Sharpest views of Betelgeuse reveal how supergiant stars lose mass

Jul 29, 2009
This artist’s impression shows the supergiant star Betelgeuse as it was revealed thanks to different state-of-the-art techniques on ESO’s Very Large Telescope, which allowed two independent teams of astronomers to obtain the sharpest ever views of the supergiant star Betelgeuse. They show that the star has a vast plume of gas almost as large as our Solar System and a gigantic bubble boiling on its surface. These discoveries provide important clues to help explain how these mammoths shed material at such a tremendous rate. The scale in units of the radius of Betelgeuse as well as a comparison with the Solar System is also provided. Image: ESO

(PhysOrg.com) -- Betelgeuse -- the second brightest star in the constellation of Orion (the Hunter) -- is a red supergiant, one of the biggest stars known, and almost 1000 times larger than our Sun. It is also one of the most luminous stars known, emitting more light than 100 000 Suns. Such extreme properties foretell the demise of a short-lived stellar king. With an age of only a few million years, Betelgeuse is already nearing the end of its life and is soon doomed to explode as a supernova. When it does, the supernova should be seen easily from Earth, even in broad daylight.

Red supergiants still hold several unsolved mysteries. One of them is just how these behemoths shed such tremendous quantities of material -- about the mass of the Sun -- in only 10 000 years. Two teams of astronomers have used ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) and the most advanced technologies to take a closer look at the gigantic star. Their combined work suggests that an answer to the long-open mass-loss question may well be at hand.

The first team used the adaptive optics instrument, NACO, combined with a so-called “lucky imaging” technique, to obtain the sharpest ever image of Betelgeuse, even with Earth’s turbulent, image-distorting atmosphere in the way. With lucky imaging, only the very sharpest exposures are chosen and then combined to form an image much sharper than a single, longer exposure would be.

This collage shows the Orion constellation in the sky (Betelgeuse is identified by the marker), a zoom towards Betelgeuse, and the sharpest ever image of this supergiant star, which was obtained with NACO on ESO’s Very Large Telescope. Image: ESO

The resulting NACO images almost reach the theoretical limit of sharpness attainable for an 8-metre telescope. The resolution is as fine as 37 milliarcseconds, which is roughly the size of a tennis ball on the International Space Station (ISS), as seen from the ground.

“Thanks to these outstanding images, we have detected a large plume of gas extending into space from the surface of Betelgeuse,” says Pierre Kervella from the Paris Observatory, who led the team. The plume extends to at least six times the diameter of the star, corresponding to the distance between the Sun and Neptune.

“This is a clear indication that the whole outer shell of the star is not shedding matter evenly in all directions,” adds Kervella. Two mechanisms could explain this asymmetry. One assumes that the mass loss occurs above the polar caps of the giant star, possibly because of its rotation. The other possibility is that such a plume is generated above large-scale gas motions inside the star, known as convection — similar to the circulation of water heated in a pot.

To arrive at a solution, astronomers needed to probe the behemoth in still finer detail. To do this Keiichi Ohnaka from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, and his colleagues used interferometry. With the AMBER instrument on ESO’s Interferometer, which combines the light from three 1.8-metre Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLT, the astronomers obtained observations as sharp as those of a giant, virtual 48-metre telescope. With such superb resolution, the astronomers were able to detect indirectly details four times finer still than the amazing NACO images had already allowed (in other words, the size of a marble on the ISS, as seen from the ground).

“Our AMBER observations are the sharpest observations of any kind ever made of Betelgeuse. Moreover, we detected how the gas is moving in different areas of Betelgeuse’s surface ― the first time this has been done for a star other than the ”, says Ohnaka.

The AMBER observations revealed that the gas in Betelgeuse's atmosphere is moving vigorously up and down, and that these bubbles are as large as the supergiant star itself. Their unrivalled observations have led the astronomers to propose that these large-scale gas motions roiling under Betelgeuse’s red surface are behind the ejection of the massive plume into space.

More information:

Science papers: Kervella, P. et al. and Ohnaka, K. et al.

Provided by ESO (news : web)

Explore further: Astronomers release most detailed catalogue ever made of the visible Milky Way

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The behemoth has a thick belt

May 27, 2008

Talk about a diet! By resolving, for the first time, features of an individual star in a neighbouring galaxy, ESO's VLT has allowed astronomers to determine that it weighs almost half of what was previously ...

The little man and the cosmic cauldron

May 27, 2008

On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Very Large Telescope's First Light, ESO is releasing two stunning images of different kinds of nebulae, located towards the Carina constellation. The first one, ...

AMBER looks into the cradle of planets

Nov 28, 2005

An international team of astronomers investigated a disk of gas and dust surrounding a young star, as well as the stellar winds which emanate from that star. The team found unique, previously unknown characteristics ...

Recommended for you

Violent origins of disc galaxies probed by ALMA

55 minutes ago

For decades scientists have believed that galaxy mergers usually result in the formation of elliptical galaxies. Now, for the the first time, researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter ...

The entropy of black holes

Sep 12, 2014

Yesterday I talked about black hole thermodynamics, specifically how you can write the laws of thermodynamics as laws about black holes. Central to the idea of thermodynamics is the property of entropy, which c ...

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2009
THE ENERGY SOURCE?

Beautiful images! Rest mass data for the 3,000 nuclei that comprise the entire visible universe and E = mc2 are the key to understanding the observation.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Azpod
5 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2009
I hope the star goes boom in my lifetime. With the star so close to us (but thankfully not TOO close), we'll have near front-row seats to the fireworks. We'll learn a LOT about stellar evolution when it detonates.
yyz
5 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2009
@Azpod, Yeah like details on neutrino oscillation.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2009
THEY DON'T.

Oliver
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2009
Oliver

Do you have any evidence that neutrinos don't oscillate? The world of Physics would like to be clued in on that as the evidence so far is that they do. Its is not absolutely certain yet but it sure looks likely.

http://en.wikiped...ervatory

Just try reading that to make your eyes cross. And the discussion page is no picnic either. I have seen a whole new way of thinking about particles.

http://en.wikiped.../KamLAND

Too late for me to try to read the discussion page there. Besides I don't understand that stuff well enough to evaluate the discussion.

Fusion is still the best answer. Far better than your claim that the Sun has a neutron star in it which still would REQUIRE that the Sun have a far greater mass than it does. Unless you can patch that very major problem you have nothing to support you except for hope. Which doesn't qualify as any sort of rational support.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2009
NO NEUTRINOS (ABSOLUTELY NONE) OSCILLATE [SEE 1,2,..3,4]

060% of solar luminosity (SE) comes from neutron-emission.
005% of solar luminosity (SE) comes from neutron-decay
035% of SE from fusion of the neutron-decay product, H.
100% of observed solar neutrinos are produced by above Rx.
100% of solar-wind H is the neutron-decay product.
000% of solar neutrinos oscillate away before being detected.

See:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98.
http://tinyurl.com/39kwoz

2. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.
http://tinyurl.com/38un57
.
.
.
.
3. Overheads to paper presented at the V INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NON-ACCELERATOR NEW PHYSICS in Dubna, Russia, 20-25 June 2005; http://tinyurl.com/2h8lpy

4. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1959-1962; Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11 (November 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt
DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X
http://arxiv.org/...609509v3

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
ttp://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2009
NO NEUTRINOS (ABSOLUTELY NONE) OSCILLATE [SEE 1,2,..3,4]


None of which prove anything about neutrino oscillation and ALL come from you.

060% of solar luminosity (SE) comes from neutron-emission.


It comes from FUSION.

005% of solar luminosity (SE) comes from neutron-decay


Same answer.

035% of SE from fusion of the neutron-decay product, H.


It all comes from that via fusion.

100% of observed solar neutrinos are produced by above Rx.


That is your opinion and not that of actual physicists.

100% of solar-wind H is the neutron-decay product.


That is pure fantasy. The fusion takes place in the core.

000% of solar neutrinos oscillate away before being detected.


The evidence is against that.

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98.


Let us know when you convince someone that YOUR research outweighs actual physics.

2. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201


I have already read YOUR papers. They prove nothing since there is NO reason to believe there are massive numbers of neutrons unaccompanied by protons in the Sun. That is, FUSION explains things without resorting to a fantasy NEUTRON STAR in the middle of a real one.

SINCE YOU THINK CAPS PROVES YOUR POINT LETS SEE YOU EXPLAIN THE MASS PROBLEM? THE MINIMUM MASS OF A NEUTRON STAR IS still 1.4 SOLAR MASSES.

You get that? You keep pretending it isn't in my replies. Ignoring it won't make it go away. The Sun would have to be AT LEAST 1.4 times more massive PLUS it would still need all those hydrogen atoms AND helium atoms for the photosphere, the raging magnetic storms, the huge flares and on and on.

Whereas all fusion needs is oscillation from neutrinos and the evidence favors that. Did you even read those links? I know that reality is inconvenient sometimes but it won't go away.

3. Overheads to paper presented at the V INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NON-ACCELERATOR NEW PHYSICS in Dubna,


Which is still YOU. How about something from an actual physicist? Something that shows ANY possibility that a neutron star makes up the core of ALL suns, much less our own.

Have you even begun to figure out where all those neutron stars came from? How so many could be a fraction of a real neutron star's mass(most suns are less massive than ours)? And you want to overturn all of physics on your say so based on isotope measurements that NO ONE IS DISAGREEING with because WE ALREADY HAD A PRETTY GOOD IDEA that the Solar System was seeded by a then recent super nova.

4. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1959-1962; Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11 (November 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt


Gosh I am so surprised. It's you again. Oliver, the guy that has no evidence for anything except that the Solar System has signs of a being affected by a super nova.

How about you actually read the sites I posted?

How about you, for once, actually address the mass problem? Instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.

How about you post something to support you from SOMEONE ELSE? You know, someone that ISN'T a student of your and does understand particle physics. That supports the neutron star idea as opposed to the idea that the Solar System was seeded with residue from a Super Nova which has been clear for decades. The work on the evolution of metals, in the astronomical sense, was done a long time ago by the late Sir Frederick Hoyle. Before he became a CRANK in his unending efforts to overturn the Big Bang.

Funny, I couldn't remember Fred's name so I looked up the first book I read of his because that I could remember. A for Andromeda. I didn't know that it had been made into a BBC series back before I read the book. Julie Christie was in it. Heck Geoffry Lewis was in it and he is American. Now he is into Scientology. Mary Morris who I only remember from an episode of the Prisoner.

Now I see that the book was based on the teleplay and Hoyle didn't actually write the book. Well I also read the Black Cloud and that one he did write.

Ethelred
earls
2 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2009
Why are you so angry?
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2009
Why are you so angry?


Who? Oliver? Me? I'm not angry. I don't know about Oliver except for those caps he used. Oliver thinks he has proved the Sun, actually ALL suns, are powered by neutron stars at their cores. I keep trying to get him to admit to reality.

This discussion has been going on for a while and Oliver keeps evading the truth. Even if neutrinos don't oscillate the idea that the Sun has a neutronium core is idiotic. The physics is blatantly wrong.

You want angry look at Oliver's activity rating. Barakn keeps giving him ones. He has his reasons and I mostly agree with him on it but I don't think they are appropriate here.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2009
PRAYER FOR SERENITY AND SANITY IN SCIENCE

Prayer for Serenity

"Grant me the serenity to accept WHAT IS.
Courage to challenge my own beliefs toward WHAT IS.
Wisdom to know that attitudes may distort my perception of WHAT IS,
But my attitude cannot really change WHAT IS."
- - - adapted from Reinhold Niebuhr

Usually when I am disturbed, it is because I find some fact of life unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept WHAT IS.

The minimum mass of a neutron star is the mass of a single neutron, one (1) atomic mass unit, because neutron repulsion causes heavier ones to dissociate. The di-neutron does not exist and all heavier assemblages of neutrons are unstable.


