STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS 5
CALLISTO, MARKLUND, JETS, CORE, ESCAPE, CHARGES, POWER, CURRENT, WIND, ANODE, CIRCUIT, IONIZE, DEPOSITION, NEON, CORONA, TRIPOLE, NOBLE, FUSION, HOLLOW, ROUNDNESS, PLANET, MAGMAS, HEAVY, EQUILIBRIUM,
CONTENTS
NO STARS FROM MARKLUND CONVECTION
ATMOSPHERIC HYDROGEN & HELIUM ESCAPE
CHARGES IN UNIVERSE MOSTLY NEUTRAL
EASY & HARD TO IONIZE ELEMENTS
CORONAL TEMPERATURE V. VOLTAGE
MAFIC & FELSIC MAGMAS OVER CORES
JUPITER’S MOON CALLISTO
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:12 am
Aardwolf wrote: So is Callisto a former complete star or not? Where is the line roughly drawn on that list between complete stars and star fragments?
I agree with Jeffrey that the critical factor is composition, though I get there a different way. Since most of the interplanetary medium (and interstellar medium for that matter) is hydrogen, we have to wonder where the heavy elements came from. IMO, these were all manufactured by stars, and not in supernovae, which I consider to be better atom splitters than combiners, but rather, just in the normal operation of stable stars. Fusion is going on right now in arc discharges under the surface of the Sun, which is detectable by a variety of means (especially during solar flares). So I think that as these arc discharges continue, and as heavier and heavier elements are fused, eventually they start settling into the core. A really heavy star might be capable of fusion in the core just by pressure, but something the size of our Sun isn't heavy enough, so all of the fusion is in arc discharges. Then, after the star has burned out, and all of the hydrogen & helium has drifted off, all that is left is the heavy-element core. The corollary is that if we see an object composed of heavy elements, it is what's left of a star. Of course, the star was much larger. The heavy-element "stellar core" of Jupiter might be smaller than our Moon, so if/when Jupiter loses its atmosphere, and all we have left is the heavy-element core, it might be extremely small compared to the current brown dwarf. Hence Callisto might have been a "complete" brown dwarf. Then again, it might be just a fragment of a brown dwarf that got split away by a collision. But IMO the heavy elements were manufactured inside a stable star (not in a supernova), so Callisto's water, ammonia, and lesser quantities of iron are evidence that it was once inside the core of a very small star, or it is splatter from higher layers of a larger star that got hit by something.
NO STARS FROM MARKLUND CONVECTION
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:06 am
Sparky wrote: Planets can combine from Birkeland currents and Marklund convection,...
More imaginary nonsense, offered as science. Pure fantasy, with nothing to support it! Arc discharges vaporize everything they touch. Otherwise EDM wouldn't be commercially viable, and the EU wouldn't use EDM to explain planetary scarring. Vaporization is actually the opposite of condensation. "Opposite" means "really different" or "not at all the same". So you're not wrong in saying that electric currents pinch matter into stars and planets. You couldn't be further from the truth. The selective compression of ionized matter in a z-pinch guarantees that the matter will never actually condense, because of the ionization. At the tips of plasma jets in space, we see Herbig-Haro objects, not stellar nurseries. When the velocity is no longer sufficient to generate magnetic fields capable of keeping the jet organized, it blows itself apart by electrostatic repulsion.
Sparky wrote: without the need for gravity.
There we agree.
NO STARS FORM IN JETS
JeffreyW wrote: In this theory all elements are created in embryonic galaxies.
There are stellar nurseries that are not in galactic jets, and I don't know of any evidence of star formation inside galactic jets. So even if you're not going to subscribe to the conservation of matter, you still have to show star formation inside the jets, and not elsewhere.
STELLAR CORE FORMATION
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:38 am
Lloyd wrote:
CC said: Fusion is going on right now in arc discharges under the surface of the Sun, which is detectable by a variety of means (especially during solar flares). So I think that as these arc discharges continue, and as heavier and heavier elements are fused, eventually they start settling into the core.
I thought your model had the stellar cores forming rapidly during electrical nebular accretion.
In my model, dusty plasmas collapse due to an electric body force between dust particles and their detached Debye sheaths. At the centroid of the collapse, where the matter that will be the star gets compressed, the electrical configuration changes. Electron degeneracy pressure expels electrons from the positive core, setting up charged double-layers. But elementary differentiation happens over a much longer period of time. First, any heavy elements already in the mix can start to settle to the bottom. Second, heavy elements manufactured in arc discharges can settle. Third, in extremely heavy stars, there might even be fusion in the core, just due to the pressure. So that stuff just stays there. But when the charged double-layers first clank together, no differentiation has already occurred, nor heavy element production.
ATMOSPHERIC HYDROGEN & HELIUM ESCAPE
Lloyd wrote:
CC: Then, after the star has burned out, and all of the hydrogen & helium has drifted off, all that is left is the heavy-element core.
I don't think the hydrogen and helium can escape from a gas giant, unless really large impacts occur.
Earth's gravity isn't powerful enough to hold onto atomic hydrogen or helium -- nitrogen is the lightest element that is gravitationally bound in its atomic form. Of course, molecules are much heavier per particle, but in the outer reaches of an atmosphere, it's mostly plasma. So, nitrogen has an atomic weight of 7, while helium is 2, meaning that atomic nitrogen is 3.5 times heavier than atomic helium. Now, Jupiter's "surface" gravity is 2.4 times that of Earth's, meaning that it is still too weak to hold onto helium, much less hydrogen. Jupiter's atmosphere is actually mostly compounds, such as water, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and phosphine. So the molecular carbon and hydrogen are gravitational bound, but free atoms are not.
