenceless and solving the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation, we directly obtain inflation and a phase of accelerated expansion of spacetime. The only parameter in the theory is the "strength" of the defect. We show that it is possible to fix it in such a way to also quantitatively reproduce the acceleration of the universe. We have finally verified that the addition of ordinary matter does not change the general behaviour of the model.


Even this paper can be read out of context.
Laidback
9th February 2009 - 11:50 PM
Hi everyone,
couple of days ago Grumpy stated,
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 4 2009, 10:12 AM)
Laidback

But the fish are still not made of sound.
Wrong! All mass and densities react and change when it is exposed to sound waves, in fact everything "even in a near vacuum conforms to coexist with soundwaves defining in part its total inference and or definition, Granted - with a near vacuum density the changes may be extremely insignificant, so much I don't think there is a device available to detect them, and for those super naturalists here is a key point to consider
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
The things we look at with radiation are not made of only radiation.

Grumpy cool.gif
Indeed, I entirely agree with you - but let me point out that we must consider everything consists of much the same mass or Energy, some densities may be more kinetic and or RADIO-active as in radiation REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive

So that when changes do occur to an area or region of the Universe, then elsewhere in the Universe a reciprocal to other mass must occur elsewhere..

This means if changes transpires anywhere in the universe at any spectrum, there will always be a way of detecting and or comparing theses changes, it was for this reason I begged the question, do you know of any other way of detection?

Thus far, you have not provided another method..

Anyway,
Perhaps the following links may provide the reason why I insist the main component to mass is electromagnetic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detector#Optical_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detector#Chemical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detector#Electromagnetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detector#Thermal

where if I may point out, how we solely rely on ELECTRON~ic Devices.

And just in case some other Lay Person is reading this and dont agree with me, I would recommend one reads the following links,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Cusa
10th February 2009 - 01:06 AM
Radiation is electromagnetic energy becoming mass going into the electric particle. And mass leaving the electric particle at emission.

Neutrons have a constant fundamental energy because they are not electric.

Mitch Raemsch
Grumpy
10th February 2009 - 02:43 AM
QUOTE
Wrong! All mass and densities react and change when it is exposed to sound waves, in fact everything "even in a near vacuum conforms to coexist with soundwaves defining in part its total inference and or definition, Granted - with a near vacuum density the changes may be extremely insignificant, so much I don't think there is a device available to detect them, and for those super naturalists here is a key point to consider


Sound is still not an electromagnetic phenomena, it is strictly a physical displacement of the medium. And the fish are still not made of sound.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Wrong! All mass and densities react and change when it is exposed to sound waves, in fact everything "even in a near vacuum conforms to coexist with soundwaves defining in part its total inference and or definition, Granted - with a near vacuum density the changes may be extremely insignificant, so much I don't think there is a device available to detect them, and for those super naturalists here is a key point to consider


Sound is still not an electromagnetic phenomena, it is strictly a physical displacement of the medium. And the fish are still not made of sound.


So that when changes do occur to an area or region of the Universe, then elsewhere in the Universe a reciprocal to other mass must occur elsewhere..


Say what??? There are changes occurring elsewhere in our Universe that will NEVER be detectable to us in the lifetime of the Universe. In fact, most of the changes going on will not affect us(even with the slightest photon) before the sun is a cinder and Earth a frozen waste.


QUOTE
This means if changes transpires anywhere in the universe at any spectrum, there will always be a way of detecting and or comparing theses changes, it was for this reason I begged the question, do you know of any other way of detection?

Thus far, you have not provided another method..


So, you take that too far, the conclusions you reach are not supported by the evidence.

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
10th February 2009 - 06:10 AM
G'day Laidback

What conclusions have you made?

Harry Costas
17th February 2009 - 07:36 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzz

The observable universe does not show expansion or acceleration one way or another.

It does show a clustering affect.

The clustering produces areas of high density such as large galaxies and centres of clusters of galaxies that produce extremely large jets and Star that produce extremely small jets. This process of ejecting matter and reforming star and galaxies is a main player in the universe.


A Jet is a Jet, Big or Small: Scale Invariance of Black Hole Jets
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2...ight0308_e.html


The blowtorch jet in the radio galaxy NGC 6251
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/ngc6251.html

QUOTE
One important lesson from radio galaxies is that the central engine continues to eject material in nearly the same direction for at least several million years, based on the fact that the tiny parsec-scale jets in the core regions point in the same direction as the very extended radio structure which may stretch several million light-years (and thus took at least that many years to form).


Photo Release - heic0804: Gargantuan galaxy NGC 1132 - a cosmic fossil?
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0804.html

The Origin of the Brightest Cluster Galaxies
http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~dubinski/bcg/

Giant Galaxy's Violent Past Comes Into Focus
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/04_releas...ess_051004.html

and

Spectacular X-ray Jet Points Toward Cosmic Energy Booster
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/00_releas..._060600pic.html

M87:
Chandra Reviews Black Hole Musical: Epic But Off-Key
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/m87/

The processes show a two part one part contracting pulling in star matter into dense regions and the other part ejecting the matter back into space reforming not just star areas but galaxies afar.
Grumpy
17th February 2009 - 09:18 AM
Harry Costas


QUOTE
The observable universe does not show expansion or acceleration one way or another.


And you protest when we point out that you are daft.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The observable universe does not show expansion or acceleration one way or another.


And you protest when we point out that you are daft.


The clustering produces areas of high density such as large galaxies and centres of clusters of galaxies that produce extremely large jets and Star that produce extremely small jets. This process of ejecting matter and reforming star and galaxies is a main player in the universe.


Gravity, look it up. And jets of any type are but spillage of the gobbling up of matter. By your own logic it is BHs that are the dominate player, and they are a one way ticket to oblivion.

Grumpy cool.gif

PS So??? Am I about to get a visit from an internet nutjob??? Spit it out, what's your point??? Tell us what you think you know, dumbass.
Quatermass
17th February 2009 - 10:45 AM
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 10 2009, 01:06 AM)
Radiation is electromagnetic energy becoming mass going into the electric particle. And mass leaving the electric particle at emission.

Neutrons have a constant fundamental energy because they are not electric.

Mitch Raemsch

EMR is energy which are waves which always travel at light speed. Matter is made of atomic particles which cannot reach light speed. Energy can affect matter by making it so energetic that even atoms fall apart as electrons are ejected. Even in the most violent super-novae, matter still exists and does not change into energy. It is dogma that energy is matter in another form.

Neutrons are basically a +ve proton and a -ve electron so their electrical charges cancel out. They are not fundamental as outside of an atom, they are unstable and will split into electrons and protons within maybe 15 minutes. No charge, so no energy.
Quatermass
17th February 2009 - 10:50 AM
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 17 2009, 07:36 AM)
The clustering produces areas of high density such as large galaxies and centres of clusters of galaxies that produce extremely large jets and Star that produce extremely small jets. This process of ejecting matter and reforming star and galaxies is a main player in the universe.

No matter is ejected from black holes. It has been proved that it is only infalling matter which is whipped up and funneled away by incredibly powerful magnetic fields.
Quatermass
17th February 2009 - 11:00 AM
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 7 2009, 03:25 AM)
G'day Cusa

There are many definitions of black holes, with and without singularity, with and without and event horizon and the ability or inabily to eject matter from the core and so on.

So first define your meaning of black hole than comment on it.

A black hole is a mass of sufficient density that it's escape velocity is faster than light, so nothing escapes it, not even light.

Singularities are nonsense. All black holes have event horizons as in light cannot escape (which means that nothing else can either).
Harry Costas
17th February 2009 - 12:10 PM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Your thinking is quite classic and its normal.

The only way you can understand what the so called black is made from is by reading some scientifi papers.

Grumpy I know that you want to keep thinking the way you do, and thats ok.

Quatemass you said

QUOTE
A black hole is a mass of sufficient density that it's escape velocity is faster than light, so nothing escapes it, not even light.

Singularities are nonsense. All black holes have event horizons as in light cannot escape (which means that nothing else can either).


The question is what makes up the so called dense matter that we call black hole.

Do singularities exist and under what definition?

Do the so called black holes have singularities or naked singularities?

Do black holes have an event horizon or trapping horizons or non at all?

What part do vector forces play in dense matter such as ultra compact matter found in Neutron stars and black holes?

What part do magnetic reconnection play?

How do jets form?

Do they eject matter from the disc or from the core or both?

How do these jets form?

How do they remain stable in one position for millions of years?


These are discussion question.

Lets look at Magnetic Reconnection

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Magne...n/0/1/0/all/0/1

You can read up on it with wekipedia, but scientific papers will explain a different line of thought.
Laidback
17th February 2009 - 11:21 PM
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 10 2009, 11:06 AM)
Neutrons have a constant fundamental energy because they are not electric.

Mitch Raemsch

I SORT OF AGREE with you that a neutralised electrical charge may not be implied as an electrical charge anymore, but I feel if one doesn't fully understand charge and force and motion laws to which charge complies to, most would treat the theoretical neutron incorrectly and imply the region in question is not electric or with any electromagnetic properties whatsoever to it, but that is totally wrong, specially if we are to consider how mass presents itself to all else..

So I have to disagree with you..

With the Atoms structure, via the way our detectors are able to detect positive and negative charges.. we have over time THEORETICALLY defined the proton to consist with a positive charge, and the Electron region and or electron cloud to be negatively charged..