Repulsive interactions between neutrons is recorded in rest masses of all 3,000 known nuclei:

http://tinyurl.com/2otxps

We can accept that empirical fact, or we can refuse to accept it, but we cannot change WHAT IS.

Because of repulsive interactions between neutrons, neutron stars decay by:

a.) Violent fission that produces cosmic explosions, and

b.) "Evaporation" by neutron emission.

Likewise U-238 decays by:

a.) Violent fission events, and

b.) Alpha-decay, the release of a 4.2 MeV He-4 nucleus that cannot go over the ~30 MeV Coulomb barrier.

The opposing view of attractive n-n interactions is directly falsified by the 3,000 nuclear mass data points shown above.

The opposing view remains popular with those who ignore nuclear rest mass data, and it incorrectly concludes that neutron stars are dead nuclear embers, in which the binding energy of each neutron is about 93 MeV or about 10% of the rest mass of the neutron [H. Heiselberg, %u201CNeutron star masses, radii and equation of state%u201D, http://tinyurl.com/l7e6hk ] or

http://www.slac.s...lberg.ps

Meditation or contemplation sometimes helps.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2009
PHYSICS?

Why are you so angry?


1. Even if neutrinos don't oscillate the idea that the Sun has a neutronium core is idiotic.

2. The physics is blatantly wrong.

Ethelred


1. Oscillating solar neutrinos were "discovered" in 2001 to protect the illusion of the Sun as a ball of Hydrogen. But solar neutrinos do not oscillate. The ssm (standard solar model) of the Sun as a ball of Hydrogen is obsolete and wrong.

2. A list Ethelred's publications and training in physics would help readers appreciate her understanding of physics. Some of my publications and training in physics, nuclear and space studies are given below in my profile.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2009
[]qThe minimum mass of a neutron star is the mass of a single neutron, one (1) atomic mass unit, because neutron repulsion causes heavier ones to dissociate. The di-neutron does not exist and all heavier assemblages of neutrons are unstable.

The minimum mass of a neutron star has been shown to be 1.4 masses. It takes a lot of mass just to get degeneracy as in a white dwarf. More is needed to force the electrons into the protons to form neutronium.

Repulsive interactions between neutrons is recorded in rest masses of all 3,000 known nuclei:


We can accept that empirical fact, or we can refuse to accept it, but we cannot change WHAT IS.


You seem to be only person using this table of yours. However YES, a greater number of neutrons in an atom does mean there is more energy per atom. However neutron repulsion does NOT create energy any more than a spring does. Repulsion can only STORE energy. And that too is a fact. One you are avoiding.

Because of repulsive interactions between neutrons, neutron stars decay by:


Which has never been observed.

a.) Violent fission that produces cosmic explosions, and


Yes, well sort of, neutron stars do appear to have FUSION explosions.

b.) "Evaporation" by neutron emission.p


Where is the evidence? Neutron stars tend to not let things leave except by the aforementioned and still hypothetical fusion explosions.

a.) Violent fission events, and


Since when? Look I know you should really know this stuff but last I heard U238 does not fission. It undergoes alpha decay. Really slowly.

b.) Alpha-decay, the release of a 4.2 MeV He-4 nucleus that cannot go over the ~30 MeV Coulomb barrier


At rate that results in a half life of 4.5 billion years and does seem to contribute the heat produced by the Earth. However there simply isn't very much of it in the Universe and it ALL came from super novas. Super novas create metals heavier than iron but they aren't caused by metals except in that the FUSION forms iron uses a lot of energy and chills the star.

The opposing view of attractive n-n interactions is directly falsified by the 3,000 nuclear mass data points shown above.


True or false it doesn't produce energy. Throwing 3,000 pieces of irrelevancies at the side of the barn won't make it stick.

TThe opposing view remains popular with those who ignore nuclear rest mass data, and it incorrectly concludes that neutron stars are dead nuclear embers, in which the binding energy of each neutron is about 93 MeV or about 10% of the rest mass of the neutron [H. Heiselberg, %u201CNeutron star masses, radii and equation of state%u201D,


Nothing incorrect about the view. A lot of kinetic energy was used up in the formation of the neutroneum but it is contained by the gravity field that the neutronium produces. So its trapped and releases of energy by the neutrons will simply be recaptured when the neutrons are recaptured by the billion gravity field. It takes an enormous amount of energy for anything besides light to escape a neutron star. The energy that went into the formation of the neutrons came FROM the kinetic energy of the collapse of the star. To get more energy out of it then was put in would be a violation of the principle of the conservation of energy.

Meditation or contemplation sometimes helps.


Yes sometimes. Sometimes it results in people seeing things that aren't there. You can't have energy without a source and the energy in those heavy nuclei or neutrons in a neutron star came from either FUSION or kinetic energy.

Plus the Sun is STILL lighter than 1.4 solar masses. And frankly I am not going to take your ideas over Chandresekhars. He did the math and you are trying to make it go away by waving a pdf that doesn't address the issue of the mass of neutron star or where the energy came from.

You don't get massive nuclei by magic. Energy is needed and a lot of it to get anything heavier than iron and iron is stable with no way to get energy out of it. Well you could BURN it but that takes a lot of oxygen and iron oxide just doesn't weigh all that much less than one iron and three oxygens do separately. It is not exactly going to keep a star running for billions of years.

1. Oscillating solar neutrinos were "discovered" in 2001 to protect the illusion of the Sun as a ball of Hydrogen. But solar neutrinos do not oscillate. The ssm (standard solar model) of the Sun as a ball of Hydrogen is obsolete and wrong.


Actually it has been thought possible for much longer that neutrinos have mass and might oscillate. I remember SN1987a for instance. The neutrino burst came late enough to show that they most likely had mass. Since they DO seem to oscillate there is no problem with the standard model and the energies involved made sense enough that a lot people became pretty certain that the solar neutrino problem was simply a matter of us not knowing enough about neutrinos. We now have evidence, strong but not completely certain that they change flavors.

2. A list Ethelred's publications and training in physics would help readers appreciate her understanding of physics.


Look up Ethelred. Your understanding of history needs improvement. Its amazing the way people that are pissed off at me assume Ethelred is somehow a woman's name. Usually a degree of explicitly obvious sexism is involved and its reasonable to assume its there even when not explicit as even Oliver is not old enough to know many people named ethel and NO ONE is old enough to know anyone named Ethelred. I know ONE person named Ethel. She is a relative and last time I saw her even she didn't care for the name.

By the way, its not me that has to prove things. You are the one that NO ONE agrees with. You are the one denying the work of:

Sir Frederick Hoyle
S. Chandresekahar
Hans Bethe
Dozens if not hundreds of others working on solar and neutrino physics.

And to oppose all the that you just simply say NO like some two year old. You have not produced a shred of evidence to support your claim that neutrinos do not oscillate. 'Just say no' sounded pretty stupid from Nancy Reagan. It doesn't work any better in your hands even if you are smarter than her. Which I will assume is true as a lack of brains is not your problem. An unwillingness to go on the work of others isn't necessarily bad either but not when the energies and masses involved make no sense and you do nothing to fix the problems, that is not a sign that you are right.

Trying to bully me won't fix the problems with your hypothesis either. Go do the math and show the others working on this are wrong. Their work fits the evidence. Your has to deny an awful lot and you have done nothing to show them wrong.

Its not like there is just one piece of evidence that neutrinos change flavors. There is math and several experiments plus the neutrino problem has been the ONLY known problem with the work done on how the Sun functions. The evidence and science done on this has come from multiple directions and many people. If you want to overturn all that YOU will have to do one heck of a lot of convincing. So far you are pretty much at zero in your level of success at convincing anyone.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2009
WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2009
WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS?


Did you look up Ethelred?

Did you read ANY of those links I have posted. I read yours. I saw nothing that convinced me of anything I wasn't already convinced of.

There is energy in massive nuclei. The Solar System was seeded by a super nova. That is all you have evidence for. Your conclusions do not follow from the evidence. Indeed they deny evidence left, right, up, down and sideways.

Still bullying instead of giving evidence that goes beyond what you have already posted and that hasn't convinced any of your peers.

When you can answer my questions you won't need anything from me. You will be able to convince people. I don't think it can be done but maybe you have some evidence that you are keeping secret or simply have yet to notice is critical to your hypothesis.

My questions are reasonable. I make no claims as to expertise in this but you seem unwilling to deal with them. Its not like I came looking for you. You are spamming the site to a degree unmatched except by cranks like Dr. Mong and Neil Farbstein.

I don't care about your credentials. I care about evidence and reason. That is all you should care about.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2009
Gosh that was a quick return from your most recent banning.

Ethelred

omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2009
MESSAGE FOR ANONYMOUS ETHEL

I don't care about your credentials. I care about evidence and reason. Ethelred


Okay, Ethel, let's hear your reasoning on these nuclear rest mass data for the 3,000 types of atoms that comprise the entire visible universe:

http://tinyurl.com/2otxps

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

maquih
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
I'm all for conspiracy theories generalluy, (I believe the CIA introduced crack into America, that JFK was killed by the mafia, and that Jesus was never a real person...)

But even I can't deny neutrino oscillation. First of all, it was predicted by Pontecorvo et al. in the 1950s and secondly, numerous experiments have confirmed it. From Kamiokande, KamLAND, MINOS, etc. there's a lot of empirical evidence that neutrino oscillation works.

Secondly, I looked through two of your papers, the one on CNO in the sun and the other one called an Iron rich sun...

It is well known that the sun contains heavier elements at its core, this is no new discovery, but the main contention you make, is that the amount of hydrogen and helium is less than this metal rich core, that does seem crazy to me.

You talk about neon having a lighter atomic weight, I don't understand how you can translate a particular noble gases property to all metals... So I don't buy your "correction of mass fractionization"

Also, you say there is energy coming from these metals, but this defies several physical principles...
Why wouldn't the star first burn all of it's hydrogen before beginning to burn its metals? If metals are being fused, then all the hydrogen should have been fused already, yet as you acknowledge in your paper, there is a constant stream of H atoms being emitted from the sun that indicates that there is a lot of hydrogen left...
_Andy_
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
I'd have to say that Ethelred isn't looking like the Unready here.
TLO
5 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2009
This isn't science it is sales and marketing, quite trying to sell me Oliver. If you want anyone to beleive what you are saying have it verified by a third party.
earls
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2009
I sincerely think that people should look closer at O. Manuel's credentials and with a rational and open mind consider exactly what he's saying, and the picture that his theory paints.

He may come off as obnoxiously overzealous, but you would be too given the implications of the theory, the current evidence available, and the possible experiments to provide validation.

Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
Okay, Ethel, let's hear your reasoning on these nuclear rest mass data for the 3,000 types of atoms that comprise the entire visible universe:


There is no Ethel only Zool.

I gave it already but here it is again, expanded.

The rest mass, in its own, means nothing. Its the energy available. Most nucleons are stable at anything close to standard temperature and pressure. Yes, the Sun is not standard BUT most nucleons still are stable even there. Only a few are capable of fusion, hydrogen and deuterium are pretty much it until the pressure gets much higher. There may be some fusion by carbon catalysis involved as well. Fission is limited to elements much heavier than iron and even that is in short supply in the solar system contrary to your claims.

Where the heck is the energy supposed to come from besides fusion? Iron just isn't going to it as it takes more energy to crack it that it can produce. The only way to get energy from iron is chemical or kinetic and in the Sun its pretty much at the bottom of the kinetic well already. The neutrons in iron were put there by fusion and that fusion used up the available energy. Iron is as stable as it gets. The formation of iron by fusion is endothermic and the loss of heat in the fusion process is what initiates the gravitational collapse of large suns.

How the heck are you getting energy out of stable nuclei? How can you get it out of a neutron star? The repulsion of the neutrons, via the strong force, is the only thing that stops a neutron star from falling farther into itself to form a black hole. The repulsion is doing nothing but holding the particles up.