Lloyd wrote: I think you meant "gas giant", not "brown dwarf".
Same thing?
PLANETARY CORES
Lloyd wrote: Why aren't you able to figure out the size of the core of Jupiter, if you were able to determine the size and composition of the core of the Sun?
I haven't made a detailed study of it.
Lloyd wrote: If a planet decomposed from a brown dwarf, would it have just an iron-nickel core? Or could it have an osmium core, like the Sun? After all, if a brown dwarf decomposed from a sun-like star, it should have an osmium core, shouldn't it?
The composition of the interior of a star is a function of the mix that went into it on formation, plus whatever heavy elements it manufactured, for how long. An old star will have more heavy elements, while a star that burned out quickly won't have so much. Callisto might have burned out while it was still quite young, before the heavy elements in the original mix settled to the bottom, and before much fusion had occurred. Or it could have been splatter from the mid-levels of a differentiated brown dwarf (a.k.a., gas giant).
Lloyd wrote: Are Herbig-Haro objects seen to disperse, or explode, or go poof?
They disperse.
JeffreyW wrote: If Charles' model explained the structure of the stars, then we should have been able to predict what would happen to them using his model. Thus, the discovery should have been made inside of his model. Unfortunately it wasn't. The discovery of stellar evolution being the process of planet formation itself was not made. The dots were not connected.
Check again.
CHARGES IN UNIVERSE MOSTLY NEUTRAL
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:37 pm
Sparky wrote: The universe appears to be full of charged particles, ions, plasma.
Yes, but it's mostly quasi-neutral, meaning that the electrons might be detached from the +ions, but there isn't any net charge, and thus there isn't much in the way of electric currents. Things like the heliospheric current sheet are the exception rather than the rule, and while the current in the HCS is more robust nearer the Sun, it tapers off to nothing in the outer reaches of the heliosphere (making it an interesting sort of current). The bottom line there is that if it was a point-to-point current, it wouldn't taper off to nothing -- it would stay just as robust all of the way to that remote electrode, and in fact, the current density would increase with distance from the Sun, since the magnetic pinch effect would consolidate the current into a filament. So where's the filament? It would be the brightest thing in the sky (day or night), and it would be detectable in visible, infrared, and ultraviolet wavelengths. The bare-faced fact is that it isn't there. The true effect of charge separation in space is not at all that it drives point-to-point currents on an interstellar or intergalactic scale. Rather, there are electrostatic effects between Debye cells, over a range of just a couple of meters. Those are real forces, and I'm in the process of proving that they are responsible for star formation. So the electric force dominates, and stars cannot be understood outside of that context. But interstellar electric currents, as conceived by the EU, are not real.
STAR’S POWER SOURCE CME’S
Sparky wrote: There are huge magnetic fields observable, which means that electric currents is produced.
The magnetic fields might be huge in size, but they're only nano-teslas in strength. The effects of such fields will be observable, but subtle, and in no respect do they constitute any sort of primary power source.
Sparky wrote: How much electron flow is needed to supply the sun with power?
Given that the power output of the Sun is 3.86 × 1026 watts, in an E-field of 1.7 × 109 volts, that works out to 2.93 × 1015 amps. Out at 1 AU, the current is more like 3 × 109 amps, which makes sense if the current is tapering off as it radiates outward. And the 2.93 × 1015 amps of electron flow happens to match (within an order of magnitude) the number of +ions that are expelled from the Sun by CMEs. So the "generator" that creates the electrostatic potential is CMEs, and then the electrons flow outward, to catch up to the +ions. This explains why CMEs balloon out so rapidly (due to the repulsion of +ions), why the electrons emanate from the entire surface of the Sun (the dispersed +ions create a radial electric field), and why it "appears" to be an unipolar electric current, which shouldn't be possible (the "current" is electrons catching up to +ions, so the "current" is instantiated by electrons traveling faster than +ions, when all of the particles are traveling away from the Sun). Throw in the Sun's solenoidal magnetic field, and we can see why the electrons are consolidated into helmet streamers. So it all checks out. If this was a snake, it would have bit you already. There is no interstellar current -- the potentials are manufactured by the Sun, and which are neutralized within a couple of AU from the Sun.
Sparky wrote: What if the sun is self powered?
Yes.
COSMIC ELECTRIC CURRENT
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:55 am
Sparky wrote:
Yes, but it's mostly quasi-neutral, meaning that the electrons might be detached from the +ions, but there isn't any net charge, and thus there isn't much in the way of electric currents.
If these charges are moving, then that is electric current.
If protons and electrons are both moving in the same direction, at the same speed, there is no current. It takes relative motion between the charges to call it a current.
Sparky wrote:
The effects of such fields will be observable, but subtle, and in no respect do they constitute any sort of primary power source.
I did not mean to imply that they were a power source, but an indication of electric activity.
Oh, OK. Well that's true enough -- for there to be a net magnetic field, there has to be a net current. But there's a huge undistributed middle between observing interstellar/galactic magnetic fields and concluding that external currents are powering stars.
SOLAR WIND
Sparky wrote: It is theorized that electrons drift into the sun.