And if one should consider these electromagnetic properties of these particles with respect to change and or a means in presenting their implied charge to else - as in our case to our detectors, Then we must consider how this detection takes place.

And unfortunately if one does NOT understand force and Motion concepts, where force relies on motion in presenting said force, and or where motion relies on force in presenting the dynamics, then I simply would be wasting my time..

So for those who don't FULLY understand everything about force and motion here are some links I insist one goes over before further comments are made..

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

Please ensure one reads carefully the following sections

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

Now once we consider the above crucial concepts mentioned in the provided links, we should understand that a charge is much like force, where if a push (Electromagnetic Push or charge) is experienced by a reference on our left, then a reference to our right may experience the reciprocal, this latter experience by the reference on our right may refer to the force as a negative force, simply via motion is receding it, while our left reference is experiencing the onslaught of inbound motion, hence the experience is referred to as a force, push or repulsion..

Now with charge its much the same, where if one detects a positive charge, then one could imply one experiences an opposition, repulsion, impact or simply said "A push", but we must keep in mind this force or push is only possible via Force and Motion laws, therefore the push or (Charge) we experience is an inference to mass or energy on the move (via electromagnetic waves or fields)..

So lets go back and consider at the atomic level each of our particles charges and how they may be perceived via force and motion constructs..

To do this let me imply we have a drill that is capable in drilling through Atoms and lets say we are to drill an atom consisting of a single Proton, neutron and an electron charge (A Hydrogen Atom.).

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

Lets say the Above diagram is our drill or core sampler and lets also imply as our drill samples the atom it plots the following symbols..

So if our drill experiences repulsion it will plot this symbol "<"
and if our drill experiences nothing it will plot this symbol ">"

And after drilling an atom this is what I expect would be plotted for a Hydrogen Atom, we will note for some reason there seems to be no electron..
========
<>
========

As you can see after what we thought we drilled a whole Hydrogen Atom, it seems all we have drilled is a single proton or a region of the Universe that is repulsive in all directions (positive charge), {Imagine we tried several times from as many different angles with much the same plots being plotted.. implying indeed we have only drilled a Proton and for some reason the electron is missing..

Lets briefly move on and drill two Hydrogen Atoms to make sure we are drilling our Atoms correctly..

========
<><>
========
And behold we now have a plotted region of the Universe that implies a negative charge and whats more if we consider some key and critical points, we also may have a clear idea where our neutral or neutron areas and or particles would have to be in the above basic pair of hydrogen Atoms, but curiously for some reason with the two hydrogen Atoms only one electron was drilled..

If my crude plots and symbols don't make things clear as to why this is - and with respects to positive, negative and a neutral charge here are each of the charges in colour..(consider carefully Force and Motion LAWS and how they must not be violated)

<> Positive charge or repulsion.
>< Negative charge or percieved attraction.
And for the neutral charge its the most central of each particle and or if we consider how a charge relies on motion its where opposing velocities cancel out..
Err~Let me add another set of symbols "()" to imply where velocities or a charge is canceled out by its reciprocal..

<()>()<()>

And if that practical model of the Atoms is still not clear let me know..

Oh and I am sure if Force and Motion concepts are not fully understood there will be many challenges and or questions, so feel free to challenge or ask questions about the above, as I am sure others will reason much the same, and if you you dont speak, those with much the same reasoning as you will also miss out if they dont ask or challenge me..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Cusa
17th February 2009 - 11:39 PM
The neutron exhibits no electric field.

I believe it will not absorb or radiate Electro-magnetism as such.
Laidback
17th February 2009 - 11:52 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 10 2009, 12:43 PM)
Sound is still not an electromagnetic phenomena, it is strictly a physical displacement of the medium. And the fish are still not made of sound.
Please refer to The Penguin Dictionary of Electronics, page 665 Table10

I think what you don't understand is that all mass changes when sound waves and or compression waves are experienced by a density..

This misunderstanding may be because you don't fully understand force and motion constructs and perhaps have not considerd at what level sound waves propagate (as in frequency)..

So I insist you revise Force and Motion Laws and then revise the Electromagnetic spectrum, in particular get a hold of an electronic dictionary so that you may note all mass or densities throughout the Universe consists of an electromagnetic field, and - you then consider what occurs when an electromagnetic field is distorted? As in compressed or allowed to decompress, baring in mind the speed of light is faster via a density that is not as compressed as it is per NEAR-Vacuum or asper commonly referred to as SPACE..

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So that when changes do occur to an area or region of the Universe, then elsewhere in the Universe a reciprocal to other mass must occur elsewhere.. Say what??? There are changes occurring elsewhere in our Universe that will NEVER be detectable to us in the lifetime of the Universe. In fact, most of the changes going on will not affect us(even with the slightest photon) before the sun is a cinder and Earth a frozen waste.


So, you take that too far, the conclusions you reach are not supported by the evidence.

Grumpy cool.gif

Are you under the impression that energy is not conserved?

If you are then your statement is justified, but if you agree with mainstream that energy is conserved then you have no choice but to concede that if a change eventuates anywhere, then elsewhere in the Universe changes must reciprocate to those changes, unless a violation to energy conservation is possible..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Laidback
17th February 2009 - 11:54 PM
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 10 2009, 04:10 PM)
G'day Laidback

What conclusions have you made?

About what?

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Laidback
18th February 2009 - 12:40 AM
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 18 2009, 09:39 AM)
The neutron exhibits no electric field.


Exactly!

And the reason this is just that way, should be clear to all readers, by understanding Force and Motion Laws, where if we consider two alike opposing velocities (a mass or density with motion to it) cancel each others velocity out only to double the density to half an area that the two densities once occupied -where one could say a compression and or a higher potential of energy has resulted..

Example:

"-" this symbol is with a velocity @c to the right
and this symbol is with a velocity @c to the left "-"
when the two converge their velocities cancels out, resulting in double the density and or Potential energy..

Here the two are about to converge
"- -"

And here is the result where as far as each velocity and or density is concerned they each remain @c but we should note only to each other, so as far as all else is concerned both are going nowhere! and should we prod the area all we detect are both velocities, resulting with us convinced there is no velocity just like a neutral charge, simply because it consists of both Positive and negative charges..
"="

QUOTE
I believe it will not absorb or radiate Electromagnetism as such.

But all densities are the result of opposing velocities, and if any particle or density is to present itself irespective of what force we refer to, it must consist or present via opposing velocities, if it doesn't then it would present much like the NEAR-Vacuum Err~Space's density, if we disregard all of its velocities..

But as we know all mass is detectable due to its Potential of energy, and the only way this is possible is if forces are involved, but if force is involved or experienced then what we must experience or detect must conform to motion constructs..

In closing let me refer to why we state mass is never at rest, to which my above inference to motion and or velocities refer to and as to why it is never at rest..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
AlexG
18th February 2009 - 12:43 AM
So much garbage, so little time.
Granouille
18th February 2009 - 12:47 AM
Reminds me of the New York City trash collector's strike in the '80's, plus the pet poo explosion in the '90's, all rolled up into one nasty little laid-back package. laugh.gif
rpenner
18th February 2009 - 01:16 AM
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 17 2009, 11:39 PM)
The neutron exhibits no electric field.

I believe it will not absorb or radiate Electro-magnetism as such.

I would agree with Cusa, if he wasn't wrong.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s017.pdf

Neutrons have a magnetic dipole moment, and deep electron scattering can interact with its electrically charged partons.
Laidback
18th February 2009 - 01:16 AM
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 18 2009, 10:43 AM)
So much garbage, so little time.

Sorry to hear that, obviously most of what I have just stated assumes one has a good deal of knowledge behind them or at least have taken the precious little TIME they have to read the links that I suggested, but what with the little time you have, I can see why most of what I stated would seem like garbage to you, <sigh> LOOK - If you don't have the time to revise Force and Motion, then may I suggest you spend more time at least re-reading all of your University material rather than Posting here..

So if you do have enough time to post - at least you can point out exactly where I am in error?

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Cusa
18th February 2009 - 01:22 AM
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 18 2009, 01:16 AM)
I would agree with Cusa, if he wasn't wrong.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s017.pdf

Neutrons have a magnetic dipole moment, and deep electron scattering can interact with its electrically charged partons.

Radiation is electric energy and magnetism as an energyless field similar to gravitation.

If a neutron possesses no electric field it cannot absorb or radiate any of light's electric energy. It cannot go through any electric energy transition like the proton and electron can.

This is physics is far ahead and will be confirmed in the future by quantum mechanical testing on the neutron in the Two Slit experiment. It is simply a matter of time.

Mitch Raemsch
AlexG
18th February 2009 - 02:03 AM
QUOTE (Laidback+Feb 17 2009, 08:16 PM)
Sorry to hear that, obviously most of what I have just stated assumes one has a good deal of knowledge behind them or at least have taken the precious little TIME they have to read the links that I suggested, but what with the little time you have, I can see why most of what I stated would seem like garbage to you, <sigh> LOOK - If you don't have the time to revise Force and Motion, then may I suggest you spend more time at least re-reading all of your University material rather than Posting here..

So if you do have enough time to post - at least you can point out exactly where I am in error?