Just claiming you can magically get significant energy from neutron repulsion doesn't fit any known physics. You have yet to show where the energy is coming from. Again repulsion is nothing but a spring under compression and energy had to be put into the system in the first place. Where did THAT energy come from?

I asked that already. You simply ignored it.

Fusion works because hydrogen nuclei aren't completely stable at those pressures and temperatures. They can become more stable by fusing to form helium. At that point there is LESS energy available in the helium nucleus than there was in the four hydrogen nuclei to start with. At each stage of the fusion cascade, till iron, energy is released and stability is increased.

This is how ALL exothermic reactions take place. It doesn't matter if it is chemical or nuclear there is an increase in stability while energy is released. To go the other way energy has to be put back in which is a low probability event. By the time you get to iron there simply is no more available energy to give up.

UNLESS you can show some of sort of pure mass conversion. Where the ANY mass is converted to energy and the only way I have heard of, so far, is with a black hole and Hawking Radiation. The rest of the time the energy comes from an increase in stability.

That table has no meaning unless you can show how the energy is released.

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

ARE STEVEN HAWKINGS AND ETHEL RED THE SAME PERSON?


Yes he moved to California and became a little younger. He also learned to walk again. The doctors are as amazed as the Anonymous Spammer. He and Murry Gell-Man are now working on the Alpha-Bethe-Gamow-Dirac theory under the oak trees in Pasadena. In their spare time they are singing Pico and Sepulveda.

However I haven't met any one named or even called ETHEL RED. Ethelred is one word and while I don't know what the ethel part means, REDE is advice, council or rule. All things the best known Ethelred is thought to have been rather bad at. I kinda forgot about the Unready One when I used the name for a character a long time ago. I just needed something that SOUNDED like it could be a relative of someone with the name of Eusebius.

Its an online handle. It has no meaning in and of itself. I have been using for nearly a decade on at least seven different sites so far. I have never seen anyone else using it so it has the advantage of meaning ME and no one else so it isn't exactly anonymous. It also has the advantage that it brings sexist ignoramuses out of hiding.

Strange message, RT.


It is a SPAMMER. Thats the third handle so far in about a month or so. It only posts one or at most two sentences and a link to one or another anonymization service in every post. They all seem to start with

WOW or AMAZING, sometimes INTERESTING is in there. The link is the only thing of import to the spammer. Been banned twice so far. If people keep FLAGGING it will go away till it rises from the SPAM tin again with a new name and exactly the same interest in discussing things. None at all.

From the second link(which contains the same diagram as the first link):

1. The Sun is mostly IRON, not HYDROGEN.


Which is stable but lets pretend for a moment. Where did it come from? The only known way to get iron is fusion.

1. Hydrogen is a trace element inside the Sun, although this lightest of all elements comprises 91% of atoms in the photosphere. The most abundant elements inside the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg.


False. The most abundant element in the Universe AND the Sun is hydrogen. Helium is number two. In all the Universe its hydrogen and helium and traces. If you want to claim iron you have show where it came from and a Super Nova won't cut it when you insist that ALL suns have an iron or neutron core. This obviates fusion as the source of iron and thus that means that you don't have a source.

The most abundant elements inside the Sun turn out to be Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - the elements that are also most abundant in ordinary meteorites!


Which don't have the mass needed to retain hydrogen or helium which are by far the most abundant atoms in the gas clouds that stars come from.

The probability (P) that these three measurements fortuitously (by meaningless chance) agree on the dominant abundance of these same seven elements is zero (0),


Which is means nothing since it isn't by chance. It is because they don't have mass to retain gasses like HYDROGEN and HELIUM.

And that is enough for something from another site.

2. The implications of repulsive neutron interactions for the validity of the Big Bang concept:


It has little to do with the Big Bang as that usually goes back to Quark Soup before the existence of neutrons. Unless you can show that the Big Bang did not happen you have to deal with 70 percent hydrogen and 30 percent helium with a touch of lithium producing suns without iron or metals of any kind besides that fraction of a percent of lithium.

"On the other hand if the universe is infinite, then it probably oscillates between:


Why would an infinite universe oscillate?

a.) The expansion that is observed currently as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and


Or perhaps it was there from the start as all the evidence presently available implies.

b.) A subsequent contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant."


There is no evidence that neutron stars evaporate. And I don't see how gravity can become dominant in an infinite universe as everything would be pulled in every direction equally. An oscillating universe MUST be finite. Though it might still be expanding since there is no actual limit to an infinite universe.

And remember "To infinity and beyond" only sounds stupid if you aren't aware that there higher orders of infinity.

Oliver, you just don't have any evidence of neutron repulsion releasing enough energy nor do you have a source for the neutrons except from a super nova which had to have a source for the neutrons that powered the star that went super nova that had to have a source for the neutron ---- how many times should I go around on this before the circularity becomes excessive. It was enough for me already when I pointed it out earlier here.

Then there is the way you only use the inner planets and asteroids that hit the Earth as your source for your claims of the abundance of iron. Would you care to have a look at the one planet has more mass than all the rest put together? It seems to be mostly hydrogen and helium. You know, that little planet with the big red spot. You ignored it and everything out past it. Like the entire universe for instance.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2009
I sincerely think that people should look closer at O. Manuel's credentials and with a rational and open mind consider exactly what he's saying, and the picture that his theory paints.



He may come off as obnoxiously overzealous, but you would be too given the implications of the theory, the current evidence available, and the possible experiments to provide validation.





Thank you for your kindness, Earls.

I regret that I have been unable to communicate with Ethelred. Perhaps it would help if she could understand that my journey began in 1960 when I decided to rewrite the Biblical story of Genesis from a scientific perspective.

The origin of the Earth was my focus. I was not interested in the Sun, which I assumed astronomers had correctly described as a ball of hydrogen, nor in the broader field of cosmology, which I viewed as mostly wild speculation.

Perhaps the information is communicated more clearly, with less ego conflicts, in the last three pages of this Naked Science Forum:

Page 7: http://tinyurl.com/mrpgbg

Page 8: http://tinyurl.com/mlqhuy

Page 9: http://tinyurl.com/lkj7zw

Whether or not we succeed in communicating with Ethelred, I deeply appreciate your efforts.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2009
EARTH'S GENESIS => SUN'S ORIGIN AND COMPOSITION => SOLAR ENERGY => NUCLEAR REST MASSES => REPULSIVE FORCES BETWEEN NEUTRONS

Can Ethelred appreciate that experimental data led me down this path:

a.) Earth and all material orbiting the Sun were kicked out of it 5 Gyr ago.

b.) The Sun is an Iron-rich supernova remnant that shines.

c.) Iron is ash, a waste product, not fuel for stellar furnaces.

d.) Some source of nuclear energy had been overlooked.

e.) Repulsive forces between neutrons triggers a series of nuclear reactions that produced solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar-wind H in exactly the proportions observed:

e-1) Neutron emission from the solar core
. . . . Generates 60% of solar luminosity
. . . . < n > => n and ~ 12 MeV

e-2) Neutron decay
. . . . Generates ~5% of solar luminosity
. . . . n => Proton and Electron and ~ 1MeV

e-3) Fusion and upward migration of protons
. . . . Generates ~35% of solar luminosity and 100% of solar neutrinos
. . . . 1 Proton and 0.5 Electron => 0.25 He-4 and ~7 MeV

e-4) Escape of excess H (a neutron decay product) in the solar wind
. . . . Generates 100% of solar wind Hydrogen
. . . . 3 x 10^43 H => Departs in solar wind each year



Perhaps this 31 July 2009 Physics World news story about the Earth's formation will help Ethelred grasp one turning point in this journey:

http://tinyurl.com/lyvjyc

Oliver K. Manuel


K_Sohail
4 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2009
Sincere its really nice to see two knowledgeable people are trying to convince. as my point of view its not bad thing as we don't know universe enough we only know less than %5 of universe we should appreciate different theories people should come up with different theories.
Etherled there is no need to be get angry keep posting with your point of views and theories its like a two genius people trying to prove and people like me with not much knowledge can learn so much. I am very happy to be here. Thanks
Regards,
Sohail
earls
not rated yet Aug 01, 2009
Props to yyz for reading all of that.
barakn
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2009
Who is this Steven Hawkings that people keep talking about?
Mercury_01
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2009
Stars are powered by the vacuum.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2009
EARTH'S GENESIS => SUN'S ORIGIN AND COMPOSITION => SOLAR ENERGY => NUCLEAR REST MASSES => REPULSIVE FORCES BETWEEN NEUTRONS


Can Ethelred appreciate that experimental data led me down this path:


Can Oliver EVER answer a clearly expressed question? Can he ever answer rather than repeat himself with the same stuff that is being questioned?

Let us see.

a.) Earth and all material orbiting the Sun were kicked out of it 5 Gyr ago.


Poorly written. That is its ambiguous. The best I can figure is that you think the Sun PRODUCED the matter the Earth formed from. Handwaving of the worst sort if this a correct interpretation of the ambiguous sentence. It doesn't match the evidence we have from extra-solar planets and accretion discs.

------

After looking at posts Oliver made on Naked Science I see that he does indeed think the Earth is made of material from the Sun as he thinks it is the Sun itself that went supernova. Which is absolutely and totally completely unlike anything we can see in the galaxy today. Every where we see solar systems forming out of cold clouds of gas and dust.

b.) The Sun is an Iron-rich supernova remnant that shines.


No evidence to support this. Indeed since you have insisted that ALL SUNS are supernova remnants it is circular and in need of supernovas to create suns that create supernovas ad infinitum. Which I pointed out already and Oliver appears to have ignored the entire post. He is evading on the other threads and sites as well.

c.) Iron is ash, a waste product, not fuel for stellar furnaces.


I thought that myself but your writing in SOME posts say iron is the source of the neutrons and in other posts you claim a neutron star. I do tend to notice things like this when it goes on long enough. Then there is that FE SUN shirt you are wearing on your own site. Yes I do look at what you post.

d.) Some source of nuclear energy had been overlooked.


Possibly but I haven't seen any need for such a thing as the Sun models fit the evidence except if neutrinos don't oscillate and the evidence is that they do.

e.) Repulsive forces between neutrons triggers a series of nuclear reactions that produced solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar-wind H in exactly the proportions observed:


Would you care to show some evidence for both these forces and the energy? Say in accelerator experiments or pretty much anywhere. Expectation of an answer on this = zero based on Oliver's absolute refusal to answer any questions at all unless the answer can be used as another opportunity to repeat his hypothesis.

e-1) Neutron emission from the solar core
. . . . Generates 60% of solar luminosity
. . . . < n > => n and ~ 12 MeV


Third handwave so far in a single post. PRODUCE EVIDENCE Oliver. There is a reason that exactly zero physicists agree with you. You have no evidence for these reactions.

e-2) Neutron decay
. . . . Generates ~5% of solar luminosity
. . . . n => Proton and Electron and ~ 1MeV


Handwave number 4. There is no sign of such a thing in any observation by anyone at any time. Even you have made the usual zero effort to show that anyone even thought about producing evidence.

Are you sure you are not taking lessons from Creationists? You have the handwaving down pat. The evasions ditto. The fixation on the name Ethelred is a strong parallel as well.

e-4) Escape of excess H (a neutron decay product) in the solar wind
. . . . Generates 100% of solar wind Hydrogen
. . . . 3 x 10^43 H => Departs in solar wind each year


And we have handwave number five. All posted before and all questioned before and NOT ONE SINGLE TIME has Oliver ever answered a single question. His response is either to evade or to repeat himself by reposting the things that are being questioned.

Perhaps this 31 July 2009 Physics World news story about the Earth's formation will help Ethelred grasp one turning point in this journey:


So far it is a journey into fantasy land. And yet another post that is a total evasion of every question. Another post with not one sign, except this time he didn't fixate on 'ethel red', that he actually read my post except to note that I didn't suddenly convert to his religion.