No, they drift away from the Sun. (See Bob Johnson's lecture, starting at page 9, for a good overview of the data.) More specifically, both +ions and electrons radiate outward in the solar wind, but the electrons move faster, out to about 10 AU, where the relative motion has tapered down to nothing. That constitutes a current, but only inside 10 AU. So the Sun is definitely acting as a cathode, not an anode. But if the Sun is a cathode, where IS the anode? It isn't the heliopause, or the interstellar medium, because then the relative velocities between +ions and electrons would persist, or even get accentuated. Instead, beyond 10 AU, there aren't any relative velocities, so the voltages have been completely expended, and the solar wind continues to expand just on the basis of hydrostatic pressure and momentum. The ohmic heating in the photosphere can only be the consequence of the mechanical ejection of +ions, creating a voltage between a net negative Sun and a net positive heliosphere (inside 10 AU), motivating the flow of electrons toward the ejected +ions. By 10 AU, the electrons have caught up with the +ions, and past that point, there is no current.
COSMIC ELECTRIC CURRENT
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:35 am
Sparky wrote:
If protons and electrons are both moving in the same direction, at the same speed, there is no current. It takes relative motion between the charges to call it a current.
What? I have not seen that in a description of electricity.
Most people would define a current as the voltage / resistance. So there has to be a potential there, to accelerate charged particles, because of their charge. The potential comes from a charge imbalance, and produces a net flow of the one charge toward the other. Of course, in plasma physics, sometimes there is a mechanical motivation. For example, consider a +ion jet. That's a flow of net charges, and it's a current, at least in the sense that it will generate a net magnetic field, even if the particles were accelerated mechanically and not electrically. But either way, it has to be a net flow, or you won't see any electrostatic or electrodynamic effects.
Sparky wrote: Where does the solar wind/current end? Why not a virtual anode?
What do you mean by "virtual anode"? I guess you could call my model a virtual anode, in that the +ions are exploded out of the Sun, and then the electrons chase after them. But I'm not sure that this is what you mean.
Sparky wrote: I understand that you are looking at this from your model. And that does make sense, but I suspect that it is not complete, by not considering aether.
Invoking aether (or anything else for that matter) would only be necessary if there was something left to explain, once the conventional forces have been taken into account (albeit in a non-mainstream way). If there is nothing left to explain, then the only suitable invocation is for something that explains nothingness itself.
SOLAR ELECTRIC CURRENT
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sun Jul 20, 2014 7:55 pm
Sparky wrote: There are things that need to be explained. The big one is the kinetic current from the sun, that is an electric current then is not after the 10AU mark.
See: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByVDJsY_ytfDTTlyN01taXc5MGs/edit?pli=1
On page 10, there is an image that shows the convergence of electron and +ion temperatures at around 10 AU. When it gets to where the charges are both traveling at the same speed (i.e., same particle temperature), the current has been extinguished.
Sparky wrote: I need documentation for the moving plasma charges needing to be relatively different.
In an electric wire, is there a difference in the number of electrons versus +ions? No -- the current is the flow of electrons past the +ions. Stop that flow and you stop the current. So disconnect the wire, coil it up, and run down the street with it. There are still electric charges in the wire (+/-), and they're definitely moving, because now you're running down the street. Does that constitute an electric current? No.
SOLAR VIRTUAL ANODE
Sparky wrote:
What do you mean by "virtual anode"?
There was suggested a virtual cathode for a pos. sun., so if the sun is the cathode, why not a virtual anode? That would be the heliosphere?
I never figured out what they meant by "virtual cathode", and they never explained. I took it to mean "magic happens here". But a fully specified hypothesis doesn't have anything like that. In my model, the +ion ejection that motivates the catch-up current gives the appearance of a monopole current, but that of course is impossible, and that's not what it is. I'm not sure that it clarifies it to call it a "virtual anode". The anode is the +ions that have been ejected from the Sun, creating an electric field between the Sun and the heliosphere.
SOLAR CIRCUIT
Sparky wrote: Is there a solar circuit? A circuit that loops back around to the sun? Even electrons of conventional circuits that are captured by other elements of the circuit tend to go back through grounding?
That takes work, to pump electrons through a circuit, assuming that the electrons are going to do work along the way. So if you have 3.86 × 1026 watts streaming out of the Sun, what does the work?
Sparky wrote: Where is the schematic? https://electricastrophysics.substack.com/publish/post/150770267#
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:11 pm
JeffreyW wrote: I guess what I am saying is that in nature we have spherical objects with surfaces. How would Marklund convection occur inside of spherical objects with surfaces? If at all?
I don't think that it does.
Sparky wrote:
So disconnect the wire, coil it up, and run down the street with it.
But not through a strong magnetic field!
That's true. Now how about in a nano-tesla magnetic field? I think that the effects will be there, but they will be subtle, and will only amount to something over a long period of time. For example, I think that the spiral arm magnetic field coerced the rotation of the Sun and the Planets onto a plane that approaches the perpendicular to the magnetic field. But this force operated over an extremely long period of time, and still didn't get everything perfectly aligned. So I consider galactic magnetic fields to be on the order of gravity -- the force is there, but it isn't powerful enough to be a prime mover.
Sparky wrote:
So if you have 3.86 × 1026 watts streaming out of the Sun, what does the work?
The electric field?
Exactly. But that field is entirely within 10 AU.
Sparky wrote: I was looking for an electrical schematic of the solar system...