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

Your poorly thought out and poorly expressed ideas have so little in common with the actual physical universe that it's difficult if not impossible to critique.
Laidback
18th February 2009 - 02:20 AM
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 18 2009, 12:03 PM)
Your poorly thought out and poorly expressed ideas have so little in common with the actual physical universe that it's difficult if not impossible to critique.

rolleyes.gif
Harry Costas
18th February 2009 - 05:16 AM
G'day from the land of oz

Good on ya Laidback.

Well done.

As for my last last post about what conclusions have you made.

That was a general statement.

Just with a smile, see where you are at.


Keep Cool


PS:

Interesting reeading for those with time.
2008 papers

On the oscillations of dissipative superfluid neutron stars
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0812.3023A

Distinguishing Newly Born Strange Stars from Neutron Stars with g-Mode Oscillations
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvL.101r1102F




Grumpy
18th February 2009 - 08:02 AM
Quatermass

QUOTE
Even in the most violent super-novae, matter still exists and does not change into energy. It is dogma that energy is matter in another form.


Yet the sun still converts mass into energy every day. Where do you think the energy comes from to power those supernova??? Thankfully, not ALL of the mass is converted, but the little bit there is that gets converted(well, if you can call several hundred thousand tons/second little) equals a LOT of energy(E=MC^2). It is not dogma, it is truth. Every element up to iron loses a little mass as energy when it fuses, every element above that on the periodic table ABSORBS energy from supernova explosions to form. Your very substance exists because mass is energy.

Laidback

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Even in the most violent super-novae, matter still exists and does not change into energy. It is dogma that energy is matter in another form.


Yet the sun still converts mass into energy every day. Where do you think the energy comes from to power those supernova??? Thankfully, not ALL of the mass is converted, but the little bit there is that gets converted(well, if you can call several hundred thousand tons/second little) equals a LOT of energy(E=MC^2). It is not dogma, it is truth. Every element up to iron loses a little mass as energy when it fuses, every element above that on the periodic table ABSORBS energy from supernova explosions to form. Your very substance exists because mass is energy.

Laidback

I can see why most of what I stated would seem like garbage to you


You have no idea! Literally!

Harry Costas

QUOTE
Grumpy I know that you want to keep thinking the way you do, and thats ok.


You mean SANITY? Yeah, I'd like to keep that up for a few more years.

And you will continue to be such a train wreck of logical thought. But such train wrecks will also continue to ellicit pointing and laughing from those of us still watching it occur, but that's OK too.

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
18th February 2009 - 11:59 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Grumpy said

QUOTE
Yet the sun still converts mass into energy every day. Where do you think the energy comes from to power those supernova??? Thankfully, not ALL of the mass is converted, but the little bit there is that gets converted(well, if you can call several hundred thousand tons/second little) equals a LOT of energy(E=MC^2). It is not dogma, it is truth. Every element up to iron loses a little mass as energy when it fuses, every element above that on the periodic table ABSORBS energy from supernova explosions to form. Your very substance exists because mass is energy.


In way you are partly right.

But! There is more to that.

You need to understand the following link, before I start talking about the energy that comes from our sun and the cycles that are involved.
Sort By date
Neutron Star Cores
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basi...Cores&version=1


Than again you know evrything, why should you read any more.
Quatermass
18th February 2009 - 12:38 PM
Harry Costas. A neutron star can have an escape velocity of 2/3c and under such pressures, neutrons exist (though it is possible that on the more massive ones, they lose and gain back electrons). I believe that in the centre of a black hole is a perfect spinning sphere of fundamental particles; mostly quarks and electrons. I don't see why they should be crushed out of existence.

I think singularities only exist in maths. Black holes spin. non-dimensional singularities can't spin.

There cannot be a naked singularity because the escape velocity is above light speed.

Since nothing (we know of) can travel faster than light, then a black hole must have an event horizon.

There are vector forces around the equator of a spinning mass such as these. A black hole of several solar masses was found to have a stable orbit just 100 miles away from it.

I would think a black hole is fairly stable magnetically whereas a neutron star can have room for movement so some magnetic reconnection.

Black hole jets from their make-up have never been inside black holes. They are magnetically whipped up infalling material in magnetic fields of trillions of gauss.

What is going to move in a black hole? The light speed limit makes sure the insides are stuck in position forever.

Quatermass
18th February 2009 - 12:43 PM
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 18 2009, 02:03 AM)
Your poorly thought out and poorly expressed ideas have so little in common with the actual physical universe that it's difficult if not impossible to critique.

Even a child can say: "You're wrong, so there!"

If you call a poster wrong, explain why to show that you are not just trying to score points on a subject you know little or nothing about.
Quatermass
18th February 2009 - 01:02 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 18 2009, 08:02 AM)
Quatermass



Yet the sun still converts mass into energy every day. Where do you think the energy comes from to power those supernova??? Thankfully, not ALL of the mass is converted, but the little bit there is that gets converted(well, if you can call several hundred thousand tons/second little) equals a LOT of energy(E=MC^2). It is not dogma, it is truth. Every element up to iron loses a little mass as energy when it fuses, every element above that on the periodic table ABSORBS energy from supernova explosions to form. Your very substance exists because mass is energy.

Nuclear fission releases nuclear binding energy.

Before a supernova, a crust of heavy elements build up which an iron burning star cannot long sustain. It is a pressure cooker waiting to blow.

A dwarf star blows up into a nova. A giant star with many times it's mass blows up into a super-nova. If it is the same force driving both, you'd think that most of a super-nova would end up as energy as it is far more energetic, and then you have a hyper-nova which would probably be about 100% energy from such an explosion?

Throw a ball through the air. Has the ball itself gained energy or have you just imparted kinetic energy to it? Iron loses energy when it cools down. Every element does, as they gain energy when they heat up.

At what point does mass become energy and how does it happen?
Grumpy
18th February 2009 - 11:34 PM
Quatermass

QUOTE
Nuclear fission releases nuclear binding energy.


Do you even understand the difference between Fission and Fusion? Fission has nothing to do with powering stars, but even when large, unstable atoms split a small part of them is converted into energy. Fusion, on the other hand, is the forming of heavier atoms from lighter ones. This releases energy all the way up to iron. Fusion of larger atoms takes an input of energy. Radioactive atoms such as Uranium are created in this way, and when they decay they release this excess energy.

Thankfully, neither of these processes are very efficient(even in the case of a hypernova). Only a very small percent of the total mass sees conditions that can cause these processes, the rest is mostly just contributing to the total mass needed to create the conditions where fusion can occur. Even huge stars, 100 sols or above, only leave Black holes of about 25 sols mass, the rest is blown back into space, contaminated with traces of elements heavier than iron. For efficiency you need to go to matter/antimatter conversion, that process converts ALL of the mass into energy.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Nuclear fission releases nuclear binding energy.


Do you even understand the difference between Fission and Fusion? Fission has nothing to do with powering stars, but even when large, unstable atoms split a small part of them is converted into energy. Fusion, on the other hand, is the forming of heavier atoms from lighter ones. This releases energy all the way up to iron. Fusion of larger atoms takes an input of energy. Radioactive atoms such as Uranium are created in this way, and when they decay they release this excess energy.

Thankfully, neither of these processes are very efficient(even in the case of a hypernova). Only a very small percent of the total mass sees conditions that can cause these processes, the rest is mostly just contributing to the total mass needed to create the conditions where fusion can occur. Even huge stars, 100 sols or above, only leave Black holes of about 25 sols mass, the rest is blown back into space, contaminated with traces of elements heavier than iron. For efficiency you need to go to matter/antimatter conversion, that process converts ALL of the mass into energy.

At what point does mass become energy and how does it happen? 


All the energy we see in the Universe came, ultimately, from the fusion of lighter elements(mostly hydrogen and helium) into the heavier elements. This process converts a small fraction of the mass directly into energy, or, for all elements above iron, a large amout of energy forces the nuclei of those elements to be "glued" together, increasing their mass a tiny bit. Some of those nuclei are unstable and break down into lighter elements, releasing that matter back into energy.

Grumpy cool.gif
Grumpy
18th February 2009 - 11:44 PM
Harry Costas

QUOTE
You need to understand the following link, before I start talking about the energy that comes from our sun and the cycles that are involved.
Sort By date
Neutron Star Cores
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basi...Cores&version=1


The link you gave was to many different papers on Neutron stars. Our sun is not a Neutron star, nor does it ever have a chance of being a neutron star. Our sun is a big ball of gas, it has no core other than as a region of this gas ball and discussing Neutron stars has absolutely NOTHING to do with the life cycle of our sun. I've read enough of your babble to see where you are going, don't waste my time further on your idiotic contentions.

Grumpy cool.gif
Cusa
19th February 2009 - 12:45 AM
The different energy levels for an excited electron give it fundamental mass based on What shell it is in and these are discrete.

Electrons have "fundamental shell energy" when you discount their kinetic energy.

A free electron is the most excited. If anything this would be a fundamental value but it is bigger rather than smaller.

Thanks
Mitch Raemsch
Harry Costas
19th February 2009 - 08:52 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Grumpy said

QUOTE
The link you gave was to many different papers on Neutron stars. Our sun is not a Neutron star, nor does it ever have a chance of being a neutron star. Our sun is a big ball of gas, it has no core other than as a region of this gas ball and discussing Neutron stars has absolutely NOTHING to do with the life cycle of our sun. I've read enough of your babble to see where you are going, don't waste my time further on your idiotic contentions.


How little you know and yet your the first to say what you know.

In simple words we know very little of our sun. Don't get me wrong we know alot, but in the scope of things we know very little.