From the link:
Scientists are beginning to understand the extent to which the evolution of our planet has been shaped by collisions, bombardments and catastrophes. John Baez tells the violent history of a pale-blue dot


That was written long after you came up with this idea of the a neutron star in the sun Oliver. On top of which it has nothing to support you in any way.

And it gets the physics joke wrong, for shame:

but if you know the joke to which the punchline is %u201Cconsider a spherical cow%u201D,


Its SPHERICAL CHICKEN. Cow makes no sense. As in:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Well for a first approximation we must assume a spherical chicken of uniform density.

The actual question is never used it is implied by the answer. At least any time I have seen it prior my now abusing the standard.

How could they use COW? I am so embarrassed for them.

Interestingly not only does the site fail to have anything to support Oliver it has a standard accretion from a cloud origin and does not claim that the Earth was produced by particles ejected from the Sun.

Oh I see. After the article itself is another of Oliver's self promotions.

One of the more amazing aspects of Earth's formation was its heterogeneous accretion in layers, beginning with the formation of its core from iron meteorites that were abundant in the inner region closest to the Sun.


What is amazing about that? Besides it may or may not be correct.

Oliver this was a standard post by you. You said nothing new. You ignored my post completely. You just repeated yourself and evaded all questions.

Just go back to my post and deal with it. You are evading on all fronts.

When questioned you ignore as long as you can by repeating yourself. When the questions are repeated because they weren't answered you start demanding credentials. When the credentials are produced or denied you start talking about things that you have done that have no relation to the questions asked. Indeed at every point, except for increasing anger, you act as if no questions where asked at all unless you can use the questions as a springboard to repeat yourself yet again.

RESPOND or just admit that you can't answer a single question that I have asked.

Repeating yourself yet again is not a valid response.

Ignoring the valid questions is not a valid response.

Demanding credentials is not a response of any kind.

Posting irrelevancies about working for NASA is not a response.

Just for once in your post retirement life actually read what someone writes and make a reasoned response that covers something the other person says. I am not the only person you have evaded. You posted links showing you doing the same exact things to the geologist on Naked Science. Who apparently is still reading your stuff or just can't be bothered.

Would you pretty please actually deal with my previous reply.

Yours from the land of those tired of getting the run around

Ethelred
Baseline
2 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2009
It takes courage to challenge the establishment. It takes evidence and conviction to win acceptance.

Many "Giants" in scientific discovery were ridiculed when their theories were first introduced and few were accepted outright until the evidence proved them correct.

We are no where near the point where we can conclude that we fully understand the universe, its origins or even how any of it actually works. The more we continue to learn the greater our understanding will be and what we think we know today will not be the same as what we know in our future.

There is real merit in Oliver's work but it will take an open mind to appreciate it. I am not suggesting that anyone who would reject his conclusions is closed mined. I am suggesting that thinking we already have the answers is a mistake we have made as a species for thousands of years.

It seems it is in our nature to become close minded to other possibilities once we have convinced ourselves that we are right about what we believe.

So it would seem that this would be the point in the discussion where we should point out that sometimes we even invent exotic solutions to protect our conclusions rather than admit they may be wrong.

I do not know which conclusion is correct, but I believe that in time we will learn and until then I am open to them all.

Please continue the discussion but lets leave the emotional stuff out of it as I feel that it would prove to be much more productive. A reasoned debate by reasonable individuals is certainly welcome.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2009
Etherled there is no need to be get angry


I totally agree. Oliver should stop doing that.

Really as I already pointed out I am not angry. I am barely even annoyed since Oliver has evaded all my questions in several previous threads already so I expected these non-responses. I am simply trying to see if anything can get him to stop the evasions.

And to point out that Ethelred is not what he thinks.

Just for the heck of it, last night after posting the reply that Oliver ignored I did something I suggested. I did a search on Ethelred.

After trying to block out the historical Ethelred I did manage to find a surprising number of people with the name. Well there are billions of people in the world. The really annoying thing though is that I only found a few in the first 40 or 50 results that were me BUT I did find that some psychopath is using the same name. I know he is a psycho because he has over 1,000 posts on Stormfront. If you don't know, Stormfront is a sick psychotic racist genocidal place where human excrement brag about being Nazi filth. And they would be thrilled by my saying so. Almost makes me want to change my handle but I used it first.

keep posting with your point of views and theories its like a two genius people


I am not sure if either of us are geniuses. I sure haven't shown any signs in my real life. Oliver has a degree I would like to have earned, but I suck at math. I am much more solid on evolution. Here I have to look up things all the time. Reading the Wikis on neutrinos to be sure I wasn't full of crap was not easy. The discussion page was harder yet but it was interesting.

Its the hunt for learning that is interesting for me. That and my attempts to amuse myself by making jokes that people fail to get.

Oh try hitting the ENTER key twice to seperate paragraphs. White space can make things easier to read.

Ethelred
yyz
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2009
Props to earls for following along, too! What a spirited discourse (and a few new links) on this thread. Baseline points out the need to keep an open mind when it comes new theories and hypotheses. Agreed. He also points out that it takes evidence and conviction to win acceptance. OKM sure has one of these qualities :) I wonder what evidence Dr. Manuel would find acceptable that would falsify his theories?

Another question: If all stars contain supernova remnants and supernova remnants are produced by stars, what objects were formed first? This seems like a chicken-or-egg type of conundrum.

An observation: Above, Dr. Manuel stated "Oscillating solar neutrinos were "discovered" in 2001 to protect the illusion of the Sun as a ball of Hydrogen." This sounds conspiratorial to me. What purpose would astrophysicists have to falsify this result (and please, no BS about wanting to keep their research funded)? What happened to "keeping an open mind"?

Ethelred has some interesting questions that seem to go unanswered. Some third party citations would go a long way in establishing credibility here. I've seen this dance with Dr. Manuel on various threads here before (I've done this dance myself on other threads). But what I haven't seen discussed is my first query: What evidence would Dr. Manuel find acceptable that would falsify his theories? They are falsifiable, aren't they?
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2009
THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

Oliver has a degree I would like to have earned, but I suck at math.

Ethelred


Thanks, Ethelred, for explaining the reason for our communication problem:

You excel in verbal - and I excel in quantitative - skills.

I should have asked you to view this video recording of a solar flare event made with the TRACE satellite: [url]http://tinyurl.com/mz5onp[/url]

Instead I mistakenly thought you would be impressed that Dr. Sabu and I were able to decipher a coherent history of the evolution of Earth's atmosphere from quantitative data collected in numerous laboratories around the globe on . . .

a.) Primordial He and Ne,
b.) Radiogenic Ar-40 and Xe-129 (from K-40 and extinct I-129), and
c.) Fissiogenic Xe-136 (from U-238 and extinct Pu-244)

. . . in air and in the Earth's mantle [O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, "The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets," Geochemical Journal 15 (1981) 245-267].

http://tinyurl.com/2k8ds3

Thanks for identifying the problem.

Please share your opinion of the video recording of a solar flare event made with the TRACE satellite: [url]http://tinyurl.com/mz5onp[/url]

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
acarrilho
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2009
Nice quote mining there, Oliver. Almost made me forget everything he wrote in the last couple of posts.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2009
THE CENTRAL PROBLEM

Nice quote mining there, Oliver.


Why repeat Ethelred's entire message?

I quoted the part that explains why Ethelred and I have failed to communicate.

I hope PhysOrg readers were able to watch the TRACE video recording of a solar flare coming from rigid iron-rich structures beneath the Sun's fluid atmosphere of H and He: http://tinyurl.com/mz5onp or

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com


yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2009
Once again, Dr. Manuel: What evidence would you find acceptable that would falsify your theories? They are falsifiable, aren't they?

On a related topic, recently (Aug 3rd) an article was posted at the arXiv site titled "High Energy Neutrinos from Dark Matter Particle Self-Capture Within the Sun" proposing a new method of production of some high energy neutrinos within the core of the sun. The authors point out that this scenario does not rule out neutrino oscillations taking place wrt solar neutrinos. The paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/...48v2.pdf .

Wrt the TRACE solar flare movie, do you have a link to the PIs' peer-reviewed, published paper that explicitly mentions a 'rigid iron-rich structure beneath the Sun's fluid atmosphere of H and He'? Is this a direct quote from the original published paper or just your interpretation of this movie (which you refer to frequently)?
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2009
IF YOU CAN IGNORE THE VIDEO RECORDING . . .

that the TRACE spacecraft made of a solar flare coming from rigid iron-rich structures beneath the Sun's fluid atmosphere of lightweight elements (H and He), then nothing is going to change your belief that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.

You control your response to WHAT IS, but you cannot change WHAT IS.

If you check my research profile, you will find at least a couple of peer-reviewed papers that discuss the TRACE spacecraft video recording of a solar flare coming from rigid, mountainous, iron-rich structures in the Sun.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
http://myprofile....anuelo09
earls
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2009
I thought this criticism was pretty straight forward. The video is inconclusive.
omatumr
2 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2009
THE REST OF THE STORY

It takes courage to challenge the establishment.

I do not know which conclusion is correct, but I believe that in time we will learn and until then I am open to them all.

A reasoned debate by reasonable individuals is certainly welcome.


Thanks, Baseline.

A reasoned debate is in these pages of this Naked Science Forum:

Page 7: http://tinyurl.com/mrpgbg

Page 8: http://tinyurl.com/mlqhuy

Page 9: http://tinyurl.com/lkj7zw

Again, thanks for your kindness.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2009
Thanks, Ethelred, for explaining the reason for our communication problem:


Yeah I figured you would pretend like that. You refuse to communicate except to repeat yourself with stuff only you think has meaning. The communication problem is entirely yours.

You have USED LITTLE OR NO MATH.

You excel in verbal - and I excel in quantitative - skills.


No you don't or you wouldn't have ideas that refuse to deal with the mass of the sun not fitting your needs. You just stonewall. Roger Penrose excels at math. He makes my brain hurt. Heck he makes physicists brains hurt. You just make me yawn with boredom from the predictable repetition.

should have asked you to view this video recording of a solar flare event made with the TRACE satellite


You should reply to my previous post. That is all you need do. Flares only prove the Sun is active. If there is something significant in that video you have not mentioned it. It appears to be an example of a well known phenomena with nothing special to distinguish it or support you in any way. There is nothing in it to magically make evidence of either a neutron or iron core appear. Even your co-authors on your papers have not stepped forward to support you on this.

Instead I mistakenly thought you would be impressed that Dr. Sabu and I were able to decipher a coherent history of the evolution of Earth's atmosphere from quantitative data collected in numerous laboratories around the globe on . . .


Except that you did no such thing. Perhaps you meant to. If you don't say what is pertinent in a link people have to guess. Looking back at the link, again I still have to guess, I still don't see anything to support that remark.

Lets what the paper has. Do try to tell people in the future, just what the hell you are trying to get them to look at. Making people guess may make you feel more in control but it is piss poor communication at best. How did you manage to teach anyone with this sort of behavior?

One of the more amazing aspects of Earth's formation was its heterogeneous accretion in layers, beginning with the formation of its core from iron meteorites that were abundant in the inner region closest to the Sun.


This is a wild assed guess as NO ONE knows what was there. Carbonaceous meteors make up the majority of the asteroids and could have done so in the past. Also the Earth very easily may have warmed to the melting point of iron allowing the denser materials to move in towards the core. Indeed that is the standard model for the Earth. Considering the higher percentage of radioactive material that was around in the early solar system this seems very likely to most.

This scenario was later confirmed by the distribution of primordial He and Ne, radiogenic Ar-40 and Xe-129 (from the decay of K-40 and extinct I-129), and fissiogenic Xe-136 (from the decay of U-238 and extinct Pu-244) in air and in the Earth's mantle [M. S. Boulos and O. K. Manuel, "The xenon record of extinct radioactivities in the Earth," Science 174 (1971) 1334-1336; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, "


All of which is stuff we agree on to some extent. I am not aware of anyone that has looked at the early Earth these days that isn't aware the a then recent super nova was involved in the Earths origin. There is absolutely no surprise here after all this time. I congratulated you on the work in a previous thread but it simply does nothing support the neutron/iron sun concept over the standard models.