Here's a more complete set, at 3 different scales. The first (which I already posted) shows the top 20,000 km of the Sun, which is the outermost layer, and which is a positive double-layer where CMEs cause a charge imbalance, motivating an electric current. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/CME_Effects.png Next is the Sun out to about 3 solar radii, which is the scale of helmet streamers. The radial electric current is steered toward the equatorial plane by the Sun's solenoidal magnetic field, while in the end, the current continues outward, taking the magnetic field with it. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/Helmet_Streamers_wbg.png Finally, at about 10 AU, the electrons catch up to the +ions, eliminating the potential. At this point, the Birkeland currents cease, and their magnetic field lines close on each other. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/Helmet_Streamers_Close_wbg.png
Not shown is the Earth at 1 AU, which puts it within the main body of the heliospheric current sheet. The Earth's magnetic field will sort the Birkeland currents according to polarity, and steer them toward the poles so they can cause the aurora.
Beyond 10 AU, there is a little bit of action at the heliopause, where there is a double-layer caused by electrons getting stripped off of the interstellar wind where it collides with the heliosphere, due to friction. The interstellar wind is quasi-neutral, the outer heliopause is negative, the inner heliopause is positive, and the main body of the heliosphere is quasi-neutral. But there isn't any reason to believe that the double-layer at the heliopause is strong enough to have any effect on what's going on within 10 AU of the Sun. As best as I can tell, that's a complete summary of the most powerful electrostatic and electrodynamic behaviors within the entire solar system. The Sun is clearly electric, but the significant current is entirely within 10 AU.
EASY & HARD TO IONIZE ELEMENTS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:51 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Iron and nickel both are really hard to ionize...
No, they are easy to ionize, especially as compared to something like hydrogen, and that's why iron and nickel migrate to the center in Marklund convection. The magnetic pinch operates on particles according to the strength of their electric charge, with the greater charges getting pushed more forcefully toward the center. The more easily ionized atoms are more likely to be charged. So it's not that all of the hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and iron atoms that are missing one electron are to be found in one layer, while everything that is missing two electrons is found in the next layer closer to the center, still with a good mix of all of the elements present in the entire assembly. Rather, hydrogen and helium are tough to ionize, so they're likely to be neutral, or only missing one electron, and for just a little while. Thus they are found around the outside. Iron and nickel are easy to ionize, so they are likely to be missing one or more electrons, a lot of the time, and thus are to be found in the center.
NO VAPOR DEPOSITION
But I still maintain that vapor deposition doesn't happen in the center, because the Coulomb force between +ions will prevent it. And don't be misled by the confusing terminology concerning lower temperatures along the axis of the filament. In charge separated matter, the Coulomb force removes degrees of freedom, meaning that the effective temperature will be lower. But this does not mean that the matter is more likely to condense. Pure plasma can register at absolute zero, and yet be nowhere near condensing. And when charge recombination occurs, which eliminates the electrostatic repulsion, the heat from the recombination greatly increases the hydrostatic pressure, and the matter still won't condense. To get vapor deposition, you need to start with cool, neutral matter.
NEON’S HIGH IONIZATION ENERGY
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:24 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Thus iron/nickel are vastly harder to ionize than helium/hydrogen.
Actually, neon is used in gas discharge lamps because of its high ionization energy. Thus in a sufficiently low pressure (which lowers the breakdown voltage), and with a sufficiently high voltage, the glow discharge is vigorous, because of the high ionization energy.
CORONAL TEMPERATURE V. VOLTAGE
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:54 pm
Because temperature is a measure of randomness of motion, the corona appears to "heat up" suddenly, and the 11-times-ionized iron atoms begin to radiate their newly acquired energy.
Temperature is, indeed, a measure of the randomness of motion, but the way temperature is measured in the solar corona isn't just a measure of such motion. They're actually measuring the degree of ionization. This can be a measure a temperature, since hotter atoms collide more vigorously, knocking off more electrons. But degree of ionization is also a measure of something else: electric field. Thus the jump in degree of ionization just above the chromosphere might be evidence of a heat source, but it might also be evidence of an increase in voltage.
So what could increase the voltage? What if the Sun has a net negative charge, where the heliosphere is positively charged, and where there is also a positive double-layer deeper inside the Sun? Electrons at the surface will then be pulled in two different directions (up and also down), and the net field will be weak. Suppose there is slightly more positive charge in the heliosphere than in the underlying positive double-layer. The electrons will slowly drift upward, away from the Sun. As they go, they will experience more attraction to the heliosphere, and less attraction to the underlying positive double-layer, due to the inverse square law. Thus the field density gets greater in a tripole field, as the electrons in the middle move toward the far pole. For this reason, the electrons don't just flow in the field at a rate that is determined by a constant voltage divided by the resistance -- they start out slowly, emanating from all points on the Sun, and then they accelerate as they move away from the Sun. (They also accelerate because of the thinning of the solar atmosphere with distance from the surface, which reduces the resistance.) The higher electron velocities then cause more violent particle collisions, knocking more electrons loose, and thus increasing the degree of ionization, which we can measure in wavelength-filtered photography.
TRIPOLE FIELD
Of course, you might say that those electron/+ion collisions, which increase the degree of ionization, are also increasing the temperature. So we're still just measuring temperature. But this model identifies a realistic way for the temperature to increase with distance from the Sun, which is the obvious source of the energy. In thermodynamics, this shouldn't be possible. But electron drift in a tripole field will necessarily behave in precisely this manner. And to my knowledge, this is the only way to get a radial arc discharge that doesn't pinch down into a finite number of discrete channels beginning right at the electrode, such as in a plasma lamp. It isn't a dipole field, between the Sun and the heliosphere. It's a tripole field. Then it all makes sense.