The topic I posted will give you an understanding of the possible origin of our Sun and the solar sytem from a supernova that left a a dense core that evolved a solar envelope.

Grumpy you need to go to school and learn a bit of astrophysics and cosmology.

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

Quatermass

Your logic of cosmology is not bad.

Do you read?

Black holes

Black Hole Core Density sort by date update
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basi...nsity&version=1


and

Trapping Horizons
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Trapp...s/0/1/0/all/0/1

and naked singularities
Naked Singularity
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+2008+...y/0/1/0/all/0/1

This will give you some understanding of what the heck is going on.

This does not mean we fully understand. It will take another 20 more years of research to get a close idea. Although there is alot of work carried out around the world by many.
Grumpy
19th February 2009 - 02:23 PM
Harry Costas

The core of a dead star would cause our sun to disrupt, violently. It is you who needs to study basic Astrophysics, because you cannot distinguish between the birth of a star and it's demise. Our solar system was not born of a superdense core, but from the scattered debris(dust and gas) of previous supernovas condensing into a sun and a disk of gas and dust. We see this happening today throughout our galaxy.

Grumpy cool.gif
Quatermass
19th February 2009 - 02:41 PM
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 19 2009, 08:52 AM)
Black Hole Core Density sort by date update
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basi...nsity&version=1


and

Trapping Horizons
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Trapp...s/0/1/0/all/0/1

and naked singularities
Naked Singularity
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+2008+...y/0/1/0/all/0/1


If Stephen Hawking gave a lecture on the reality of Santa Claus, it would still be nonsense. It doesn't matter who the expert is, if someone talks nonsense as in naked singularities, they are still talking nonsense.

As to core density, that is speculation (which cannot be checked), and I can do that myself.

Trapping horizons? I can't even be bothered to look at such a title.
Quatermass
19th February 2009 - 03:00 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 18 2009, 11:34 PM)
Quatermass



Do you even understand the difference between Fission and Fusion? Fission has nothing to do with powering stars, but even when large, unstable atoms split a small part of them is converted into energy. Fusion, on the other hand, is the forming of heavier atoms from lighter ones. This releases energy all the way up to iron. Fusion of larger atoms takes an input of energy. Radioactive atoms such as Uranium are created in this way, and when they decay they release this excess energy.

Thankfully, neither of these processes are very efficient(even in the case of a hypernova). Only a very small percent of the total mass sees conditions that can cause these processes, the rest is mostly just contributing to the total mass needed to create the conditions where fusion can occur. Even huge stars, 100 sols or above, only leave Black holes of about 25 sols mass, the rest is blown back into space, contaminated with traces of elements heavier than iron. For efficiency you need to go to matter/antimatter conversion, that process converts ALL of the mass into energy.



All the energy we see in the Universe came, ultimately, from the fusion of lighter elements(mostly hydrogen and helium) into the heavier elements. This process converts a small fraction of the mass directly into energy, or, for all elements above iron, a large amout of energy forces the nuclei of those elements to be "glued" together, increasing their mass a tiny bit. Some of those nuclei are unstable and break down into lighter elements, releasing that matter back into energy.

Grumpy cool.gif

We are not talking about the normal day to day fusion going on in the sun but when a large star goes super-nova which means wide spread fission as energy runs riot, blasting nuclei apart, then fusion into nuclei then atoms as they cool down again.

Iron is as far as it gets with fusion. It needs lots of energy to burn iron and once the star runs out of sufficient energy, that is it. A super-nova is the best way of creating uranium and other heavier elements than iron.

I still don't see any evidence that particles are somehow becoming energy. This is merely the liberation of their nuclear energy that can hold repelling positive charges together in a nucleus and can hold very fast moving electrons in very tight orbits so they can't escape.

You start off with four atoms of hydrogen which produce one atom of helium. Of course there is going to be energy left over in such a process. You have an electron circling a proton. You then crush the electron into the proton (to form a neutron). Where does all the electron's excess energy go so it will stay in position? It is radiated away as EMR waves.
Cusa
19th February 2009 - 08:35 PM
I think galaxies are not in motion away from each other. Space is expanding creating distance. This is hypersphere ciosmology. It started with trusty Einstein's closed universe.
Harry Costas
20th February 2009 - 06:27 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

The Sun produces elements greater than Fe but most are unstable and revert to Fe.


Quatermass, than do not read and be happy with what you know.

Grumpy you said

QUOTE
The core of a dead star would cause our sun to disrupt, violently. It is you who needs to study basic Astrophysics, because you cannot distinguish between the birth of a star and it's demise. Our solar system was not born of a superdense core, but from the scattered debris(dust and gas) of previous supernovas condensing into a sun and a disk of gas and dust. We see this happening today throughout our galaxy.


This is aboslute Bull. The more you express yourself the more I realize you know Mr Jack.


Maybe this link may waken you up from the stone ages.

Jets seeding astrophysics
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+seedi...s/0/1/0/all/0/1


rpenner
20th February 2009 - 07:19 AM
Please rephrase.
Geoff Mollusc
20th February 2009 - 07:24 AM
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 20 2009, 06:27 AM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

The Sun produces elements greater than Fe but most are unstable and revert to Fe.




OK Rp, how about this:

Dearest darling Harry,

I believe you may be a smidgen inaccurate with that assumption. Only large mass stars are capable of doing this.

Sweet Dreams ........ smile.gif and sugar-coated chocolate bliss.

Geoff smile.gif
Harry Costas
20th February 2009 - 08:23 AM
G'day from the land of ozzz


Geoff said

QUOTE
I believe you may be a smidgen inaccurate with that assumption. Only large mass stars are capable of doing this.

Sweet Dreams ........  and sugar-coated chocolate bliss.


Mate, I don't think so.

Read up on the science and than google for more information.

THE SUN
http://www.omatumr.com/index1.html

The Iron Sun
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...123iron-sun.htm


The Sun’s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy
http://www.thesunisiron.com/archives/report_to_fcr.htm

The Iron Sun Debate
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_sol01.htm

Hey! but there's more.








rpenner
20th February 2009 - 08:30 AM
According to your Iron Sun conjecture, what is the structure of the sun?

How deep below the photosphere does this iron part start?
Harry Costas
20th February 2009 - 12:05 PM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

The amount of Iron is not that great, our sun is still young.

As the Sun ages the Iron produced by fusion increases.

It is not my theory

I'm just trying to understand it all.

Read this link


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

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

Authors: O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, M. Mozina

(Submitted on 18 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 5 Feb 2007 (this version, v3))

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.
Grumpy
20th February 2009 - 02:24 PM
Harry Costas

The fact that you can find sites on the internet that support your lunacy does not in any way change the fact that it IS lunacy. It's like someone who thinks they are Bonaparte finding someone else who thinks she is Josephine. They are both still loons.

Grumpy cool.gif
AlexG
20th February 2009 - 04:42 PM
QUOTE
The Sun produces elements greater than Fe but most are unstable and revert to Fe.


Wrong.

All elements above Fe are the product of supernova.
Grumpy
20th February 2009 - 11:07 PM
Harry Costas

The predominant element in the Sun is hydrogen, and then helium: by mass, it is 70% hydrogen, 28% helium, 1.5% carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, and 0.5% all other elements. We expect stars of the Sun's size to be composed mainly of hydrogen and helium since these are the elements formed shortly after the Big Bang, whereas all other elements are made during a star's life or death. More interestingly, we know that the Sun is not big enough to make the 0.5% "other" elements for itself: this means that the Sun is not a first generation star but formed in a region where more massive, violent stars once lived.

The gaseous sun model, rather than being outdated as the website you refer to suggests, is backed up by several lines of very recent evidence. If you study stellar structure at an undergraduate major level you will see how the standard model can predict the radius, surface temperature and other observable properties of stars, and how it does this very well. In fact the solar neutrino problem (the fact that the standard solar model overpredicted neutrino emissions of the Sun relative to what was observed), instead of pointing to a change in solar physics instead points to new properties for neutrinos! Helioseismology (observing sound wave propagating through the solar interior by their effect on the surface), also backs up the model. So there is very good (and recent) evidence to support the idea that the Sun is made mostly of gaseous hydrogen. In fact Astronomers think most of the universe is made of gaseous hydrogen, so it would be rather strange if the Sun were vastly different.

There is a small amount of iron in the Sun, because the Sun was made from a gas cloud which must have been enriched by the iron (and other elements) made in several previous stars and supernova. When the Sun runs out of hydrogen it will start fusing heavier and heavier elements together. Stars heavier than the Sun will continue this process until they make iron. Iron is the last element which when fused releases energy, heavier elements take an input of energy to fuse (but release energy by fission), so once a star has made iron there is no more energy available from nuclear fusion and it will die. The Sun is not massive enough even to ignite Carbon burning (heavier elements require hotter temperatures - and therefore bigger stars to ignite). Once the Sun has made Carbon in it's fusion in it's core will cease, leaving behind a slowly cooling and dim white dwarf star.

So nothing has changed, and your previous ideas about how the Sun works are believed to be correct by the majority of people.