Please take a look at the Orion Nebula. There are a number of future super nova candidates in that stellar nursery. There is every reason to believe that a super nova will occur before the solar systems that are presently accreting have finished the early stages of the formation of planets. This will likely blow out much of the remaining gas and dust in those systems and replace it with material from the future supernovas thus seeding the planets with a fresh dose of radioactive isotopes.

Thanks for identifying the problem.


Thank you for falsifying an answer from a post I knew would likely elicit such an excuse for continued evasion. Unthank you for refusing to answer any relevant questions.

Do you really expect to get away with this crap? I mean without just dodging out an lying about my ability to comprehend things that I clearly comprehend.

Please share your opinion of the video recording of a solar flare event made with the TRACE satellite:


Its a solar flare. It has nothing to support you. Solar flares make sense to me and every one else except you in the Standard model of the Sun. What is supposed to be significant in a magnetic event that fits any reasonable model of a highly churned plasma?

but the He and Ne are of solar wind origin.


I don't know about Neon but Helium is produced by U238 for one. At present a lot of it is lost to the atmosphere from the natural gas that is treated as waste in Saudi Arabia since they have no way to ship it to market. There are natural gas flares all over the peninsula and unless they have recently begun to filter out the helium for storage it is still being exhausted to the atmosphere.

As I look at the paper I see you acting as if it some sort new thing that there would be helium and neon in the out beyond Mars to a greater extent than closer in. Why do you think this supports your iron/neutron sun nonsense? I see it as inherent in the temperatures involved and the masses of the planets. At least for helium. The Earth can't retain it so I don't see why you think it should be in the inner solar system at all, except from the solar wind where it is to expected in the standard solar models.

So if there is something there to support you please be specific. Quote the relevant parts so I and other can get some idea of what you think is support for the iron/neutron star idea.

Oh, maybe you might make clear whether its iron or neutron. You keep saying one or the other but never make it clear just which you think EXCEPT in any particular post where it is ONE ONLY and then the in another where it is THE OTHER ONLY. Pick one as it can't be both. They are incompatible. If the sun has a neutron core it can't have an iron core and visa versa. You ambiguity on this implies a lack of clear thinking on your part.

Can the evasions and start communicating.

Quotes from other posts from Oliver to show his attempts at evasion and endemic refusal to communicate:

Perhaps the information is communicated more clearly, with less ego conflicts, in the last three pages of this Naked Science Forum:


Well its your ego that is stopping communication. I am asking for you to answer to questions. You are the one that is refusing. On that site only one poster was still willing to behave as if you were communicating in a dialog and he appeared to be do so for same reasons I don't point mention some of your behaviors. Its an attempt to avoid touching off another of your tantrums. Like the demand for credentials for instance. Its never a request its always a bullying demand.

DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST


Except that there is no dialogue. You haven't answered his questions either. Indeed you said earlier in that discussion that you would not have a dialog. Keep in mind that in a dialog BOTH people reply to each others questions and comment. I do it with you but you have steadfastly refused to reply to pretty much any requests for information from anyone no matter how many times asked. You simply repost the previous papers that don't actually support your claims that fusion is not the source of the Sun's power.

LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICS
You are the one who brought it up.


This came from Oliver puting in a rant about politics then he told others not to bring in politics. Not exactly a dialog is it? More of a one way street. Oliver pontificates and then get s annoyed if others respond in kind.

Here we see Oliver's idea of dialogue. Seems based on Galileo's Simplicio to me. He wants only Simplicios to deal with. Doesn't much like dealing with real questions.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW OR TO DEBATE?


See how Oliver responds to a debate. He demands that you let him engage in pure monologue. That is a debate to him. He tells you what he wants you to think and he calls it dialog.

Ophiolite:

If you want to understand, I will be happy to explain.

If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.


Oliver seems to think he was on The Naked Pontificator Forum, No questions need apply.

-----------------------------------
After a refresh of the page I see that Oliver has evaded yyz again.

IF YOU CAN IGNORE THE VIDEO RECORDING . . .


What is there to ignore? Its a flare. Nothing new.

that the TRACE spacecraft made of a solar flare coming from rigid iron-rich structures beneath the Sun's fluid atmosphere of lightweight elements (H and He), then nothing is going to change your belief that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.


What is there in that video that is supposed to show this? YYZ asked you that and, what a surprise, you just pretended that he didn't.

You control your response to WHAT IS, but you cannot change WHAT IS.


Absolutely true. Now why do you continue to try to pretend that the Sun is something it is not. The evidence is against you.

If you check my research profile, you will find at least a couple of peer-reviewed papers that discuss the TRACE spacecraft video recording of a solar flare coming from rigid, mountainous, iron-rich structures in the Sun.


So where are they? And where is evidence that anyone agreed with your interpretation? Simply getting the article past peer review does not in any way imply that the reviewers agreed with your unusual interpretation.

Please explain what, in that video, could possibly be construed or even misconstrued as evidence of a rigid iron sun. And what happened to the neutron star sun that you keep bringing up? It seems you keep switching on this.

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

Answer the questions in the prior post. Heck answer the questions in this post and it will be the first time you have dealt with anything that others have asked for.

Do not pretend that I didn't understand the math because you haven't used any. Plus, while I don't have a great deal of facility with math that does not mean I can't figure things OR use other sources that have figured it out. Do not delude yourself or others on this. Short of tensor calculus I can deal with most of the equations I see if I try hard enough. And you are not using tensors nor is there any need for them. As for statistics, I think that way already. Picked it up from game theory and information theory.

People are beginning to notice just who is refusing to deal with reality.

A monologue is not a dialog.

Quit evading.

Ethelred
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2009
My question was only WHAT IS the interpretation of these images by the people actually involved in this observation. Is this irrelevant or merely at odds with your interpretation of this video sequence ? And nothing but silence on my question concerning the the falsifyability of your theories. Are you saying that there are NO observations proposed or existing that might, just might, falsify your theory? Links you have provided concerning the TRACE images are written by you and your colleagues. Any independent peer-reviewed, published papers on these TRACE images (especially the PIs conclusions on this remarkable observation)?
earls
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2009
earls
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2009
Teachers must love you; nine pages double spaced.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2009
Earles:

Learn to read faster. That was concise. It covered three different posts by Oliver plus another web site and several papers. It could have been much longer.

And you might give a clue as to what you are talking about in the second post. If its my post Its 25 percent quotes from Oliver. And I have no teachers. I am long past that. I am 58.

I suppose I could have just said.

Oliver, quit evading and answer the questions.

But that wouldn't cover any of the new stuff.

He may have quit the thread. He does that when it reaches this point. He simply will not accept a true dialog. I have some lovely stuff that barakn pointed out, in a previous thread that few read, for when he disappears permanently but I don't think it is appropriate to an ongoing discussion.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2009
THANKS TO ALL !

Thanks to all of you for participating in this discussion.

Bitterness and animosity block communications, and I regret my part in expressing or generating those responses.

I will be 73 years old in a couple of months, I am approaching the end of life, and it is now time for me to start writing about the 50 year anniversary of the start of my effort to rewrite the Biblical story of Genesis from a scientific point of view in 1960 when I was an angry 23 year old graduate student who had rejected all religious teachings as self-serving nonsense [See: "My Journey to the Core of the Sun, in preparation].

This has been an exciting adventure.

I could not have imagined in 1960 that my effort to understand the origin of the Earth would involve measurements with high school, undergraduate, and graduate students of the half life of Te-128, the mass separation of elements and isotopes in the Sun, the "strange" isotope ratios in Jupiter, and repulsive interactions between neutrons in all known nuclei

Here are a few links that convey bits and pieces of the journey:

http://tinyurl.com/mw7mhu

http://tinyurl.com/maz8c7

http://tinyurl.com/n6pvj5

http://tinyurl.com/2xuc6o

http://tinyurl.com/ksg4re

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09




Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2009
THANKS TO ALL !

Thanks to all of you for participating in this discussion.


How about you actually participate instead of evade? This is exactly what I expected.

The end of learning is the real end of life. Of course a person can choose to begin to learn again. However learning to stonewall it not exactly the sort of learning that leads to personal improvement.

Ethelred
earls
2.5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2009
Kids today, I swear.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2009
THE SCIENTIFIC STORY OF GENESIS

The late nuclear geochemistry Professor (Paul) Kazuo Kuroda, convinced me to try to rewrite the Biblical story of Genesis from a scientific point of view in 1960 by showing me reports that the nuclear reactions that made our elements were still visible as the decay products of extinct iodine-129, extinct palladium-107, and extinct plutonium-244, and as poorly mixed isotopes of xenon (element #54) in meteorites and in the Earth.

These findings have all been confirmed - together with other records of violent element synthesis reactions that gave birth to the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) ago out of fresh, poorly-mixed supernova debris!

The late physics Professor John H. Reynolds developed the mass spectrometer and in 1962-1964 showed me how to operate it to discover other recordings of element synthesis in the supernova debris that orbits the Sun today.

These findings gave an unmistakable clue to the energetic, compact object at the core of the Sun [See: "My Journey to the Core of the Sun", in preparation].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2009
These findings have all been confirmed - together with other records of violent element synthesis reactions that gave birth to the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) ago out of fresh, poorly-mixed supernova debris!


Indeed, no on has argued that a super nova wasn't involved.

These findings gave an unmistakable clue to the energetic, compact object at the core of the Sun


A mistaken belief. That a super nova was involved does show that our sun was the super nova.

I note that, in other writings than on this thread, you have claimed the same thing for ALL suns. I pointed that out on this thread. If I have it wrong why haven't you said. If I have it right how do you handle the problem I pointed that it has no way to get the initial suns. One initial sun for each iron core.

Plus of course why do you think neutrons are involved with an iron core. Even you said that iron is nuclear ash. India has a huge stack of iron that is being used in a proton decay experiment. Surely if neutrons in iron decay they had at least one event by now.

These are two MAJOR issues and so far you have assiduously avoided addressing them no matter how often asked.

So again:

One

Where is the energy coming from with an iron core? It does happen by magic. Where is the evidence that neutrons in known, and admitted by you, stable nuclei decay? This is a very serious issue and you have steadfastly refused to address it. There is not a chance of you ever convincing anyone if you continue to evade this issue.

Two

If all suns have iron cores where the cores come from? If from a previous sun where did that sun come from? Another sun? Where did it come from? I asked several times and you simply ignored it.

You cannot reasonably expect anyone to agree with you as long as you continue to pretend that these issue do not exist. No one will care how came to the conclusions you have come to if they are wrong. You would be just one more physicist that turned into a crank at retirement.

Again, please answer the questions.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2009
Was that concise enough for yo Earls?

Its called second childhood. And I am not quite that old yet. I hope that continued effort at critical thinking combined with a willingness to think about new things will hold that off.

Oh and keeping my weight low. That seems to be a key.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2009
THE ANSWER: CHANGE ETHELRED => ETHELREAD

Again, please answer the questions.

Ethelred


ANSWERS:

1. These overhead were presented before a gathering that included some of the world's top nuclear physicists at the FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NON-ACCELERATOR NEW PHYSICS in Dubna, Russia on 20 June 2005:

http://tinyurl.com/2h8lpy or
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm" title="http://http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.omatum...eads.htm

2. The paper, "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", was subsequently reviewed by experts and published in two journals:

a.) English - Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856;
b.) Russian - Yadernaya Fizika 69, no 11, (Nov 2006)
PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

These documents and the references therein answer every question Ethelred raised.

All that's need now is a transformation of Ethelred => Ethelread!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2009
LINKS TO THE PAPER:

I forgot to include these links to the paper for Ethel to Read:

http://arxiv.org/.../0609509
http://arxiv.org/...609509v3

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2009
You posted those before. If they did not answer the questions then why do you think they do now? If there is some specific thing in them please point them out. I saw nothing before.