NOBLE GASES HARD TO IONIZE
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:32 pm
Physical states, chemical bonds, and ionization energies are all certainly related, because at the most fundamental level, it's all about the electrons. So if you're studying one, you're studying all of them, whether you realize it or not, and it's more useful to simply acknowledge the full property set. But the noble gases are not gases at room temperature because of low ionization energies -- it's the opposite. Because they're hard to ionize, they are not likely to be missing any electrons. So they're not going to bond with anything to fill the void. And will full outer shells, there is no covalent bonding with other neutral atoms. This means that they just aren't candidates for molecular bonds. On the other hand, elements with the hottest boiling points all have partially populated outer shells, meaning that the valence electrons can dovetail with those from a similar atom with shell conflicts.
SOLAR FUSION
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:12 pm
Sparky wrote: What does this say about the standard model, fusion?
I see no reason to believe that nuclear fusion is occurring in the core of the Sun. The pressure is barely sufficient for hydrogen fusion, but that cannot possibly be hydrogen in the core -- it has to be heavier elements. And the pressure for fusing heavier elements just isn't there.
HOLLOW SUN THEORY
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:44 pm
JeffreyW wrote: In stelmeta the Sun is a giant vacuum chamber with the majority of the material in the shell, this makes it incredibly big.
What's the theoretical advantage to the "Hollow Sun" model? In other words, what does it explain better than other models?
SUN’S ROUNDNESS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:21 am
JeffreyW wrote: Same with the Sun, if we give it a structure it doesn't have, then we will be scratching our heads wondering why it isn't behaving as we expected. Case in point, its incredibly round: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sun-is-too-round-say-scientists-8057068.html Rounder than predicted because it doesn't have a surface... Their prediction was wrong so either A. It does have a surface which allows it to have even pressure on all areas of the shell, or B. it does not contain the "mass" keeping the other cooling stars around it in their orbits.
There is another possibility -- it isn't a purely Newtonian phenomenon. If it's all just gravity and inertia, then yes, the Sun should have more of an equatorial bulge, from the centrifugal force of its own rotation. But what if there is another centripetal force that they are not taking into account, namely the electric force between charged double-layers? You still get an equatorial bulge, but it's not anywhere near as pronounced, which is precisely the case.
Before we're done, we should scrutinize the Hollow Sun's treatment of the topic. Saying that the Sun is hollow doesn't solve the roundness problem -- it exasperates it. The predicted bulge comes from the centrifugal force, whose action varies directly with the angular velocity, which is greatest at the surface. Hollowing out the center doesn't eliminate this. And it doesn't matter if you go with a heavy or light Sun -- the balance between centrifugal and centripetal forces stays the same, as long as you're still in a Newtonian regime, in which mass (big or small) is the only factor.
There is really only one possible solution to this: there has to be a non-Newtonian force that it offsetting the centrifugal force. So how many non-Newtonian forces are there, which are operative at the macroscopic level? There are two of them: the electric force, and the magnetic force. We can rule out the latter, since the average magnetic field is only 1 Gauss, which isn't going to do anything anyway. Furthermore, if it was, we'd see variations in the surface corresponding directly with the magnetic field, which can at times be as much as 4000 Gauss. But we see no such variations, hence the magnetic force isn't defining the shape of the Sun. That leaves the electric force. This reasoning doesn't explain how the electric force defines the shape, but it definitely proves that such is the case. Then it's just a matter of figuring out how. I'm going with charged double-layers.
FROM STAR TO PLANET
JeffreyW wrote: As an added note, the reason why I consider young stars like the Sun to be hollow bubbles, is because they need room to shrink into as well to undergo gravitational collapse.
Another possibility is that something as big as the Sun doesn't collapse into something the size of the Earth, but rather, that inside a star there is a heavy-element core that can get exposed if the outer layers are released. So I think that the Earth used to be 10 to 100 times bigger, but it lost mass to its stellar winds. So planet formation still happens, if star formation happens. And there is a simpler mechanism for going from something that is big and bright to something that is small and dark. Stars manufacture heavy elements by nuclear fusion in massive electrostatic discharges between charged double-layers, as it almost does in lightning strikes here on Earth, and as we can see it doing in solar flares. The heavy elements eventually settle to the bottom, forming iron/nickel cores, or in the case of larger stars that last even longer, platinum/osmium cores, with iron/nickel sheaths, and hydrogen/helium surfaces. So inside the Sun, there is a baby planet, if you want to think of it that way. Or you can think of it like somebody who is old and is going bald -- the planet inside the Sun just isn't old enough to have gone bald yet. No miracles there.
MAFIC & FELSIC MAGMAS OVER CORES
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jul 26, 2014 3:45 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Iron/nickel meteorites were parts to the cores of ancient stars, the more felsic (iron containing) composites were more towards the middle and the mafic materials such as various basalts and other rocks such as feldspar more towards the top or crust of the dead star.
Switch felsic and mafic. Mafic is heavier, and richer in heavy elements such as iron. Felsic is lighter, and iron-poor. So we can expect iron/nickel cores, topped by mafic magmas, topped by felsic magmas.
STARS FUSE HEAVY ELEMENTS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:34 pm
JeffreyW wrote: I do not think fusion happens in "star". I think fusion happens in birthing galaxies, in other words fusion reactions are not what we think they are. Stars are just the dissipative structures that dissipate the energy from galaxy birth. Stars are relatively stable, calm, tiny objects, compared to the most energetic most powerful events in the universe: active galaxies.
