DEBUNKING STANDARD SOLAR MODEL
Gravity Can't Overcome Hydrostatic Expansion Pressure
CONTENTS
WHY STANDARD SOLAR MODEL IS WRONG
INTERSTELLAR FILAMENT IMPLOSION TIME
THE MAIN ERROR IN THE STANDARD MODEL
WHY STANDARD SOLAR MODEL IS WRONG
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:58 pm
Here's my dismissal of the standard model of star formation. The entire article, and links to related articles, are on my website.
In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his Universal Law of Gravitation, which identified the force that keeps planets in orbit around the Sun, and moons in orbit around the planets. But in his day, the prevailing opinion was that these objects were created, in situ, just a couple thousand years ago. Only later did people start considering the possibility that celestial bodies were somehow formed, and over much longer periods of time.
By the 1800s, improved telescopes were detecting dust clouds in space. And sometimes, there were voids in dust clouds, with new stars in the centers of the voids (such as the star in the center of Figure 1). The conclusion was that the missing dust had formed the stars when it collapsed under its own weight. At the same time, scientists knew that the hydrostatic pressure in the cloud would oppose the gravitational collapse. Still, the evidence was mounting that stars do form. So scientists supposed that there was a threshold that had to be crossed to enable the collapse — if the hydrostatic pressure was weak, and/or if the gravity was strong, the collapse would begin. As the density of the cloud increased in the center, the force of gravity would get stronger, further consolidating the matter. In a sufficiently dense cloud, gravity would overpower hydrostatic pressure, packing all of the matter into a star. This came to be known as the Jeans Instability, and it has become the standard model of star formation, now so deeply entrenched as to be difficult to challenge.
Yet it is fundamentally flawed. In Newtonian mechanics, there is no gravitational instability. Rather, there is a hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the opposite of an instability. It is true that gravity exerts an inward force, and as matter gets pulled inward, it gets more dense, which makes the gravity field even stronger — and not by just a little bit. Rather, gravity obeys the inverse square law, which means that it increases exponentially as the volume decreases. Nevertheless, there is an opposing force — the pressure increases as a direct function of the decreasing volume (i.e., Boyle's Law), and that's also an exponential function. In fact, it's a cubic function, since it's based on volume, while gravity only increases by a square function. So as a gas gets compressed, the hydrostatic pressure increases faster than the gravity. This leads invariably to an equilibrium, beyond which gravity is weaker than pressure, and that's where the compression stops. This is why, for example, the Earth's atmosphere doesn't collapse under its own weight, despite having a higher concentration of heavy elements than is typical in space, making it more subject to the force of gravity, and despite being much cooler than a dusty plasma of the same density, and despite the Earth providing a lot more gravity than a dusty plasma provides for itself — the hydrostatic equilibrium has already been achieved, and the gravitational collapse doesn't happen.
Knowing this, scientists have concluded that something must be removing the hydrostatic pressure. So they suppose that as the compression raises the temperature, eventually the matter gets hot enough to start issuing EM radiation (i.e., photons). If the photons escape the dusty plasma and proceed on out into space, this represents a net energy loss for the dusty plasma, and it will have cooled itself. But photons are an extremely inefficient heat transfer mechanism. And if somehow the collapse continues, eventually the dust will be thick enough that it will absorb all of its own radiation, making the energy loss via photons even less efficient. And even if it could cool itself this way, when it gets down to the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, it still won't collapse under its own weight, even if it's inside the gravity field of a very large solid object, because the hydrostatic pressure still won't let it, as we've already seen.
Ongoing studies of stellar nurseries have further compounded the problem. Dusty plasmas actually do not collapse under their own weight — they require a trigger in order to collapse. Considering the facts just mentioned concerning hydrostatic equilibria, this isn't surprising, since dusty plasmas shouldn't collapse on their own. But it does beg the question of what over-rides the pressure and accomplishes the final compression. The trigger is the collision of two gas clouds (especially when two galaxies are merging) or a gas cloud that got impacted by the debris from a nearby supernova. The naïve interpretation of this is that the combination of the masses of the two gas clouds (or one gas cloud plus a bunch of supernova ejecta) increased the gravity, forcing the collapse. It's true that the mass will increase, but we also have to consider the other half of the equation — in Newtonian mechanics, the collapse would only happen if something increased the gravity and/or decreased the hydrostatic pressure. A gas cloud collision will increase the mass, but with particles impacting each other at 20 km/s, the thermalization of the momentum will greatly increase the hydrostatic pressure, causing the gas to expand (or explode), not collapse.