Actually there is an interesting history behind the idea that the Sun was made of iron. It's a fairly recent question to ask what the Sun is made of and what the source of its energy is. Less than 200 years ago this wasn't a question that had even been thought of. Mid 19th century models suggested that maybe the Sun was just a ball of hot (molten) iron, but even simple calculations show that without an internal energy source such a Sun would cool down much too quickly for this to be possible. Around 150 years ago it was realised that the radiation from the Sun can be used to measure it's temperature, giving a surface temperature of almost 6000 C (~10,000 F), much too hot for solid iron (or solid anything for that matter). Undergraduate physics calculations of hydrostatic equilibrium for the Sun (taking into account the balance between gravity and the outward pressure of the material it is made of), also quickly show that the Sun must be gaseous. Early models for the source of energy for the Sun thought that it might be due to a slow contraction of the Sun (energy released from gravity), but this also led to a age for the Sun which was much too young. Spectra of the Sun can identify the most common elements on the surface of the Sun as hydrogen and helium - matching well with models of the most common elements in the universe as a whole. All of this work paved the way for the start of nuclear physics and our current understanding of the Sun as a giant gaseous hydrogen fusion reactor.
July 2005, Karen Masters

Karen studies the distribution and motions of galaxies in the local universe. She got her PhD from Cornell in August 2005 did a postdoc at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and is now the 2008 Gruber Foundation Fellow at the University of Portsmouth, Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation.

When you want real answers, go to a real astronomer.

Quartermass

Yes, the mass of the Sun is indeed being reduced due to nuclear fusion processes in the Sun's core, which convert part of the mass into energy. (This energy is eventually radiated away in the form of light from the Sun's surface.) However, the effect on the orbits of the planets is very small and would not be measurable over any reasonable time period.

One way we can see that this must be a small effect is to look at the main fusion reactions which produce the Sun's energy, in which four hydrogen atoms are transformed into one helium atom. If you look at a periodic table, you will see that one helium atom has about 0.7% less mass than four hydrogen atoms combined -- this "missing mass" is what gets converted into energy. Therefore, at the absolute most, only 0.7% of the Sun's mass can get converted, and this takes place over the entire 10 billion year lifetime of the Sun. So it must be a very small effect. (In actuality, not all of the Sun's mass is hydrogen to start with, and only the mass in the inner core of the Sun gets hot enough to undergo fusion reactions, so we really only expect around 0.07% of the mass to get converted.)

It is also easy to directly calculate the rate at which the Sun converts mass to energy. Start with Einstein's famous formula:

E = M c2

where E is the energy produced, M is the mass that gets converted and c is the speed of light (3 x 108 meters/second). It is easy to extend this formula to find the rate at which energy is produced:

(rate at which E is produced) = (rate at which M disappears) x c2

The rate at which the Sun produces energy is equal to the rate at which it emits energy from its surface (its luminosity), which is around 3.8 x 1026 Watts -- this number can be determined from measurements of how bright the Sun appears from Earth as well as its distance from us. Plugging this into the above formula tells us that the Sun loses around 4,200,000,000 kilograms every second!

This sounds like a lot, but compared to the total mass of the Sun (2 x 1030 kilograms), it actually isn't that much. For example, let's say we want to measure the effect of this mass loss over 100 years. In that time, the Sun will have lost 1.3 x 1019 kilograms due to the fusion reactions, which is still a very tiny fraction of the Sun's total mass (6.6 x 10-12, or about 6.6 parts in a trillion!).
August 2003, Dave Rothstein

Dave is a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell who uses infrared and X-ray observations and theoretical computer models to study accreting black holes in our Galaxy.

Any other questions you have can be asked here...

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/index.php

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
21st February 2009 - 07:48 AM
G'day Grumpy

You said

QUOTE
The predominant element in the Sun is hydrogen, and then helium: by mass, it is 70% hydrogen, 28% helium, 1.5% carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, and 0.5% all other elements. We expect stars of the Sun's size to be composed mainly of hydrogen and helium since these are the elements formed shortly after the Big Bang, whereas all other elements are made during a star's life or death. More interestingly, we know that the Sun is not big enough to make the 0.5% "other" elements for itself: this means that the Sun is not a first generation star but formed in a region where more massive, violent stars once lived.


The percantage as per shown have been documented for years. They are estimates and will not be confirmed for another few years time by the recent probe going near the Sun.



As per the link:

Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios

Authors: O. Manuel, Stig Friberg
(Submitted on 28 Oct 2004)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410717

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The predominant element in the Sun is hydrogen, and then helium: by mass, it is 70% hydrogen, 28% helium, 1.5% carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, and 0.5% all other elements. We expect stars of the Sun's size to be composed mainly of hydrogen and helium since these are the elements formed shortly after the Big Bang, whereas all other elements are made during a star's life or death. More interestingly, we know that the Sun is not big enough to make the 0.5% "other" elements for itself: this means that the Sun is not a first generation star but formed in a region where more massive, violent stars once lived.


The percantage as per shown have been documented for years. They are estimates and will not be confirmed for another few years time by the recent probe going near the Sun.



As per the link:

Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios

Authors: O. Manuel, Stig Friberg
(Submitted on 28 Oct 2004)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410717

Abstract: Measurements are reviewed showing that the interior of the Sun, the inner planets, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same elements: Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and calcium. These results do not support the standard solar model.




QUOTE
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED TESTS
The link of Xe-1 with iron extends to the Sun: Iron is
its most abundant element. Fusion in the parent star
(Fig. 3) likely depleted light elements from the
material that formed the Sun and the inner planets.
The following measurements are proposed to test our
conclusion of an iron-rich Sun:
1. Measure anti-neutrinos (3 x 1038 s-1, E < 0.782
MeV) from neutron decay at the solar core. Low
E targets for inverse b-decay are the Homestake
Mine 35Cl  35S reaction [32], the 14N  14C or
3He  3H reactions.
2. Measure neutrinos from reactions that increased
the 15N/14N ratio [33] and produced excess 6Li and
10Be in the outer layers of the Sun [34,35].
3. Measure microwave background radiation [36]
from the supernova explosion here 5 Gy ago.
4. Measure gravity anomalies, magnetic fields, the
quadrupole moment, or circular polarized light
[37] from a compact object (~10 km) in the Sun.
5. Measure other properties that constrain mass
segregation in the Sun and other stars [38-40].
6. Look for excess heavy elements in the fastmoving
solar wind, e.g., from the Sun's poles.
7. Use a narrowly focused laser beam to penetrate
the Sun's hydrogen-rich veneer.



and this is quite interesting

The Solar Heavy Element Abundances: I. Constraints from Stellar Interiors

Authors: Franck Delahaye (1), Marc Pinsonneault (2) ((1) LUTH Observatoire de Paris, (2) The Ohio State Univ.)

(Submitted on 29 Nov 2005)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED TESTS
The link of Xe-1 with iron extends to the Sun: Iron is
its most abundant element. Fusion in the parent star
(Fig. 3) likely depleted light elements from the
material that formed the Sun and the inner planets.
The following measurements are proposed to test our
conclusion of an iron-rich Sun:
1. Measure anti-neutrinos (3 x 1038 s-1, E < 0.782
MeV) from neutron decay at the solar core. Low
E targets for inverse b-decay are the Homestake
Mine 35Cl  35S reaction [32], the 14N  14C or
3He  3H reactions.
2. Measure neutrinos from reactions that increased
the 15N/14N ratio [33] and produced excess 6Li and
10Be in the outer layers of the Sun [34,35].
3. Measure microwave background radiation [36]
from the supernova explosion here 5 Gy ago.
4. Measure gravity anomalies, magnetic fields, the
quadrupole moment, or circular polarized light
[37] from a compact object (~10 km) in the Sun.
5. Measure other properties that constrain mass
segregation in the Sun and other stars [38-40].
6. Look for excess heavy elements in the fastmoving
solar wind, e.g., from the Sun's poles.
7. Use a narrowly focused laser beam to penetrate
the Sun's hydrogen-rich veneer.



and this is quite interesting

The Solar Heavy Element Abundances: I. Constraints from Stellar Interiors

Authors: Franck Delahaye (1), Marc Pinsonneault (2) ((1) LUTH Observatoire de Paris, (2) The Ohio State Univ.)

(Submitted on 29 Nov 2005)

Abstract: The latest solar atmosphere models include non-LTE corrections and 3D hydrodynamic convection simulations. These models predict a significant reduction in the solar metal abundance, which leads to a serious conflict between helioseismic data and the predictions of solar interiors models. We demonstrate that the helioseismic constraints on the surface convection zone depth and helium abundance combined with stellar interiors models can be used to define the goodness of fit for a given chemical composition. After a detailed examination of the errors in the theoretical models we conclude that models constructed with the older solar abundances are consistent (<2 \sigma) with the seismic data. Models constructed with the proposed new low abundance scale are strongly disfavored, disagreeing at the 15 \sigma level. We then use the sensitivity of the seismic properties to abundance changes to invert the problem and infer a seismic solar heavy element abundance mix with two components: meteoritic abundances, and the light metals CNONe. Seismic degeneracies between the best solutions for the elements arise for changes in the relative CNONe abundances and their effects are quantified. We obtain Fe/H=7.50+/-0.045+/-0.003(CNNe) and O/H=8.86+/-0.041+/-0.025(CNNe) for the relative CNNe in the GS98 mixture. The inferred solar oxygen abundance disagree with the abundance inferred from the 3D hydro models. Changes in the Ne abundance can mimic changes in O for the purposes of scalar constraints.Models constructed with low oxygen and high neon are inconsistent with the solar sound speed profile. The implications for the solar abundance scale are discussed.



