Solid Surface Model of the Sun?

MarkF
MarkF
Joined: 12 Apr 05
Posts: 393
Credit: 1,516,715
RAC: 0

Michael The best of luck to

Michael
The best of luck to you.

klasm
klasm
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 32
Credit: 5,580
RAC: 0

Well since it looks like

Well since it looks like Michael will require us to make a complete review of physics and astronomy I will not continue this topic either.

The simplest argument for why an iron dominated sun, indeed a sun dominated by any particle at least as heavy as an iron nucleus, is not viable is that it will collapse under its own gravity.

In fact novae and supernovae get triggered exactly when the fusion in star in question has turned so much of the ligther elements into iron and elements heavier than iron. These heavy elements can not continue to drive the fusion process and when this happens then star can no longer avoid a gravitational collapse.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Well since it looks

Message 15059 in response to message 15058

Quote:

Well since it looks like Michael will require us to make a complete review of physics and astronomy I will not continue this topic either.

The simplest argument for why an iron dominated sun, indeed a sun dominated by any particle at least as heavy as an iron nucleus, is not viable is that it will collapse under its own gravity.

In fact novae and supernovae get triggered exactly when the fusion in star in question has turned so much of the ligther elements into iron and elements heavier than iron. These heavy elements can not continue to drive the fusion process and when this happens then star can no longer avoid a gravitational collapse.

A neutron core would be at least as dense as iron.

It would be more correct to suggest that it is "presumed" that supernovae get triggered exactly when the the fusion in the star has turned mostly to iron and heavier elements. That 'theory' however has never been proven. That is the problem with the gas model IMO. The gas model has a lot of "theoretical" support from many dedicated scientists over the years, but there is very little observational support to suggest these gas model theories actually apply to a real life sun based on satellite imagery. I could 'see' the structures under the photosphere which is why I predicted a stratified layer existed at a very shallow depth. You'll note that the top of this surface is located at about .995R, a very shallow depth indeed.

Thank you both for a very enjoyable discussion.

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

Hi, Michael, After making

Hi, Michael,

After making my original post, as I was learning about helioseismology as Mark pointed out, I found the site The Standard Solar Model, which has fairly easy to understand equations like and , along with tables showing the nuclear reactions. Perhaps you should consider expressing your observations within this kind of framework. Quoting from the site:

Quote:
The standard solar model serves two purposes; (1) it provides estimates for the helium abundance and mixing length parameter in the Sun by forcing the solar model to have the correct luminosity and radius at the Sun's age, and (2) it provides a benchmark to compare "improved" solar models which have additional physics, such as rotation, magnetic fields, and diffusion or ad-hoc improvements, such as turbulent diffusion, overshooting, and metal rich cores...

There are certainly unanswered questions regarding stellar evolution, interactions between galaxies, and there are obviously questions regarding what happens to matter under extreme conditions and on grand scales. I think highly of your perspective, Michael, and I admire your effort.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Hi, Michael, After

Message 15061 in response to message 15060

Quote:

Hi, Michael,

After making my original post, as I was learning about helioseismology as Mark pointed out, I found the site The Standard Solar Model, which has fairly easy to understand equations like and , along with tables showing the nuclear reactions. Perhaps you should consider expressing your observations within this kind of framework. Quoting from the site:

Quote:
The standard solar model serves two purposes; (1) it provides estimates for the helium abundance and mixing length parameter in the Sun by forcing the solar model to have the correct luminosity and radius at the Sun's age, and (2) it provides a benchmark to compare "improved" solar models which have additional physics, such as rotation, magnetic fields, and diffusion or ad-hoc improvements, such as turbulent diffusion, overshooting, and metal rich cores...

There are certainly unanswered questions regarding stellar evolution, interactions between galaxies, and there are obviously questions regarding what happens to matter under extreme conditions and on grand scales. I think highly of your perspective, Michael, and I admire your effort.

Thank you, and thank you for your suggestions. I am working with Dr. Manuel on a jounal publication at the moment, but I hear you on those points. I think that the recent heliosiesmology evidence makes it possible now to create mathematical models with real and observed data. I am indeed moving in that direction.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0
Czar Brent
Czar Brent
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 26
Credit: 860,674
RAC: 0

Your theory is an awesome

Your theory is an awesome concept. I am no scientist I and my question is probably relatively simple. Looking at the pictures you have of the sun and watching the formations as they rotate it appears as if there are mountains and crevices in the pictures. If this is true wouldnt the temperature, pressure, and friction of moving through the hydrogen atmosphere make these mountains more rounded? It appears as if they are sharp pointy things protruding from the surface of that element. I would imagine that they would be more like giant smooth bumps rather than sharp peaks and valleys.

WARNING! DiHydrogen MonOxide kills!

Nereid
Nereid
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 925,034
RAC: 0

One particularly good reason

One particularly good reason why the Sun cannot be made (largely) of (solid) iron is its average density (~1.4 g/cc); solid iron has a density of >7*.

The average density of the Sun is easy to calculate - its mass divided by its volume - from two well-measured inputs. The Sun's mass can be measured using Kepler's law, which Newton showed comes from the good old inverse square law for gravity, and the deflection of photons as they pass near the Sun, a result of Einstein's GR (so closing a loop with why we're all here!).

*If you prefer SI, ~1400 kg/m^3 and >7000 kg/m^3

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.