I think that the fusion of very heavy elements (e.g., uranium) has to occur inside stars. Furthermore, the core of the star has to be very cold. The reason is that uranium isn't stable over a few thousand kelvins. The strong force is just barely able to offset the electrostatic repulsion of 92 protons in the nucleus. The slightest twitch can stress such an atom beyond the breaking point, and there's no getting around that. So there's just no way that uranium gets formed inside supernovae and survives. And however it is formed, there isn't any way that uranium could survive the high temperatures in stellar formation. IMO, this proves that uranium found on Earth could only have been formed in situ, in a high pressure, low temperature environment. That would be in the core of a heavy star, where ionization from electron degeneracy pressure removed all of the degrees of freedom, and thus the effective temperature, meaning that 7th period elements that got formed didn't get split apart in the next atomic collision.
SUN NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:43 am
JeffreyW wrote: 1. No net flows of matter or energy (the solar wind and the fact that it radiates conflicts with this)
Right. To find a thermodynamic equilibrium, you have to head out to Pluto, or beyond. At that distance, the solar wind is thin, and the photons from the Sun are meager. So you could say that the heliosphere as a whole is in equilibrium with the interstellar medium, with little-to-no exchange across the heliopause. But to say that the Sun is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the interplanetary medium denies that there is a robust outflow, of particles and photons. The inner solar system would be a cold, dark place if the Sun was actually in equilibrium with its surroundings.
HIGHSCHOOL LEVEL COSMOLOGY
And I totally agree with Jeffrey that such fundamental misconceptions cannot be overlooked. Once you've bastardized all of the first principles for understanding something, there will never be a way of sorting anything out. So we have to pay close attention to these opening statements. They're so simple that it's actually difficult to focus on them, so we tend to just breeze on past, thinking that the real problem is further down the road. But at that point, we have already taken a road that leads nowhere. So Jeffrey is right in scrutinizing the simplest of statements in the mainstream mentality. The problems in modern astronomy are (obviously) not problems that PhDs can solve. That's because they aren't PhD problems. Nor are they MS problems, or even BS problems. They're HS problems!!! If you assume that everything you learned in high school just had to be correct, but if there was a false assumption somewhere in there, you'll never find the solution, because you'll never acknowledge the problem for what it actually is. Only people who don't have advanced degrees can actually inspect the first principles, and they're the ones who can find the mistakes.
We got from Sir Isaac Newton that astronomy is ruled by the force of gravity. Actually, Newton himself was not so convinced that gravity was the only thing that mattered, and he invested more time exploring other things. But subsequent generations latched onto gravity, and tried to build a world that only contained matter and its gravitational attraction to itself. That went a long ways, but when scientists started running into things that gravity could not explain, they didn't go back to re-open other topics (such as EM radiation) that Newton was also exploring. Rather, they just started bastardizing "Newtonian" mechanics (which is just their lossy reduction of what Newton was actually exploring). As long as the problems remain unsolved, the bastardization continues, until you have people saying such nonsense as the Sun is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment. The only way to make the problem go away is to so totally obfuscate the whole thing that nobody can make sense of anything anymore. Then a pack of high schoolers comes along and starts making scientific discoveries.
SUN’S DISEQUILIBRIUM
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:31 pm
Is there any energy exchange between the Sun and the interplanetary medium, especially the inner solar system? Yes. This means that the Sun is not at equilibrium with the interplanetary medium, or there wouldn't be any energy exchange. Is there any energy exchange between the heliosphere and the interstellar medium? It doesn't look like there is much. Therefore, the heliosphere, taken as a whole, is in equilibrium with the interstellar medium. If you try to think of this in complicated terms, you won't understand it.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:51 pm
Sparky wrote:
thermal equilibrium - the amount of energy generated equals the amount radiated away
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec22.html
I still do not see That LTE extends beyond the sun. Are you guys making up your own definitions?
You got that definition from a mainstream astronomy website. Here's how Wikipedia defines thermal equilibrium:
Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if no heat flows between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat. Thermal equilibrium obeys the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium with itself if the temperature within the system is spatially and temporally uniform.
Wikipedia isn't always right, but as concerns simple engineering stuff like that, there's no mistaking the correct definition. Astronomers redefined thermal equilibrium for their purposes, from a system in which there are no heat exchanges, to a system in which the amount of heat that is exchanged is steady. That way, they get to use scientific jargon in sentences in a way that fools people who give them the benefit of the doubt. But there is a difference between "no heat flow" and "constant heat flow". The first is a thermal equilibrium in which no work is done, while the second is a throttled energy conversion that steadily does work.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:09 pm
... In the standard model, the heat is generated in the core, and radiates outward from there. So the core is not in equilibrium with the radiative zone, which is not in equilibrium with the convective zone, which is not in equilibrium with the solar atmosphere... To find a thermal equilibrium, you have to find some point at which there is no longer any heat transfer. As best as I can tell, that would be the heliopause.
SUN’S RELATIVE AGE
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:56 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Yes, we can limit the Sun's age, meaning it can not be older than the Earth.
If both the Sun and Earth were the same size when they first formed, and if they both evolved at the same rate, and if the Earth is (obviously) further along in the process, then the Earth is older than the Sun. I agree with this, but I just wanted to point out the assumptions. If a lot more matter condensed into the Sun than the Earth, then perhaps the Sun is taking longer to evolve, assuming that the rate of evolution is dictated by mass loss to the solar winds. If that's the case, the Sun is older than the Earth. So I think that it's a mistake to assume that all stars were created equal.