NASA site
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html

The comments made by NASA are similar to Grumpy's words.
It is so out of date that NASA should wake up and update their information.


NASA IMAGES

The Iron Sun
http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960521.html

FLASHY SUN MAKES EROS BLUSH FOR SCIENTISTS USING NEAR
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20000310eros.html

QUOTE
Two powerful explosions on the Sun, called solar flares, blasted the surface of Eros with X-rays on March 2. Each 300-second blast caused elements at Eros' surface to glow in unique X-ray "colors," depending on the element's classification. The X-ray/Gamma-ray Spectrometer (XGRS) instrument on NEAR analyzed this X-ray glow and identified the various elements present.



Harry Costas
21st February 2009 - 08:33 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Information on the formation of elements before and during supernova

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process
R-process


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process
S-process

This is not the only method.

Grumpy
21st February 2009 - 10:43 AM
Harry Costas

QUOTE
Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios

Authors: O. Manuel, Stig Friberg
(Submitted on 28 Oct 2004)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410717


QUOTE 
Abstract: Measurements are reviewed showing that the interior of the Sun, the inner planets, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same elements: Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and calcium. These results do not support the standard solar model. 


Garbage, absolute garbage. The inner planets represent only the condensed heavier elements, stripped of their hydrogen and helium gases by their proximity to the suns radiation pressure and solar winds. The outer gas giant planets are more representative of the composition of the early solar system and are mostly gasious hydrogen, helium with a small percentage of the heavier elements.

In the sun the core temperatures are around 6000 degrees farenheit therefore the heavier elements are in a plasma state, mixed into the rest of the stellar envelope by the violent convection currents coming from the sun's interior. All of the elements mentioned in your cite are merely trace elements, a mere .5% of the gasious ball we call the sun. There is no solid core.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios

Authors: O. Manuel, Stig Friberg
(Submitted on 28 Oct 2004)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410717


QUOTE 
Abstract: Measurements are reviewed showing that the interior of the Sun, the inner planets, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same elements: Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and calcium. These results do not support the standard solar model. 


Garbage, absolute garbage. The inner planets represent only the condensed heavier elements, stripped of their hydrogen and helium gases by their proximity to the suns radiation pressure and solar winds. The outer gas giant planets are more representative of the composition of the early solar system and are mostly gasious hydrogen, helium with a small percentage of the heavier elements.

In the sun the core temperatures are around 6000 degrees farenheit therefore the heavier elements are in a plasma state, mixed into the rest of the stellar envelope by the violent convection currents coming from the sun's interior. All of the elements mentioned in your cite are merely trace elements, a mere .5% of the gasious ball we call the sun. There is no solid core.

The comments made by NASA are similar to Grumpy's words.
It is so out of date that NASA should wake up and update their information.


Yet it is NASA and the other scientific agencies that are putting these new satellites up to study the sun, who are working with the best instruments and the latest data. So, you saying that they are saying the same things I am is not a measure of how wrong they or I am, but of how wrong you are.

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
21st February 2009 - 11:27 AM
G'day Grumpy

Look, you want to think what you want and thats OK.

But! not to research for your own understanding is a short fall.

NASA is putting up the probes and thats great.

The only problem with NASA discussion is that they assume that the BBT is correct and than proceed to fit the data.

I have had several discussion with NASA and they have people on the discussion side who do not know the difference between left and right.

If you just rely on the standard model than one day when it is removed you will regret the time you spent of supportig it.

Look at the science supporting the BBT, your a smart cookie.
Grumpy
21st February 2009 - 06:49 PM
Harry Costas

QUOTE
The only problem with NASA discussion is that they assume that the BBT is correct and than proceed to fit the data.


No, they study the data and IT supports the BB theory. Why you assume they are not as smart and as rigorous as you are, I don't know, but you are wrong in this assessment.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The only problem with NASA discussion is that they assume that the BBT is correct and than proceed to fit the data.


No, they study the data and IT supports the BB theory. Why you assume they are not as smart and as rigorous as you are, I don't know, but you are wrong in this assessment.


I have had several discussion with NASA and they have people on the discussion side who do not know the difference between left and right.


Don't you mean they don't agree with you??? I wonder who is wrong(not really).


QUOTE
If you just rely on the standard model than one day when it is removed you will regret the time you spent of supportig it.

Look at the science supporting the BBT, your a smart cookie. 


It's called the standard model for a very good reason, it has been supported by the facts long enough that it is the standard against which other theories are measured. That does not mean it is set in stone, but supporting obviously flawed concepts like an iron cored sun, or any of the other ridiculous ideas you have expressed isn't going to change it.

Grumpy cool.gif
AlexG
21st February 2009 - 07:51 PM
Although it really doesn't say anything about his conclusions, we won't be seeing any more papers from Professor Manuel.

From http://www.themissouriminer.com/content/view/14/49/

QUOTE
  Dr. Oliver Manuel Sr., Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and former chair of the UMR Chemistry Department, was arrested Tuesday, May 30 in his office at UMR for two felony counts of rape, four counts of sodomy, and one count of attempted sodomy. The crimes allegedly occurred from 1967 to 1990 at various locations in Phelps County. Some of the acts allegedly occurred on University property.
Quatermass
21st February 2009 - 08:15 PM
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 21 2009, 08:33 AM)
G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Information on the formation of elements before and during supernova

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process
R-process


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process
S-process

This is not the only method.

Neutron capture needs at least a billion degrees K to release the neutrons in the first place and is only believed to work after a super-nova.
Quatermass
21st February 2009 - 08:51 PM
Grumpy. Neutrons have a slightly lower energy level than a proton and an electron allowing them to have stability. This is what produces the energy from the sun.

The sun loses a million tons of matter every second as solar wind. It has sufficient mass, that even as long as it's been in existence, 1 part in 4,500 made of particles which have lost their nuclear force would make no difference to it.

The problem I have is at what point does matter become energy? I would think there was a cut-off point above which matter ceased to exist and became energy. Yet we are led to believe in novae, in super-novae, even in hyper-novae, matter and energy exist alongside each other. We have cosmic rays which might be single protons with energies around 10^20 eV which hit with the force of a hard thrown cricket ball. How much more energetic can matter be?

Yet we are told that in our miserable little dwarf star sun, 4.2 million tons of matter turns into energy every second. The surface is a paltry 5,500.C and the core is only 15,000,000.C . There are stars far, far hotter than this, and bigger too. Why don't they just completely turn into energy?

There is also the point that matter and EMR are totally different. One cannot reach the speed of light, no matter how much energy is used (even the whole of the universe we are told). Yet EMR travels only at light speed and cannot slow below light speed. It's like chalk changing into cheese.

Harry Costas
21st February 2009 - 09:32 PM
G'day from the land of ozzz

I'm awear of Prof Oliver's case.

I'm more intrested in the science that he was working with.

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

There are various phases of energy which form part of MATTER.

E=MC^2

M=E/C^2

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

THis is quite interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0214
60Fe and Massive Stars

Authors: W. Wang
(Submitted on 2 Feb 2009)

QUOTE
Abstract: Gamma-ray line emission from radioactive decay of 60Fe provides constraints on nucleosynthesis in massive stars and supernovae. We detect the gamma-ray lines from 60Fe decay at 1173 and 1333 keV using three years of data from the spectrometer SPI on board INTEGRAL. The average flux per line is (4.4 \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-5} ph cm^{-2} s^{-1} rad^{-1} for the inner Galaxy region. Deriving the Galactic 26Al gamma-ray line flux with using the same set of observations and analysis method, we determine the flux ratio of 60Fe/26Al gamma-rays as 0.15 \pm 0.05. We discuss the implications of these results for the widely-held hypothesis that 60Fe is synthesized in core-collapse supernovae, and also for the closely-related question of the precise origin of 26Al in massive stars.



Darn, I have to go for now that kids need a lift to their sports.

I'll Be Back.


Grumpy
22nd February 2009 - 12:37 AM
Quatermass

The difference between small percentages of the mass being released from nuclear fusion and ALL of the mass turning into energy is huge. The only reactions we know that convert 100% of the mass involved into energy are those involving matter and antimatter

This stuff is not in doubt, the equivalence of mass and energy is well established and is used to calculate the energy of nuclear fission(reactors and bombs), hydrogen fusion(in bombs and in stars, as well as nova and supernova and the nucleosynthesis involved) and gamma rays(which create showers of particles when they slam into the atmosphere, a direct energy to mass conversion).

If you fuse a proton and an electron you end up with a neutron that weights a fraction of a percent less than the mass of the proton and electron. The missing weight is radiated away as energy, thus a direct conversion of mass into energy.

DO YOU DENY THIS???

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
22nd February 2009 - 12:48 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzz

Grumpy sometimes you come out with the right stuff.


Quatermass
27th February 2009 - 05:32 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 22 2009, 12:37 AM)
Quatermass

The difference between small percentages of the mass being released from nuclear fusion and ALL of the mass turning into energy is huge. The only reactions we know that convert 100% of the mass involved into energy are those involving matter and antimatter

This stuff is not in doubt, the equivalence of mass and energy is well established and is used to calculate the energy of nuclear fission(reactors and bombs), hydrogen fusion(in bombs and in stars, as well as nova and supernova and the nucleosynthesis involved) and gamma rays(which create showers of particles when they slam into the atmosphere, a direct energy to mass conversion).