GRAVITY V. PRESSURE
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:10 pm
willendure wrote: Can you supply a derivation of the gravity as a squared function, and pressure as a cubed function?
Here are the formulas (which surely you know), but just to get them on the table:
Gravity:
F = Gm1m2/r2
where:
F = force (newtons)
G = gravitational constant
m1 = mass of first object (kg)
m2 = mass of second object (kg)
r = distance between centers (m)
Pressure (using the Molar Ideal Gas Law):
P = ρRT/M
where:
P = pressure (pascals)
ρ = density (kg/m3)
R = Ideal Gas Constant
T = temperature (kelvins)
M = molar mass (g/mol)
Pascals can be converted to newtons if you know the surface area of the container (one pascal = one newton per square meter). But yes, gravity is an inverse square function (r2), while pressure is a direct cubic function (m3). It isn't quite that simple, but in rough terms, it's the right basic idea, since the pressure definitely increases faster than the gravity, ultimately establishing an equilibrium between the opposing forces.
I'm currently working on code that will calculate all of this, plus the electric force (like gravity but 39 orders of magnitude more powerful) for an imploding dusty plasma. During the implosion, there is a change of regimes, from charged Debye cells, to fully unbound atoms and free electrons. The inward body force obeys the same principle (i.e., mutual attraction to shared opposite charges, if they're unbound). But there will be a lull in the transition, and I want to know where that occurs. It will be a function of temperature, which is a function of compression. I have an idea of how much force is accelerating the Debye cells inward -- it's mainly electrostatic, but with a little bit of gravity. So I need to generate the velocity curve from the cumulative acceleration, minus the increasing pressure. And I need to find out when the compression heats the Debye cells up to the point that the dust grains are no longer solid, and thus the cells will no longer be organized. This will be a function of the elements in the dust grains, which I'm currently researching. I'll let you know when I have this done.
BOYLE’S LAW
willendure wrote: Boyle's Law says that the pressure P is proportional to 1/V, but of course that is with unchanged temperature.
Boyle's Law assumes that the gas is adiabatic, such that it doesn't lose any of the heat gained in compression, or regain any heat from its surroundings that was lost to its expansion. So the temperature inside the gas will change with compression/expansion.
INTERSTELLAR FILAMENT IMPLOSION TIME
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:46 am
willendure wrote: Could the radiating away of heat as photons allow the collapse though? You point out it is very inefficient, and I think I am right in saying the H and He do not radiate heat as easily as heavier (or metal) elements do. But given millions or billions of years...? Do we know that stars form in a short enough time frame to rule that out?
Excellent question, and that's another thing that I want to figure out. My rough estimate for the time to implosion is 100 million years, but most of that time is spent in the slow acceleration at first. As the implosion continues, it gets faster. And not just because of a constant acceleration -- the acceleration increases, because the electric force gets stronger as the opposite charges get closer to each other. The following graph shows how much more powerful than gravity the electric force is, given the spacing between the Debye cells in the dusty plasma. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12790_wbg.png
So as the implosion continues, it isn't just that the speed increases -- the acceleration increases, because the force is stronger. The result is that most of the action is going to be at the very end of the 100 million years. Then comes the question of when the temperature gets up to the point that the plasma starts radiating. That's when it can begin to shed its heat (albeit very inefficiently, as you noted). The other question is: when will it stop radiating effectively, because the implosion continued, and the plasma got so dense that it began absorbing all of its own radiation? The answers to those questions will set the beginning and ending times for the diabatic phase. Then the question is: how much heat can the plasma radiate in that period of time? Mainstream scientists believe that this period is roughly 1 million years, and yep, they think that it's plenty of time. I can rule out the argument just by looking at the Earth's atmosphere, which is way cooler than the plasma will be when it gets to that density, and the gravity field is a lot stronger, but the air still doesn't collapse under its own weight, because the pressure is already too great. But I don't want to dismiss their argument with a metaphor -- I want the real numbers.
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:10 am
willendure wrote: If the pressure in the middle were higher, due to the weight of material above, then that would mean that material is being compressed much more in the middle.
Yes, that's true, once everything comes to rest.
IMPLOSION REBOUND
willendure wrote: The pressure rising faster than gravity is definitely true at the surface, but given a large enough ball of gas, might some critical compression threshold still be overcome in the middle, allowing the star to ignite even though the ball of gas as a whole has only shrunk down to an equilibrium between pressure and gravity?