CHARLES’ HYPOTHESES
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:34 pm
OK -- I won't fault you for keeping it simple. But just to broaden the horizon a bit, I can lay out a long series of tentative hypotheses in my model. I'm not locked down on any of this, but this is what I'm pursuing.
Primordial stars might have been composed entirely of hydrogen. The interplanetary medium, and the interstellar medium, appear to be mostly hydrogen.
The density of the Sun (1408 kg/m3) cannot be reconciled with laboratory physics without asserting the existence of heavy elements. I'm going with a convective zone comprised primarily of hydrogen and helium, a radiative zone made of iron and nickel, and a core made of platinum and osmium. This yields the correct overall density, and it yields distinct steps in density, from 1st period elements in the convective zone, to 4th period elements in the radiative zone, to 6th period elements in the core. These steps in density show up in helioseismology, which wouldn't be there if the Sun was comprised entirely of well-mixed hydrogen and helium. So the solution to the overall density problem yields a solution to the problem of helioseismic shadows. That's enough for me to call it a working model.
Starting with hydrogen, stars manufacture heavy elements in electrostatic discharges, which then settle to the bottom (i.e., mass separation). So the Sun's radiative zone and core are just the fallout from nuclear fusion of lighter elements in arc discharges between charged double-layers.
If the Sun and the Earth are just two instances of the same stellar~planetary evolution, and if they both condensed from the same stuff, we can compare them by the size of their iron/nickel layers.
The iron/nickel layer of the Earth (i.e., the core) has a radius of 3,478 km. So that's how much iron/nickel the Earth Star was able to manufacture before the flame went out.
If I'm right about the Sun, the radiative zone is iron/nickel. It has a radius of 486,850 km. If the flame were to go out right now, and the hydrogen/helium drifted off into the interplanetary medium, the Sun would be left with a crust of light elements (e.g., carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, etc.), like the Earth's crust and mantle, overlying an iron/nickel core with a radius of 486,850 km.
If all of that is correct, the Sun has already manufactured 2.74 × 106 times more iron/nickel (4.83 × 1017 versus 1.76 × 1011 km3).
If both the Sun and the Earth manufactured iron/nickel at the same rate, and if the Sun has already manufactured 2.74 × 106 more of it than the Earth, the Sun has to be 2.74 × 106 older than the Earth.
If the Earth 4.54 × 109 years old, the Sun is 1.25 × 1016 years old. (Oops.)
SUSPECT AN ERROR
I "think" that something is wrong in there somewhere, but I'm not sure where. That's a lot of IFs. Maybe there were more heavy elements in the dusty plasma that condensed to form our solar system, and the hydrogen in the interplanetary medium is just the stuff that was too light to be gravitationally bound to any of the condensates. Perhaps the rate of iron production isn't the same. Perhaps the Sun and the Earth didn't form at the same time. Without more information, I don't see how any of this is going to yield a conclusion of any kind. But you have to run out your assumptions to the logical conclusions, and then, when new information comes in, you have to see what that does to the numbers. When the bottom lines start making sense, you get more confident that you know what's going on. Currently, my confidence level is pretty low.
SUN’S RELATIVE AGE
If I had to guess, the Sun and Earth formed at the same time, so they're both the same age, but the Sun got the majority of the mass, so it's still burning. And it's more likely that heavier stars manufacture iron faster, just like a bigger fire consumes fuel faster than a smaller one. So the greater quantity of iron doesn't mean that the Sun is older. But the structure of the Sun and Earth is the same, and in terms of stellar evolution, the Earth is further along in the process. So in stellar evolution time, the Earth is older, even if (for all we know) it is the same age as the Sun. But that's just my guess.
SOLAR SYSTEM THERMODYNAMICS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:40 pm
JeffreyW wrote:
Sparky wrote: Here is a link to some real science: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15230
This has no questions in it and contains no content of any value to stellar metamorphosis. It makes no mention of:
1. Thermochemistry
2. Thermodynamics
3. Electrochemistry
All three are necessary to complete any explanation of the solar interior or its evolution into a life hosting star.
The thermalization of momentum, and adiabatic compression, are not thermodynamics? Anyway, as concerns chemistry, just remember that the surface of the Sun averages 6000 K, and everything is monoatomic at that temperature. There "could" be compounds below the surface, if (like me) you believe that the interior of the Sun is actually cooler than the surface. My model doesn't have any heat sources any deeper than 120 Mm below the surface, and the core is absolute zero. But extreme degrees of ionization due to electron degeneracy pressure prevent covalent bonding, and there still aren't any compounds. So I don't see how chemical batteries are getting instantiated inside the Sun.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:52 am
JeffreyW wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: The thermalization of momentum, and adiabatic compression, are not thermodynamics?
Plasma recombination? thermalization of momentum? Don't you mean ionization? adiabatic compression?
It doesn't sound like you read the OP in the referenced thread. By "thermalization of momentum", I'm talking about the energy stored in the velocity of the imploding dusty plasma (not ionization). And the dusty plasma, and whatever came of it, can be considered adiabatic, as long as it isn't exchanging any energy with anything outside of itself. Thus by the conservation of energy, the total amount of energy in the dusty plasma, and/or whatever stars/planets/moons/etc. were fashioned from it, must always remain the same, minus only the EM radiation that projected into outer space, which is a very inefficient energy conversion. Within the timeframe that I'm talking about, which just covers the initial implosion (i.e., the first couple million years), very little total energy could have been lost to EM radiation.