You post a link to your website every time. The PDF about the sun as a plasma diffuser frequently. The plasma diffuser claim does not answer the questions.

But unfortunatly for Oliver I went over that PDF yet again and came up with another question. We are now up to three not counting all the previous questions he has ignored.

However this part:
In 1960 Reynolds noted that mass fractionation might explain differences between Xe isotopic compositions in meteorites and in air [54]: %u201CThe xenon in meteorites may have been augmented by nuclear processes between the time it was separated from the xenon now on earth and the time the meteorites were formed%u201D, or %u201COn the other hand a strong mass-dependent fractionation may be responsible for most of the anomalies%u201D [p. 354].


That does fit quit well with the model I proposed the other day. A cold cloud collapses forming many solar systems with varying mass. Some of the suns only last a few million years. They go supernova while the other systems are still in the early stages of planetary formation. Thus salting the nascent systems with freshly made isotopes.

It fits the evidence we have. I suppose I am not the first to propose this. It would be pretty weird if I was as its pretty obvious now that we that we have the Orion images.

Then again I proposed that the so called junk in DNA was at least partly coding directly for RNA in 2001 and since then biologists have come to think that DNA is not all about proteins. So it is possible that I have it first.

I am not proposing that someone got the idea from me. I posted that in discussions with Creationists on a game site. I doubt that I effected anyone's thinking on it. Except the Creationist that decided not have anything to do with me ever again.

%u201CRunning difference%u201D images of the Sun with filters to enhance emissions from Fe (IX) and Fe (X) show a rigid, Fe-rich surface [14] beneath the Sun%u2019s fluid
photosphere of lightweight elements [15].


They do no such thing. Showing that there is some iron in the flare in no way shows rigidity. Please note that no one agrees with you on this except for maybe your co-author.

The video looked like a fairly standard imaging filter was used that causes things to look flat. Perhaps your filtering process inadvertently mimicked the emboss filter. It sure looks like an emboss filter.

The idea of a rigid structure in a plasma is pretty strange. Not merely counter intuitive but simply not possible. One might keep in mind that the sun does not have the density that would be required for you to be right.

As you say its important to go on the evidence. The evidence you need is a much more dense sun. You don't have it.

While looking at those images, Mozina [14] made a startling discovery: %u201CAfter downloading a number of these larger %u201CDIT%u201D (grey) files, including several "running difference" images, it became quite apparent that many of the finer details revealed in the raw EIT images are simply lost during the computer enhancement process that is used to create the more familiar EIT colorized images that are displayed on SOHO%u2019s website. That evening in April of 2005, all my beliefs about the sun changed.%u201D


So instead of having one kind of processing artifact he chose another. One that appears to mimic embossing.

Please keep in mind that if you replace hydrogen that is believed to be at the core and even the subsuface of the sun with a rigid iron mass you also increase the density of the sun to a major degree. One to one, required by volume of a gas laws, would increase the mass of the sun by a factor of 55. If its not a gas as you imply then the density would be even greater since the sun is not believed to have a degenerate core, which would require an even higher density.

This is like arguing with Creationists that never look at what their claims would need in order to be true. Oliver simply won't look at the what his hypothesis requires of the Universe.

Oh, that first link to the abstract was totally worthless. It say nothing that supports you and you wrote it. Why did you post something so irrelevant? Bad habits? How could you not know that there was nothing in there that had a thing to do with my questions?

By 1961 Fowler et al. [24] noted that the levels of short-lived radioactivity were higher than expected if an interstellar cloud formed the solar system. The discrepancy between isotope measurements and the nebular model for formation of the solar system increased dramatically after nucleogenetic isotopic anomalies [6-9] and the decay products of even shorter-lived nuclides were discovered in meteorites [16-21].


Only if you use a model from 1961. Get with the present Oliver. Go look at the Orion Nebula. I am not all that much younger than you so you too should be able to adapt to new information.

Combined Pu/Xe and U/Pb age dating showed that the Pu was produced !5 Gyr ago a supernova explosion [25]. Age dating with 26 l/26 Mg showed that some refractory meteorite grains started to form within ! 1-2 Myr after the explosion [26].


So far the oldest meteorite have dated to 4.6 billion years so 5 for the source seems reasonable. What is supposed to significant here?

The stable isotopes of molybdenum made by different stellar nuclear reactions e.g., 92 Mo from the p-process, 96Mo from the s-process, 100 Mo from the r-process)are not completely mixed, even in massive iron meteorites [48-50]!


We don't have access to to truly massive meteorites. Ceres is sorta out of our reach so far. Anything that came from a smaller source would not be expected to be fully uniform, even Ceres may not have stayed hot long enough for significant mixing. However it seems to me and others that iron meteorites came from bodies similar to Ceres that have been shattered by impact. Pretty much a requirement for the iron to become molten.

The Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova (Fig. 2) and consists mostly of elements (See right side, Fig. 7) produced in the SN interior %u2013 Fe, O, Ni, Si, and S [22]. This may seem extreme, but Hoyle [86] describes a meeting with Eddington in the spring of 1940, noting that at that time, %u201CWe both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, two parts iron to one part hydrogen, more or less%u201D, and he continues on the same page
%u201CThe high-iron solution continued to reign supreme (at any rate in the astronomical circles to which I was privy) until after the Second World War, . . .%u201D [ref. 86, p. 153].


Key words UNTIL AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR. So something after that caused Hoyle to disagree with Eddington. He sure didn't think it was that way later.

From these results it was concluded that repulsive interactions between neutrons are a powerful type of nuclear energy that may be released by neutron emission from neutron stars and other stars that form on them [12, 28, 88], including the Sun.


Something that has never been seen anywhere at any time. So most likely it is another case of failed spitwadding. Evidence is important Oliver, you keep repeating it yourself. Why do you ignore it?

The calculated amount of energy released in neutron-emission from a neutron star, ~10-22 MeV per nucleon, exceeds that from fusion or fission reactions. In fission, ~0.1% of the rest mass is released as energy. Fusion of H into He or Fe releases ~0.7% or ~0.8% of the rest mass as energy. Neutron-emission from a neutron star is estimated to release ~1.1% - 2.4% of the neutron%u2019s rest mass as energy [12, 28, 88]


Which should show up all over the world wherever there is a large concentration of iron. It doesn't. Evidence Oliver, you have to go on the evidence and not wild assed speculation.

Sorry Oliver even your own stuff agrees with me where there is evidence and has no evidence to support you where it doesn't.

The whole PDF and not one word of it had a thing to do with my questions. It was, as usual, your hypothesis that simply does not fit the evidence or the sun we actually have to deal with.

So I will add another question at the bottom.

Yet again you ignored the questions and reposted the usual spam.

Please answer the questions. At least give a representative paragraph to give us a clue as to WHERE in all the stuff you have posted many times there is something relevant to the questions which I will recopy here. Unlike you I am not going to pretend things are obvious.

Which reminds of a story that is irrelevant here. Just like the link to your first page.

One

Where is the energy coming from with an iron core? It does not happen by magic. Where is the evidence that neutrons in known, and admitted by you, stable nuclei decay? This is a very serious issue and you have steadfastly refused to address it. There is not a chance of you ever convincing anyone if you continue to evade this issue. Reposting the same table will not make evidence of decay appear so please don't bother reposting it again. Show evidence for the decay.

Two

If all suns have iron cores where do the cores come from? If from a previous sun where did that sun come from? Another sun? Where did it come from? I asked several times and you simply ignored it.

Three

If the Sun has so vastly more iron than anyone else thinks why does its density match standard theory instead of the far higher density your hypothesis would require.

So if you want to me REREAD all your stuff I could post even more questions. But at least give a clue what is supposed to be significant. I really don't want to have guess especially since you posted that PDF and it did not answer the questions despite your claim that it did.

Quit evading. Quit posting the same exact things that CLEARLY DO NOT ANSWER the questions.

Who reads slow but exceedingly well. Kind of like congress is claimed to. Unlike the way it has performed lately.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2009
IS ETHEL RED? HAS ETHEL READ?

I don't think so.

That's my opinion,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
earls
1.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2009
What are your thoughts on these solar problems, Ethelred?

The Sun is presently behaving unexpectedly in a number of ways.[113]

* It is in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008, predictions of an imminent rise in activity have been regularly made and as regularly confuted.

* It is measurably dimmer than is usual during a sunspot minimum.

* Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed has dropped 3%, its temperature 13%, and its density 20%.

* Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago. The entire heliosphere, which fills the solar system, has shrunk as a result, resulting in an increase in the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth and its atmosphere.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2009
IS ETHEL RED? HAS ETHEL READ?

I don't think so.


Anything to avoid answering the questions I see. I clearly read it, heck I copied and commented on much of it both now and in the past. There was nothing in there that even remotely dealt with my questions. If there was please POINT IT OUT as I read them and saw nothing. And I already requested that you point out with a sample just what the heck you think is in there that is relevant to the questions.

Answer please these questions three:

One

Where is the energy coming from with an iron core? It does not happen by magic. Where is the evidence that neutrons in known, and admitted by you, stable nuclei decay? This is a very serious issue and you have steadfastly refused to address it. There is not a chance of you ever convincing anyone if you continue to evade this issue. Reposting the same table will not make evidence of decay appear so please don't bother reposting it again. Show evidence for the decay.

Two

If all suns have iron cores where do the cores come from? If from a previous sun where did that sun come from? Another sun? Where did it come from? I asked several times and you simply ignored it.

Three

If the Sun has so vastly more iron than anyone else thinks why does its density match standard theory instead of the far higher density your hypothesis would require.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation in this matter.

Yes that's a joke. I have to spell these things out the humorless out there.

Yet again please stop evading the questions.

Oh and you might look up Ethelred since you seem so fixated on it. Of course that is another thing I suggested that you have ignored.

If I was to run across a method for personal immortality and posted it here suggesting that Oliver might want to read it I suspect he would literally rather die than read it. I had an employer like that once. He went bankrupt rather than deal with reality.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2009
What are your thoughts on these solar problems, Ethelred?

The Sun is presently behaving unexpectedly in a number of ways.[113]


Its not all that unexpected. There was a Maunder Minimum not all that long ago.

The Solar Cycle averages 11 years but there is variance. It is not exactly as regular as the orbits of the planets.

* It is measurably dimmer than is usual during a sunspot minimum.


Maybe its a good thing that we have more CO2 in the air than during the Little Ice Age. Unfortunately CO2 has its greatest effect at the poles so the middle latitudes could go down in temperature due to solar cooling while the glaciers still melted due to CO2 induced heat retention.

Then we could have rising waters and failed crops. What a wonderful thought. I wonder what the best models have to say on this.

* Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago. The entire heliosphere, which fills the solar system, has shrunk as a result, resulting in an increase in the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth and its atmosphere.


That one is a bit odd to me. A decrease the Sun's magnetic field doesn't seem all that unlikely if it is from churning of the Sun by convective heat transfers but didn't think it had much to do with cosmic radiation. Perhaps. Do you have a link?

The Sun is mildly variable so this is bound to happen now and then. Perhaps we should force CO2 into the air at a greater rate. Preferably without forcing SO3 into the air because that is not only nasty on the environment but it reflects heat away from the Earth when it mixes with water to form sulfuric acid.

I don't see how the Sun would be as variable if it was rigid as Oliver claims. The way he describes things the heat transfer would be by conduction in the alleged iron core then by convection in what his hypothesis requires to be a very shallow hydrogen atmosphere. Shallow because he claims we can see the rigid iron core via the TRACE video. That inherently requires that the core predominate over the photosphere else we would see no trace of rigidity. Keep in mind what I saw looked like a processing artifact to me and I see no reason to agree with his conclusions.