On implosion, it's definitely going to ignite. But given any velocity at all, the plasma will overshoot the hydrostatic equilibrium. Then there will be too much pressure for gravity to contain, and it will rebound off of itself, and since heat gain/loss due to compression/expansion is non-lossy, it should rebound all of the way back out to its original dimensions. The only way to not get a rebound is to lose a bunch of energy somewhere in there. How much energy? Just with adiabatic compression as the only energy source, the Sun should average 2 orders of magnitude hotter, and it should be under 3 orders of magnitude more pressure. (See Solar Energy Budget for a more complete explanation.) So basically, it has to radiate away 99% of the thermal energy in the original dusty plasma, so that when compressed, it isn't 100 times more temperature and pressure than the force of gravity can contain. I'm betting that this just isn't going to work. So my model identifies other forces.
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:53 am
willendure wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: So basically, it has to radiate away 99% of the thermal energy in the original dusty plasma, so that when compressed, it isn't 100 times more temperature and pressure than the force of gravity can contain.
Is this also true of the standard model with a gravity only collapse? I mean in the sense that the dust cloud needs to lose 99% of its energy to collapse into a star?
Yes, I am speaking of the standard model. In my model, the energy is retained. (See below.)
NEGATIVE HEAT CAPACITY FAKE
willendure wrote: I'm posting some of these questions up on physics stack exchange too:
And what a bunch of astro-babble you're getting there!!! In the special case of star formation, hydrogen has a negative heat capacity... The standard model starts out with a bunch of assumptions about how the only two factors are gravity and pressure. Then, when the physics doesn't work out, they just corrupt the physics so that they get the answer they want. In reality, hydrogen does not have a negative heat capacity.
willendure wrote: Or is the answer that the energy is contained in the hydrogen that is going to be reacted to helium, and that is far bigger than the gravitational potential energy in the gas cloud?
You won't find a true answer anywhere in there.
IMPLOSION ENERGY CONVERSION
willendure wrote: In your electrical model, if you replace standard model gravitational potential energy in the dust cloud, with electrical potential energy in the dust cloud between ions, do you not end up with a far bigger initial energy budget, and therefore need to lose even more energy to get a collapse? Is the energy really being radiated away during the collapse, or does it somehow end up inside the star instead?
Yes, in my model, the energy isn't radiated away. Rather, it gets converted, from hydrostatic potential, to electrostatic potential. To understand my model, let's consider a spherically imploding plasma. As I mentioned in a previous post, at any velocity at all, the implosion will pass the hydrostatic equilibrium, and the kinetic energy in the implosion will get stored in hydrostatic potential, in excess of what the gravity can contain. So the hydrostatic potential will then initiate a rebound. It's just like dropping a tennis ball on the concrete -- gravitational potential is converted to kinetic energy -- on impact with the concrete, kinetic energy is converted to hydrostatic potential inside the tennis ball, and maybe some elastic potential in the rubber -- but the amount of potential is, by definition, in excess of what the gravity can contain -- so the tennis ball bounces, because the excess potential gets reconverted to kinetic energy.
Since we know that dusty plasmas don't bounce off of themselves, and rebound back out to their original dimensions, we know that there has to be an energy sink somewhere in there, to convert the hydrostatic potential into some other form of energy that is not repulsive. There aren't very many choices here, but in the interest of brevity, I'll just go straight for the conclusion: the energy is converted to electrostatic potential. When matter is compressed, eventually it gets to the point that electrons start getting expelled from the matter. This is because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which is manifested in the incompressibility of solids. Since the atoms are already in a closest packed arrangement, with the electron shells overlapping, a further reduction in volume would force multiple electrons to be in the same place at the same time, and at the same energy level, which they don't like. So electrons are expelled, and then the Coulomb force between +ions resists the compression. The same is true of plasma. Just to get the overview, we can neglect the equations of state, and just say that once you compress plasma down to a certain density, any further compression will expel electrons, and the Coulomb force will prevent further compression. Well, we certainly have the force for this kind of compression in an imploding dusty plasma of stellar proportions, so we can expect this to happen.
So let's consider that our dusty plasma has collapsed into something the size of the Sun, and we know that it has exceeded the hydrostatic equilibrium, and is about to rebound back out. All of the matter would be under the same pressure, except for the fact that gravity -- the weakest of all of the forces present -- has an interesting property: it is purely attractive. So it adds its own force to the mix. The significance is that it will make sure that the center of the ball has the greatest pressure. As a consequence, the core will start expelling electrons first, leaving the core positively charged. Outside of the core, there will be a layer of excess electrons, attracted to the core, but not able to flow back in, because the core has become too compact for them.