If you fuse a proton and an electron you end up with a neutron that weights a fraction of a percent less than the mass of the proton and electron. The missing weight is radiated away as energy, thus a direct conversion of mass into energy.

DO YOU DENY THIS???

Grumpy cool.gif

We are not discussing nuclear fusion. If particles were to lose their energy here, they could not fuse into heavier elements. They merely release redundant particles and radiation.

Strange that the only way to release all the energy is using two opposing charges.

Of course, someone goes around after a nuclear explosion or a super-nova and counts up all the particles to prove that all the mass has been converted to energy.

Since there is a change in the quark structure as in 2 up + 1 down become 1 up + 2 down, I would say there was something going on there rather than radiating energy, which would come from what? I would think that a small particle is lost, about 2 electron's mass worth. No charge.
Grumpy
27th February 2009 - 07:26 PM
Quatermass

QUOTE
We are not discussing nuclear fusion.


We are talking about what powers stars and mass being equivalent to energy and you say something stupid like this!!! Do they even have schools on your planet???

Grumpy cool.gif
Quatermass
27th February 2009 - 09:03 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 27 2009, 07:26 PM)
Quatermass



We are talking about what powers stars and mass being equivalent to energy and you say something stupid like this!!! Do they even have schools on your planet???

Grumpy cool.gif

No need to get grumpy, Grumpy. I meant fission as anyone but a hysterical point scorer could see. I watch TV as I post as answering questions here is not exactly demanding. What's your excuse when you make a mistake?

A small amount of mass is changed into energy you claim. What is that mass? Are you claiming that the proton lost part of itself?
Grumpy
28th February 2009 - 01:12 AM
Quatermass

QUOTE
No need to get grumpy, Grumpy. I meant fission as anyone but a hysterical point scorer could see. I watch TV as I post as answering questions here is not exactly demanding. What's your excuse when you make a mistake?

A small amount of mass is changed into energy you claim. What is that mass? Are you claiming that the proton lost part of itself? 


Fission has little or nothing to do with stars and their power source. Only in supernova do they even become an important(but still miniscule) part in the process(their creation takes more energy than they release by fission).

As to where the energy comes from, Wiki has a pretty good overview, I suggest you start learning there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence
Harry Costas
1st March 2009 - 01:46 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzz

Grumpy your ideas are quite standard and that is a trap within itself.

We now live in the modern ERA, science takes priority over opinions.


This link is quite interesting over 1000 papers.

You do not have to read all the papers. Just get a gist of some.


Sun's Energy
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Suns+...y/0/1/0/all/0/1

In the last ten years old school thoughts that the standard theory should not be questioned. Big mistake, cash flow was directed only to projects that supported the standard theory. The result of it was a shortfall in advancing and researching many aspects of cosmology. Today NASA is re-looking at the evidence and the method of explanation in other words applying scientific method that was first applied over 1000 years ago.

If you have a theory that you want to sopport than use science to prove your point.
Grumpy
1st March 2009 - 02:19 AM
Harry Costas

Many of the papers on that site have not been well received, in fact some of them are completely off the wall. They are there to be peer reviewed, not because they are valid science. We've already gone over the "Iron sun" paper and it's obvious fallacies.

You would do well to remember that for 10 every papers that propose new science, maybe one will be ultimately accepted as valid.

Grumpy cool.gif
Granouille
1st March 2009 - 02:22 AM
Is it really that high a percentage? I would be amazed.
Harry Costas
1st March 2009 - 08:53 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Some people will think what ever they want regardless of the scientific evidence and discussions.

The links that I have posted are an overall search and are not selected by me.

So! Grumpy, where do you read your information from.

You can also try search on NASA ADS

Origin of Sun's energy
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basi...nergy&version=1

You can select to sort by date. This will give you papers from 2009 down.

It takes time to understand the actual workings of the ongoing and origin of the Sun's energy.

Rather than me telling you try reading and understanding.
Quatermass
1st March 2009 - 06:15 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 28 2009, 01:12 AM)
Quatermass

Fission has little or nothing to do with stars and their power source. Only in supernova do they even become an important(but still miniscule) part in the process(their creation takes more energy than they release by fission).

As to where the energy comes from, Wiki has a pretty good overview, I suggest you start learning there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

I said we are not talking about fission to which you say:

QUOTE
Fission has little or nothing to do with stars and their power source. Only in supernova do they even become an important(but still miniscule) part in the process(their creation takes more energy than they release by fission).



A bit redundant.


Again I have made some points about mass becoming energy, like it not happening according to any predictable schedule. There is no cut off point where mass changes into energy. We have mass being unable to reach the speed of light whereas energy always travels at light speed. And so on. You have yet to answer any of these points. wiki does not either, which might explain why you have not done so.

Have you noticed the signature I have had for some days now?
Grumpy
2nd March 2009 - 02:55 AM
Quatermass

Actually, the wiki page is a good, if simplified overview of a fairly complex subject. That you were not able to understand that is an indication that more complex and comprehensive information is probably beyond your grasp at all. Suffice it to say that energy/mass equivalence is not affected by your failure to understand or accept the facts.

Grumpy cool.gif
Quatermass
2nd March 2009 - 10:07 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 2 2009, 02:55 AM)
Quatermass

Actually, the wiki page is a good, if simplified overview of a fairly complex subject. That you were not able to understand that is an indication that more complex and comprehensive information is probably beyond your grasp at all. Suffice it to say that energy/mass equivalence is not affected by your failure to understand or accept the facts.

Grumpy cool.gif

I again draw attention to my signature. I thought it easy to understand but it appears to be totally beyond your comprehension, so leading you into obvious fallacies about me.

How many times is it now that you have failed to answer any of my questions about mass changing into energy? One less than the next time I bring it up, no doubt.

Creationists always talk about "the facts" too.
Grumpy
2nd March 2009 - 09:15 PM
Quatermass

QUOTE
How many times is it now that you have failed to answer any of my questions about mass changing into energy? One less than the next time I bring it up, no doubt.


Proof positive that you can lead a jackass to water, but you can't teach him physics.

"In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that any mass has an associated energy, and that any energy has an associated type of mass. In special relativity this relationship is expressed using the mass–energy equivalence formula


where

E = total energy,
m = mass,
c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas), (about 3×10^8 m/sec)
where total energy is the sum of kinetic energy and rest energy.[1] In other words, energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

This is the opening paragraph of the Wiki article I directed you to. I read the whole article and found nothing with which I dissagree. Rather than to further waste my time trying to educate the uneducable I would rather just tell you to read it yourself AND THEN, if you have further dissagreements with the state of modern physics, ask your questions. Further-troll like behavior on your part will be wasted because I have already pointed out your dismal state of education and understanding in the field of nuclear physics and what is known today.

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
3rd March 2009 - 10:30 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Z-Pinch property of double layer plasma is worth Googling.

Matter to energy.


Quatermass
7th March 2009 - 08:20 PM
Grumpy. Let's try the question you have been avoiding again. We start off with a nuclear explosion which allegedly changes a small amount of plutonium to energy. But this is barely a twinkle compared to a nova which does the same thing, and yet it is only a small amount of matter that becomes energy despite being many magnitudes more energetic in nature. And then we have the hyper-nova which is magnitudes more energetic and yet for some reason, we still have matter involved. The whole lot doesn't just change into energy.

So, what is the threshold value at which matter changes into energy, where something that cannot reach light speed, even with all the energy in the universe behind it suddenly becomes energy itself and always travels at light speed?

Since the wiki does not answer that, I do not expect an answer from you. You might send an email to the all knowing Hawking (PBUH) and see if he knows though I can tell you now he doesn't.

If you fail, you can always resort to insults again to cover your failure.
Cusa
7th March 2009 - 09:03 PM
I believe the universe is naturally closed and originates with a 4D Hypersphere.

Einstein suggested the universe should be finite yet without boundary. The higher 4 dimensional form of Hypersphere is the answer to that. In history the hypersphere will be seen as starting with the thought of Albert Einstein.

Mitch Raemsch
Granouille
7th March 2009 - 09:15 PM
This idiot's posts seem to always begin, "I believe..."

Who cares what you believe, troll? 99% of everything you spew is complete BS, and it is damned boring.

The other 1%, I can write off as error on your part, bozo.
AlexG
7th March 2009 - 10:21 PM
QUOTE
We start off with a nuclear explosion which allegedly changes a small amount of plutonium to energy. But this is barely a twinkle compared to a nova which does the same thing, and yet it is only a small amount of matter that becomes energy despite being many magnitudes more energetic in nature


There are two different mechanisms at work.

Nova's are powered by the rebound after a catastrophic gravitational collapse.

A nuclear explosion is a piffle in comparison. But the energy sources are different. The nova is not being powered by mass-energy conversion.
Grumpy
7th March 2009 - 11:43 PM
Quatermass

I have given you your answers, you just don't like them.

Fission is a splitting of a massive atom, the daughter atoms have less mass than the progenitor, the difference(~.02% IIRC) being converted to energy.

Fusion is the combining of two or more smaller atoms with the resultant atom having less mass than the starting atoms, the difference is released as energy(~.2% IIRC).

Fusing of atoms heavier than iron require the ADDITION of energy, as their daughters have more mass than you started with.

When antimatter and matter meet, the conversion to energy is 100%.

Shortly after the Big Bang the energy released within that event formed the matter and anti-matter of our Universe.