Oliver just doesn't think these things out to the logic conclusions. I guess its because the conclusion would be that he is wrong and he can't deal with that. Which I can sympathize with but I am not going to go soft it.

And yes I find these changes in the Sun disturbing. The effects could be very bad. But the Sun has had extra long cycles before so this may be all that is going on.

Ethelred
earls
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2009
I lifted the text from Wikipedia, but the citation [113] lead to the latest issue (August 2009) of Sky and Telescope: http://www.skyand...m/skytel

You seem to be very receptive to a large margin of variability, but for me personally, considering that very few of the behaviors are predicted and seem to be difficult to reconcile with currently accepted paradigm, I continue to grow increasingly skeptical.

Hardly mandatory, but I'm curious why the amazing decrease in temperature and density did not illicit a response.

The increase in cosmic radiation is linked to the decreased size and strength of the heliosphere that allow more cosmic rays to enter the solar system and strike Earth from beyond.

Unfortunately, I find your approach and attitude towards CO2 rather abhorrent. Perhaps said in jest, but it's odd to me you'd rather attempt to engineer a global ecosystem instead of understanding the engine behind it... Which, for being so critical of O.Manual, I would think you would have a better grasp.
earls
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2009
One: "Where is the energy coming from with an iron core?"

Neutron repulsion.

Two: "If all suns have iron cores where do the cores come from"

You begin with a single neutron star (center of the galaxy) which fissions into smaller neutron stars which continue to fission even smaller until they stabilize. Even when they're not going through a major core fissioning, they're fissioning along the lines of alpha/beta decay. The neutron core decays into heavy stable elements - in O.Manual's theory, directly to Iron.

Three: "If the Sun has so vastly more iron than anyone else thinks why does its density match standard theory instead of the far higher density your hypothesis would require."

This a great question, but only if O.Manual has proposed the sun is at / should be at a greater density than is currently observed. Is this the case? Otherwise it's pure strawman.

His ignorance to your questions (the first two at least) are because these are the cornerstones of this theory and are quickly explained not far into his publications. So yes, the integrity of your research (reading) comes into question.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2009
You seem to be very receptive to a large margin of variability,


Since the evidence is there I see no reason not to go on it.

I continue to grow increasingly skeptical.


Skeptical of what? That the Sun is variable?

Hardly mandatory, but I'm curious why the amazing decrease in temperature and density did not illicit a response.


Again from who? The Sun was expected to reach a minimum. The catch is that it has gone on a bit longer than normal and been lower than the average minimum. It may be that another Maunder Minimum has arrived.

http://en.wikiped..._Minimum

Irrelevant but interesting from there:
Some scientists hypothesize that the dense wood used in Stradivarius instruments was caused by slow tree growth during the cooler period. Instrument maker Antonio Stradivari was born a year before the start of the Maunder Minimum.[3]


I have seen loads of things that people claim are involved in Stradavari instruments. First time I have seen this one.

Unfortunately, I find your approach and attitude towards CO2 rather abhorrent.


I don't think you know my attitude. The only reason my average rating is below four is that I have argued with the deniers. They don't like it. Keep giving me ones no matter how well reasoned the post.

. Perhaps said in jest, but it's odd to me you'd rather attempt to engineer a global ecosystem instead of understanding the engine behind it...


Where did you get that idea?

Which, for being so critical of O.Manual, I would think you would have a better grasp.


Oliver refuses to answer the questions. When he quits stonewalling I won't have much to be critical of. Assuming that he can answer them and I am pretty sure that he can't. Thus the stonewall. You might do a search on him and go past the first few pages.

As for a grasp of global warming I think its up in the air. Both literally and figuratively. I think it is real. We contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. However if the Sun cools down this would not have to be a bad thing during the minimum. The catch is that it would be a bad thing when the minimum ends.

The world was a much colder place during the Little Ice Age.

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

One: "Where is the energy coming from with an iron core?"

Neutron repulsion.


That is not an energy source as I have pointed out already. Its just like claiming a spring is an energy source, something had to compress the spring and that is the energy source. It just holds up neutron stars in the kind of repulsion that we know of. In the kind Oliver proposes, well the evidence just isn't there. Repulsion can not generate energy that wasn't put into the system in the first place. Its the decay he claim that would be the source of energy and there is no evidence of decay. Even then the energy had to come from somewhere to create the neutrons.

If you look at what he proposes, the whole cycle, you notice the faint air of perpetual motion. The stink really. The hydrogen comes from fissioning neutrons and the neutrons come from fusing hydrogen cascades. This is nothing but perpetual motion thinly disguised by having a lot of steps in between the recycling.

You begin with a single neutron star (center of the galaxy) which fissions into smaller neutron stars which continue to fission even smaller until they stabilize.


There is no evidence for that. Indeed a large enough neutron star becomes a Black Hole for which there is evidence dispite Oliver's claim that they don't exist. Even Oliver does not claim this in any of his articles. Its yours alone unless I missed it. Please show where he claimed this if he did. Then show how neutron stars can fission. The surface gravity of a neutron star is around one billion gravities. Much higher and light cannot leave the star before which even the strong force fails and the neutrons would collapse thus forming a Black Hole. Unless a Quark Star can actually exist in the small realm between a Black Hole and the point where neutron degeneracy begins.

Even when they're not going through a major core fissioning, they're fissioning along the lines of alpha/beta decay


Which there is no evidence for. As I pointed out already many times. There would be evidence, here on Earth, in experiments if Oliver was right. And you can't get alpha decay from a neutron. Period.

Alpha decay occurs in Uranium and other massive, unstable elements. Alpha decay is when a nucleus emits an alpha particle which is just a fast helium nucleus. Which contains TWO neutrons and two protons which is kinda of hard to get from one neutron.

Neutrons decay into a Proton, and Electron and an electron antineutrino. There is a possibility that neutrinos are there own antiparticle. That's is there is no difference between the particle and the antiparticle. Like a photon.

http://en.wikiped..._neutron

The key is FREE neutron which is not what a neutron star or an iron star has.

The neutron core decays into heavy stable elements - in O.Manual's theory, directly to Iron.


Again where is the evidence that this occurs? I don't think even Oliver makes that claim. He is claiming beta decay as far as I can tell. The heavy elements come from fusion in suns up to iron and from fusion during a super nova for the elements that are heavier than iron. This was worked out long ago. Nobel prizes were involved and Dr Hoyle got ripped off by the Noble committee that should have given him one as well. Just because he did a lot of cranking later doesn't mean he should have been ignored.

Note that Oliver sites Hoyle so he is aware of him. I haven't seen anything from Hoyle that gave the appearance of a belief in Iron Suns in his later work. In the real world an Iron Sun would be a White Dwarf. In Oliver's world White Dwarfs could not exist since they would be generating hydrogen that would make them look like our sun. Except for that density problem that Oliver seems unaware of, even after I have asked about it now, he clearly skips over most of what I write.

Oliver mostly quotes himself in his papers. No one is quoting Oliver in any publications. This was pointed out either here or on another thread. His papers are not cited by anyone except himself. Oddly enough he sometimes acts as if he has an effect on mainstream thinking. He hasn't.

I noticed that he also sited the Burgesses who are now believed by most to have descended into crankery. They have a problem with red shift. The evidence doesn't support them either.

This a great question, but only if O.Manual has proposed the sun is at / should be at a greater density than is currently observed. Is this the case?


It doesn't matter if Oliver admits it. It is REQUIRED by his hypothesis. Which is why I asked about it. How does he deal with such an obvious difficulty. He doesn't do it in any of his papers so I must assume that he simply missed it. How he managed that I can't figure except that he is in love with his hypothesis and won't give it up. Kind of like the Plasma Universe fans that have no way to get the right energy from the Sun either.

Otherwise it's pure strawman.


Funny how he ignored it. If it was a strawman he could have easily shown it.

His ignorance to your questions (the first two at least) are because these are the cornerstones of this theory and are quickly explained not far into his publications.


They are NOT explained. If you can do it you are better at it then he is. He simply reposts the stuff in question and refuses to show how it is relevant. Simply posting a paragraph or two would show just what he thinks is significant. He doesn't. Most likely because he can't. So he stonewalls and claims I can't read.

I sure do write a lot for someone that is illiterate.

Ethelred
earls
2 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2009
It's concrete to me now you just have no intention of wanting to understand this. You want the information and concepts spoon-fed to you, yet they are readily available.

"Skeptical of what?"

I'm skeptical of the sun being a self-collapsed neutral burning ball of gas. If it's not clear to you there are additional external and/or internal forces at work that are far from being accurately understood, there's just not hope your disposition will ever evolve.

Do I think O.Manual is 100% right? Of course not, his theory still needs further research and evidence to be conclusive. I however certainly respect his concepts and the current research he has put into forth. The theory jives quite well with what I see as the anticipated paradigm shift not far in front of us.

Best of luck with your comprehension.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2009
It's concrete to me now you just have no intention of wanting to understand this. You want the information and concepts spoon-fed to you, yet they are readily available.


I read the stuff. I am not asking to be spoon fed and it bizarre to make such a claim since I have clearly gone to a great deal of effort to read ALL his stuff that he has linked to.

It is not at all unreasonable to ask OLIVER just what shows evidence of neutron decay or an explanation of the mass of the sun or where the cores came from. Your versions were not his nor did they make any more sense than his did.

I'm skeptical of the sun being a self-collapsed neutral burning ball of gas.


Gravitationally collapsed. And what is the problem with it being neutral? Its not burning its fusing.

If it's not clear to you there are additional external and/or internal forces at work that are far from being accurately understood, there's just not hope your disposition will ever evolve.


There are forces that are not fully understood. However the basics fit the evidence quite well. The only real question is what is causing the variability which could have many causes, and whether neutrinos really do change flavor. The evidence is that they do so. Contrary to Oliver's claim, the theory that neutrinos can change flavor came decades ago.

Do I think O.Manual is 100% right? Of course not, his theory still needs further research and evidence to be conclusive


It needs answers to my questions as they are relevant and unanswered by him or you. You sure can't answer it since you got it from him and he didn't answer them. He hasn't answered ANYONE'S questions.

I however certainly respect his concepts and the current research he has put into forth.


It isn't current. It is based on old work of his and old work of others. Notice that he used a quote from Hoyle from BEFORE WWII which Hoyle clearly did not continue to believe. Even in his science fiction novel The Black Cloud he thought the Sun was powered by fusion.

The theory jives quite well with what I see as the anticipated paradigm shift not far in front of us.


The theory is dependent on neutrinos not oscillating the evidence is that they do. That the sun has an iron core and there is no evidence for it. That neutrons fission even when they are not free. That is some serious dependency on things being different from present evidence.

The only thing Oliver has evidence for is that a super nova was involved in the origin of the solar system. Which I have made clear I agree with. Most people that have looked into the origin of the solar system have no problem with the concept. This does not in any way mean the super nova was our sun.

Best of luck with your comprehension.


Luck is not needed. Just answers to reasonable questions. You are not helping either us get them either. Oliver uses any excuse to evade. Not just with me, follow HIS links to the Naked Science forum and see that behaved the same there.

Then there is problem that Oliver will not be doing any further research. He is retired and there are other reasons as well. No one else is going to do the research since the evidence is against Oliver.

Ethelred
earls
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2009
He answered mine, I understand the concepts put forth and I doubt anyone will care that you don't. Continue on your crusade, good solider. Keep fighting the good fight.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2009
He answered mine, I understand the concepts put forth and I doubt anyone will care that you don't.


He didn't answer mine nor anyone else. You didn't ask any questions. Try asking something. Something significant. Softball won't do.

I understood the concepts just fine. That is why I know that most of it simply doesn't match reality. For instance the mass of the Sun would have to be higher. If you think that is not a problem would you like to explain why having iron instead of hydrogen wouldn't increase the density of the Sun?

Oliver sure doesn't want to deal with it. He didn't touch it in any of his papers or replies.