JeffreyW wrote: The Sun is radiating massive amounts of heat and losing massive amounts of matter to solar wind and flares.
Right. And the Sun's power output of 1026 watts is shown to be the result of the Sun losing 6.86 × 107 kg/s of positive ions due to CMEs, which is the equivalent of 5.86 × 1015 A of positive current, which creates a charge imbalance that pulls an equivalent charge in electrons out of the Sun. The potential is 1.70 × 109 Volts. Watts = Volts * Amps = 9.98 × 1024 W, which is only 1 order of magnitude away from the measured output, and for rough numbers like these, that's close enough for me.
JeffreyW wrote: If covalent bonding is prevented, your model of the Sun has it as never undergoing plasma recombination then, a basic thermodynamic phase transition, because ions depending on their valance will combine with each other forming molecules and releasing heat (exothermic reaction). We see these molecules in more evolved stars... they are called methane, water, oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, etc.
We see such molecules in planets (i.e., old, cold stars), but not in stars (i.e., young, hot stars). So that's an energy source that doesn't figure in my solar model.
JeffreyW wrote: Without basic phase transitioning, the models are not correct.
I would phrase that differently: without phase transitioning occurring at realistic times, the models are not correct.
NO EARTH EXPANSION
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:57 pm
Sparky wrote: Is it possible that the Earth was expanding until subduction began?
I'm currently considering the possibility that the Earth is still growing by deposition at the base of the aurora, where charges in the solar wind have recombined. The helium will just float off; the hydrogen that doesn't combine with oxygen to make water will float off; heavier elements and compounds will eventually settle to the surface. The evidence of this deposition would be tough to find, since the lighter elements (i.e., carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, etc.) are abundant at the surface. But I doubt that such deposition would cause the Earth to grow fast enough to cause continental spreading.
SOLAR MASS RECYCLES
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:07 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Abstract: It is explained that the process of mass loss via heterolytic fissioning accelerates during stellar evolution because of lowered escape velocity.
I just wanted to give you a heads-up on some things that I found with the heliosphere, which suggest a fundamental re-evaluation of solar mass loss. My first hunch that something wasn't right about solar mass loss was that even the slow solar wind, at 450 km/s, would reach the heliopause in about 1 year. Think about that for a second. If the solar wind is creating a termination shock in the heliopause, where it encounters enough pressure from the interstellar medium to come to a stop, and if it's traveling at 450 km/s to get there, and if the Sun has been at this for at least a couple million years, we'd expect a whole boatload of matter to be built up at the heliopause -- at least a couple million years' worth. And yet that's not what we're seeing -- there is no crust at the heliopause. And excess solar wind isn't getting swept away by the interstellar winds, which are only doing about 25 km/s. So there cannot be a coma downwind of the heliosphere, if the solar wind is expanding faster than the interstellar winds, any more than there is going to be a coma on the leeward side of an explosion from a stick of dynamite -- if the shock front is traveling faster than the ambient winds, the winds don't matter.
So I ran some rough numbers on the total mass of the heliosphere, and was amazed at what I found. So I searched around, and found really good numbers on the density of the heliosphere, and calculated the total mass from that, and was really amazed. I'll fill in the details on demand, but the bottom is that the total mass of the heliosphere came out to just 4.65e16 kg. That's a bit of a problem in that a low estimate for solar mass loss is 1.37e9 kg/s, which is 4.34e16 kg/year. So at the present rate, it would take just a little over a year for the solar wind to fill up the heliosphere to its current density. But... the Sun has been at this for at least a couple million years, right? Where is all of that mass going? I'm currently considering the possibility that the Sun does, indeed, eject that much mass in CMEs, but that it all rains back down, at least eventually. That isn't the only possibility, but if that is what is happening, then stars don't go through any radical changes as they lose mass, because they don't lose any mass. Rather, they just slowly cool down as they radiate heat.
EVOLUTION OF STARS BY COLOR
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:08 pm
Hey Folks! Sorry I haven't had the time to keep up with this thread, but I've been distracted by other projects. You guys might be interested in the article I'm working on right now: Light Curves. Assuming that stars slide down the main sequence with time, going from bright blue to dim red (and beyond), I'm calculating the rate at which the cooling occurs. The star cools rapidly at first, because the radiative heat loss varies with the fourth power of the temperature. With time, the heat loss levels off, asymptotically approaching absolute zero over an infinite period. Then I show that the curves that I'm getting are consistent with the populations of stars that we observe in each spectral class:
O: 0.00003%
B: 0.13%
A: 0.60%
F: 3.00%
G: 7.60%
K: 12.10%
M: 76.45%
In the standard model, stars stay where they were born on the main sequence, and there are few bright blue stars, and many dim red stars, because the bright blue stars use up their fuel faster than the dim red stars. But the standard model fails to explain why the bright blue stars could fuse that much hydrogen, that much faster, without initiating a runaway thermonuclear explosion. So I'm going with the GTSM, and showing that few bright blue stars, and many dim red stars, is an expectation, when radiative heat loss varies with the fourth power of the temperature. I'm still clarifying the writing, but I "think" that all of the necessary pieces are there, and before I get pulled off onto yet another project, I wanted to give you guys the heads up.