These are the facts, if you want to know details pay for a nuclear physics education yourself. Each process is different for every type of atom, and in each particular situation and physicists spend lifetimes figuring it out. The Wiki page I pointed you to has a decent overview, if you bothered to read it. Otherwise you're on your own because I won't be jumping through hoops to further your education.


AlexG

While the gravity "bounce" is one process going on in a Nova(in fact it is the triggering event)fusion still powers the resultant explosion, like a blasting cap sets off a block of C4. A lot of that released energy goes into the creation of the heavier elements and the subsequent decay of some of the more unstable of those is observed in the spectra.

Grumpy cool.gif
Granouille
7th March 2009 - 11:46 PM
Do y'all just hate it when there aren't any dumbasses to refute?

At my Joint? Grumpy? laugh.gif
Harry Costas
8th March 2009 - 10:04 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Grumpy said

QUOTE
Shortly after the Big Bang the energy released within that event formed the matter and anti-matter of our Universe.


Firstly the BBT is very theoretical.

Than you state them as facts.

If you wish to understand the processes that is related to that initial process than the you may have to read.

Expanding Flow Jets
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+jets+...w/0/1/0/all/0/1

Tokamak
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Tokamak/0/1/0/all/0/1


Origin of Collimated Outflows
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Outfl...f/0/1/0/all/0/1


Grumpy
8th March 2009 - 05:23 PM
Harry Costas

QUOTE
Firstly the BBT is very theoretical.


To whom? The majority of cosmologists have no doubt that the BB, in one form or another, occurred, the evidence is just overwhelming. Is it possible that we have gotten it all wrong? Sure, but it is not likely.

Grumpy cool.gif
Laidback
9th March 2009 - 01:53 AM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 9 2009, 03:23 AM)
Harry Costas



To whom? The majority of cosmologists have no doubt that the BB, in one form or another, occurred, the evidence is just overwhelming. Is it possible that we have gotten it all wrong? Sure, but it is not likely.

Grumpy cool.gif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Feat...es_and_problems

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Argyll
9th March 2009 - 02:29 AM
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 9 2009, 02:07 AM)
There is no antimatter just as there is no negative energy.

I stand by this.

Mitch Raemsch

stand by it all you want, but intil you back up your claim with some evidence or reasoned argument, you're just making noise.
Harry Costas
9th March 2009 - 08:03 AM
G'day from the land of ozzz

If you have any evidence that can support the BBT please let us all know.

These are modern times and the King does not wear invisible robes.

and while you are providing such evidence please read this link.


 http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm

and maybe more

Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html

 Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/200...rouble-for.html

 Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

Authors: Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis
(Submitted on 3 Jul 2007)

QUOTE
Abstract: While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

Grumpy
9th March 2009 - 09:25 AM
Harry Costas

QUOTE
Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm


You get your scientific "information" from RENSE??? ohmy.gif

http://www.rense.com/

Between their right wing kook jobs and antisemetic Holocaust denial they run a legitimate physics department??? And wow, all of 33, no one could ever find that many scientists that disagree about something. dry.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm


You get your scientific "information" from RENSE??? ohmy.gif

http://www.rense.com/

Between their right wing kook jobs and antisemetic Holocaust denial they run a legitimate physics department??? And wow, all of 33, no one could ever find that many scientists that disagree about something. dry.gif

Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html


Someone wrote three paragraphs of opinion, yeah, that's a real crisis. I guess we wasted those millions we spent on those big ol' telescopes and satellites when we could have just asked this guy. blink.gif

QUOTE
Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/200...rouble-for.html


But not for SOME form of BB. Did you even read it??? There is still a lot to learn.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/200...rouble-for.html


But not for SOME form of BB. Did you even read it??? There is still a lot to learn.

Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380


When are you ever going to learn that only about 10% of the papers submitted here are more than speculation by students??? MOST GO ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE, but in the round file in the corner. And that's on a good day. MOST THESIS PAPERS ARE PURE GARBAGE.

You are just banging your head against a wall of solid evidence, Harry. And you need to find a better source for your reading. RENSE, for FSM's sake!!!

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
9th March 2009 - 09:59 AM
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Grumpy you lack information and the information you do have lacks evidence.

It will take time, but in time you will find some understanding , until than you will blow your own horn until the cows come home.

While your thinking about that.

Please explain how a 100 billion galaxies that we see in deep field 13.2 Gyrs can form in just 500 million years.

Please use your own words.
Quatermass
9th March 2009 - 09:47 PM
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 7 2009, 10:21 PM)

There are two different mechanisms at work.

Nova's are powered by the rebound after a catastrophic gravitational collapse.

A nuclear explosion is a piffle in comparison. But the energy sources are different. The nova is not being powered by mass-energy conversion.

QUOTE
Novae (the plural for nova) are usually, if not always, the result of an interaction between two stars.

In such a binary system, as they are called, an ancient and exhausted star called a white dwarf, which has used up all of its nuclear fuel, siphons hydrogen gas off its orbital companion, typically a much larger normal star. Every 100,000 years or so, enough gas builds up on the white dwarf to trigger a thermonuclear explosion.

Anyone who knew where to look could have spotted Nova Aquila, an aged stellar corpse that had just exploded -- or "gone nova," as scientists say. For a time, the decrepit star, which had evolved into something called a fuel-burning white dwarf, put out more energy than our Sun -- as in 100,000 times more.




http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...rst_010910.html



So at what threshold does matter start changing into energy?
Quatermass
9th March 2009 - 09:57 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 7 2009, 11:43 PM)
Quatermass

I have given you your answers, you just don't like them.

Fission is a splitting of a massive atom, the daughter atoms have less mass than the progenitor, the difference(~.02% IIRC) being converted to energy.

Fusion is the combining of two or more smaller atoms with the resultant atom having less mass than the starting atoms, the difference is released as energy(~.2% IIRC).

Fusing of atoms heavier than iron require the ADDITION of energy, as their daughters have more mass than you started with.

When antimatter and matter meet, the conversion to energy is 100%.

Shortly after the Big Bang the energy released within that event formed the matter and anti-matter of our Universe.

These are the facts, if you want to know details pay for a nuclear physics education yourself. Each process is different for every type of atom, and in each particular situation and physicists spend lifetimes figuring it out. The Wiki page I pointed you to has a decent overview, if you bothered to read it. Otherwise you're on your own because I won't be jumping through hoops to further your education.

You are just repeating what has gone before.

Perhaps you could point me to some stars or clouds which are made of anti-matter as they are "facts" according to you?
Quatermass
9th March 2009 - 10:02 PM
QUOTE (Granouille+Mar 7 2009, 09:15 PM)
This idiot's posts seem to always begin, "I believe..."

Who cares what you believe, troll? 99% of everything you spew is complete BS, and it is damned boring.

The other 1%, I can write off as error on your part, bozo.

The non-thinker's posts seem to always begin, "I copied this from The Wiki so I know it is true..."


I won't lower myself to insults to copy the rest of your post. You want to demean yourself by posting them, that is up to you.
Quatermass
9th March 2009 - 10:11 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 8 2009, 05:23 PM)
Harry Costas



To whom? The majority of cosmologists have no doubt that the BB, in one form or another, occurred, the evidence is just overwhelming. Is it possible that we have gotten it all wrong? Sure, but it is not likely.

Grumpy cool.gif

Sure.

By some unknown process, we start off with a singularity. Unproven. Then instead of being ultimately stable, it ignores the law of gravity and inflates. Unproven. It then somehow slows down and continues to expand, as a four dimensional hypersphere. Unproven.


And that is just the first second! Some people will believe anything.
Quatermass
9th March 2009 - 10:16 PM
QUOTE (Laidback+Mar 9 2009, 01:53 AM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Feat...es_and_problems

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

A quick search on the internet on big bang problems, untrivial redshifts, etc show the BB is far from as factual as many would like to claim. The real problem is that we do not have anything to put in it's place if we discard it because science has put all it's eggs in one basket.
AlexG
9th March 2009 - 10:23 PM
It looks like 1/4m's routine is to deny everything he doesn't like or understand on the basis that there is no 'evidence' or 'proof'.

It's a variation of 'If I didn't see it, it didn't happen'.

He never states what he would consider 'proof'.
Laidback
9th March 2009 - 10:31 PM
QUOTE (Argyll+Mar 9 2009, 12:29 PM)
stand by it all you want, but until you back up your claim with some evidence or reasoned argument, you're just making noise.
I have to agree with Cusa here..

And here's why I agree that antimatter simply is impossible..

Throughout the Universe all mass, matter consists of energy..

And if we could account for it all, we would end up with a value of just how much energy the universe consists off..

This total value has the Universe as a closed system, which if violated renders the possible as never ever have been possible..

What I am getting at is that, the instant antimatter anywhere should exist, then in all reality all physical Rules or Laws become invalid because what should be a closed system is in fact Open to magic, miracles and or some religious concept..

Put simply the universe is with a quantity of energy, that must never violate conservation laws.

If we consider matter as we do our money then theoretically I can agree antimatter IN THEORY may be implied, but when it comes to practice, once a sum of money in ones hand is spent then in all practical reality you cant have less than no money, on paper or in theory yes I agree antimatter or a negative account is possible.. Mass or matter should be treated in a practical sense only, no ifs and no buts, as nothing can only do nothing, unless it is something, ergo if it does then it must be something such as a density, Mass or Matter..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.