Others care. Please note that he gets a lot of ones and they don't come from me. The others have simply given up on getting real answers. There was a possibility that he would MIGHT actually break down and engage in actual discussion. A remote possibility. I doubt he will now as you have given him another excuse to evade.

Its not a fight. Its an attempt to get him to engage in a dialog. Something he doesn't appear to be interested in. Therefor he is simply spamming the site since he doesn't want to discuss things. We are supposed to take his word. Not just but elsewhere.'

Did you follow the links HE posted to Naked Science. I am interested in that one. I am waiting to see if the geologist will reply to Oliver. He claimed that he wanted to read all that stuff. It does take time.

Ethelred
earls
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2009
"You didn't ask any questions."

I'm sorry, I forgot I was restricted to asking questions within the confines of this article.

"explain why having iron instead of hydrogen wouldn't increase the density of the Sun"

More Iron, less Hydrogen. Just because the ratio of elements are different doesn't mean the mass has to change.

He gets a lot of ones because HEAVEN FORBID he has a dramatically different outlook. Some people love to cling to their dogma and textbooks ignoring that science, in any field, is a rapid changing and evolving organism. Some ideas are not feasible, some ideas appear not to be feasible. More WORK has to be done, no one is suggesting otherwise.

I'm sure O.Manual will be happy to answer any questions to those parties that have done their due diligence to inform themselves. Comment after comment after comment you have made wild assumptions and misinformed statements. What I told you came directly from his publications. I not making up my own point-of-view, he can corroborate what I'm saying. You claim to have read, but comment after comment it can easily be demonstrated you haven't - I'm just seeing how far you'll take it before all of your credibility is eroded.

There's no point in "discussing" anything with people who simply aren't open to the suggestion that we don't know everything - which apparently they do. I have no stake in his theory, yet you seem to be exceptionally resistant without justification. You believe you're posting justifications, but they're riddled with trivial errors and assumptions - I WOULD explain them to you, but considering your apprehension so far, why should I waste my time? This is the same mindset O.Manual has.

Such behavior is typical of this Internet environment, whether this site or another such as Naked Truth.
Baseline
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2009

There's no point in "discussing" anything with people who simply aren't open to the suggestion that we don't know everything - which apparently they do.


This is unfortunately true more often than not.

For example, when I read statements like; "We know that Blackholes exist" I am imediately put off on anything that follows. There is absolutely no proof that Blackholes exist it is only a theory and not a very good or complete one at that. If one is to make such a grand statement please provide the mathmatical proof that describes the singularity. Then I would be inclined to discuss the possibility of their existance more seriously.

Perhaps we will learn more from the LHC once it gets up and running. We shall see.
earls
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2009
Amen to that.

The mathematical proof is easy enough, it's the observational evidence that is apparently impossible to substantiate.

The only observational evidence published about black holes are celestial bodies whipping wildly around an invisible point. Any other evidence regarding black holes, such as jets and various other discharges flies directly in the face of theoretical conjecture which specifically states: "a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, including light, can escape its pull."
Baseline
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2009
It is my understanding that there is no math to describe the singularity and that all observational proof comes from the regions beyond the theoretical event horizon.

Hawking radiation could describe how black holes lose mass and can evaporate but it as yet has not been observed. Again the LHC might help to prove/disprove this theory.
earls
2 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2009
This is true.

However, you can mathematically prove anything given certain variables.

Hawking Radiation is just as fanciful as dark matter and dark energy - the fudge factor the makes things work.

I too look forward to the LHC, but at the current pace we may be looking at a start up date beyond November - which represents the best case scenario.
omatumr
2.4 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2009

Do I think O.Manual is 100% right? Of course not, his theory still needs further research and evidence to be conclusive. I however certainly respect his concepts and the current research he has put into forth. The theory jives quite well with what I see as the anticipated paradigm shift not far in front of us.


Thanks, earls, you are exactly right.

I do not expect to have all the answers, and wouldn't know it if I did because we never know if an answer is right.

Future studies decide the validity of each tentative answer.

That is one of life's greatest blessings. I have enjoyed 50 years of continuous discovery. I am glad that I have never had the delusion of having all the answers.

"To know that you do not know is best,
To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."
Lao Tzu

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com




yyz
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2009
earls, I'm still trying to swallow this: "You begin with a single neutron star (center of the galaxy) which fissions into smaller neutron stars which continue to fission even smaller until they stabilize. Even when they're not going through a major core fissioning, they're fissioning along the lines of alpha/beta decay. The neutron core decays into heavy stable elements - in O.Manual's theory, directly to Iron."

Just that first sentence is Nobel material! Citations, please. Most of the astrophysical community would be most interested. The rest of your quote just devolves from there.

Ethelred and others have brought forward some very thoughtful questions on this thread, only to be ignored. As was pointed out earlier, a dialog consists of a conversation between at least two people, not pontification (as with your 'neutron-star-as-galactic-nucleus' idea).
omatumr
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2009
SEE: "WHICH CAME FIRST - THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG"

In the discussion of ultra-compact, hyper-active galaxies in the early universe on PhysOrg:

http://www.physor...290.html

Or in the discussion of the Big Bang on the Naked Science Forum:

http://tinyurl.com/lkj7zw

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
earls
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2009
Sorry, let me fall back into line with before my post rating tanks...

"You begin with a single neutral gas cloud star (center of the galaxy) which fissions into smaller neutral gas cloud stars which continue to fission even smaller until they stabilize. Even when they're not going through a major core fissioning, they're RADIATING along the lines of alpha/beta decay. The neutral gas cloud star core FUSES into heavy stable elements - in ... theory, generally to Helium."

Heil.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2009
I'm sorry, I forgot I was restricted to asking questions within the confines of this article.


Actually you simply had not asked any questions for anyone to answer when I pointed that out. No restrictions at all on your ability to ask. You simply had not done so.

More Iron, less Hydrogen. Just because the ratio of elements are different doesn't mean the mass has to change.


If the mass doesn't change then the size of the Sun would have to change or the density. At present the density of the Sun does not even remotely match something that is mostly iron. If Oliver can't answer that question he hasn't thought it out enough to claim he is right despite all the other evidence that is against him. This one is pretty basic physics. If you change from low density helium to high density iron either the density has to increase or the volume must decrease if the mass stays the same. And Oliver hasn't claimed that the mass of the Sun is many times higher than the usual numbers.

He gets a lot of ones because HEAVEN FORBID he has a dramatically different outlook.


He gets the ones more because he refuses to discuss this in a remotely reasonable way. Even Alexa has higher ratings though not by much. Reposting the things that are in question is not a dialog.

I am not giving him ones by the way. Not since he stopped giving me ones for disagreeing with him. Tit for tat is a scientifically valid behavior and a personally validated one.

More WORK has to be done, no one is suggesting otherwise


Actually Oliver writes many of his papers as if it was fait acompli. No more work will be done if he can't convince people he has a point. He isn't going to manage that by stonewalling.

I'm sure O.Manual will be happy to answer any questions to those parties that have done their due diligence to inform themselves


When he does so next it will be the first. He is still just repeating himself. And I read his papers. Have you?

Comment after comment after comment you have made wild assumptions and misinformed statements.


Show where. No assumptions and no misinformed statements have been made by me. I have looked into this pretty thoroughly and posted links supporting what I say.

What I told you came directly from his publications


Not that I saw. Post a sample and a link. It looked like it was pretty much you and not him.

You claim to have read, but comment after comment it can easily be demonstrated you haven't - I'm just seeing how far you'll take it before all of your credibility is eroded.


Its increasing on this not eroding and neither Oliver nor you have shown that I haven't read what he wrote. I have even copied a considerable amount of what he wrote. Direct cut and paste so there was no chance of error. Are you claiming I did that with my eyes closed?

There's no point in "discussing" anything with people who simply aren't open to the suggestion that we don't know everything -


You mean like Oliver? Yes I see that he replied to you with a claim that he doesn't pretend to know everything but he acts completely differently. Lip service does not qualify as openness. Much like that Kind Regards signature that is there even when engages in ad homonym attacks or screeches for someones CREDENTIALS.

I have no stake in his theory, yet you seem to be exceptionally resistant without justification. You believe you're posting justifications, but they're riddled with trivial errors and assumptions -


Would you care to show any of these 'trivial errors' or correct the 'false assumptions'?

I WOULD explain them to you, but considering your apprehension so far, why should I waste my time?


Because if you could actually do so I would change my mind. If you just pretend that I won't do so it looks very much like you can't and this is indeed much like Oliver's behavior.

Such behavior is typical of this Internet environment, whether this site or another such as Naked Truth.


Yes, Oliver was refusing to engage in real dialog there as well.

From the Naked Science forum:
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW OR TO DEBATE?


That is exact. Even the caps were Oliver's. Looks awfully certain there doesn't it? Looks a lot like he doesn't want to discuss things at all either.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2009
Sorry, let me fall back into line with before my post rating tanks...


Now that is a post that deserves a one. A bogus quote and you botched it pretty badly at that.

You begin with a single neutral gas cloud star (center of the galaxy) which fissions into smaller neutral gas cloud stars which continue to fission even smaller until they stabilize


No. You begin with a fairly large cloud of mostly cold mostly neutral gas, there are likely to be some plasmas involved. They don't fission, they clump due to gravity and rotation. They don't really stabilize. Otherwise they wouldn't collapse to form stars.

Even when they're not going through a major core fissioning, they're RADIATING along the lines of alpha/beta decay.


No. Another fantasy. Since they don't fission. And they don't have alpha or beta decay. The clumps collapse as can be seen in the Orion Nebula and many other star forming regions. Eventually the center of the clumps coalesce enough to from stars. The stars undergo FUSION not fission. So no decay is involved, neither alpha or beta.

The neutral gas cloud star core FUSES into heavy stable elements - in ... theory, generally to Helium


Heavier stable elements. Starting with helium. Which we have done in labs. Though we haven't managed hydrogen hydrogen fusion as that is a very slow, low probability reaction. The only reason it occurs enough in the Sun to keep it hot is that there is a LOT of hydrogen there.

Keep in mind that the same theories produced not just the Hydrogen bomb but both Tokomaks, Muon catalyzed fusion and laser fusion. All have been done. All performed close to expectations. If the math was poor none would have worked. The continued success of these theories is one reason why Oliver keeps getting ones.

Ethelred
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2009
Thanks, Ethelred, for that rejoinder concerning earl's 'theory' of galaxy formation. His explanation of his explanation made my day. Like OKM, no answers to serious questions and NO citations from the astrophysics community on this 'mode' of galaxy formation. I doubt peer-reviewed, published work concerning his (or whoevers') idea on galaxy formation exists. Any professional citations to back up this claim (outside of OKMs published literature)?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2009
(outside of OKMs published literature)?


The interesting thing is that it IS published yet OKM claims he has been suppressed. I would like to know what the peer reviewers had to say about the articles.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2009
FOR CONCLUSIONS . . .

See the Physics Forum discussion:

http://www.physic...t=328143

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2009
The conclusions are still and still as faulty ever.

All that is from you as usual. Not one paper claiming that the Sun is fractionating by mass except from you.

I will point it out again. You only have evidence that a supernova was involved in the formation of the Solar System.

You have strange interpretations of evidence all over the place. You use the inner solar system as evidence that the Sun has an iron core. Every one else thinks the inner solar system has an excess of heavy elements because the the light stuff was blown out by the Sun because those elements were still gases. The heavier elements could condense in the inner solar system. You insist on ignoring the all the outer planets which are far more likely to be representative of the Suns ratio of elements

IF the Sun was the Super Nova that was involved THEN the out planets would have been affected too yet you pretend otherwise. Planetary nebulae do not magically stop moving out at a few AU. They continue for many light years until so diffuse as to be undetectable.

There is NO evidence that the Sun has an iron core.

False assumptions, bizarre interpretations of evidence, and completely depending on your own paper and a few obsolete papers by others is not going to prove you right.

Ethelred