MAGNET-LIKE DOUBLE LAYER
Next we can realize that the charges in the negative layer will induce a positive charge in the plasma around the outside. This is because the plasma near the negative charge feels the force of the negative charge more than the positive charge in the core. So now we have 3 layers of charge, in a positive-negative-positive configuration, starting in the core. Interestingly, the force binding these layers together is way more powerful than gravity. Thus the matter is further compacted. Even more interesting is the fact that electric fields remove degrees of freedom from charged particles, since the electric force latches onto the particles, and pulls them into a closest packed arrangement, with no wiggle room. The significance of the removal of degrees of freedom is that it takes away all of the heat. Thus hydrostatic potential has been converted to electrostatic potential. If you eliminate the forced charging of those layers, the opposite charges would recombine, and the arc discharges would regenerate all of the heat. So the Conversation of Energy runs through the whole process. But when sufficiently compressed, the heat goes away, being replaced by electrostatic potential.
Also note that all of this put together constitutes a force feedback loop. The whole thing started with kinetic energy creating excess hydrostatic potential, that should have resulted in a rebound. But gravity concentrated the pressure in one spot (i.e., the core), and the forced charging started. Once the alternating layers of charge got set up, the electric force between them pulled them together even more. This increases the pressure, which increases the forced charging. It also increases the density of the gravity field, which increases the pressure, which increases the forced charging. And the charging makes the alternating layers of charge more robust. So it's a force feedback loop. And this is what prevent{s} the hydrostatic rebound. The plasma was collapsing, but just when it thought that it was supposed to bounce back, something grabbed ahold of it and wouldn't let go, and the tighter it squeezed, the better its grip. That's the action of that force feedback loop. And yes, there is a lot more potential in my model than in the standard model -- I start out with 1043 J from the adiabatic compression. Then I add in the kinetic energy from the implosion itself. And I don't let any of the energy radiate away, so every bit of it is preserved.
THE MAIN ERROR IN THE STANDARD MODEL
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:39 am
willendure wrote: Any more fudging of the physics?
Do you want the whole list???? On the present topic, IMO the biggest error in star formation theory is the first one. They say that dusty plasmas collapse due to their own weight. And yet they acknowledge that all other factors being the same, dusty plasmas don't collapse. Rather, it takes a nearby supernova, or a gas cloud collision, to cause the collapse. Then, in their model, the collapse happens because the gravity is strong and/or because the pressure is weak. (Then you get into the question of whether or not the heat can be radiated fast enough to enable the continued collapse.) But the biggest error has already been made. The supernova, or the gas cloud collision, causes particle collisions at over 20 km/s. Sure, the newly added matter will increase the mass, so the gravity will be stronger. But the thermalization of 20 km/s collisions will greatly increase the pressure. Well, that's understating it -- that sounds more like an explosion, which is basically the opposite of a collapse. Once that error is made, it's hard to think mechanistically, and to spot other errors, because it isn't a physical framework.
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:38 pm
willendure wrote: I think a collision is not going to help a gravitational collapse that is already dependent on heat slowly leaking away. In the sense that, just as the cloud is settling down to a long slow collapse, it will be ripped apart by the collision.
Careful there -- those statements still incorporate the first false assumption. The dust cloud is NOT "settling down to a long slow collapse." Left alone, the dust cloud never collapses. Scientists acknowledge this, but they can't get their minds around the implications, so they keep repeating that gravity is doing the work, even if we don't fully understand how. Now, if we're going to get this right, we have to train ourselves to imagine dust clouds that are already at equilibrium, and with no intention of collapsing just because of gravity -- EVER!
willendure wrote: or the collision or supernova shockwave needs to play a very different role in initiating the collapse.
Exactly.
NO Z-PINCH
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:14 pm
fosborn_ wrote: So does your model depend on a z pinch action to initiate the implosion process?
No, there isn't any electric current there, before the implosion begins. The evidence of currents in nebular filaments comes from the fact that the filaments are already imploding, and the charged particles inside the filaments are generating detectable magnetic fields. In other words, it isn't that currents cause the filaments -- it's that the filaments are the currents.
INITIATION OF IMPLOSION
Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun
by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:54 pm
fosborn_ wrote: If there are no supply of external currents to begin the process, I don't understand what initiates your collapse? Or even how a proximity of such volumes accumulate in such a vast void to begin with?
The condition that initiates the collapse is a nearby supernova, or a gas cloud collision. The significance is that this strips Debye sheaths off of their dust grains, resulting in an electrostatic attraction throughout the entire gas cloud (i.e., an inward body force). Resting Debye cells in a dusty plasma have an electric configuration that looks like the following, with a negatively charged dust grain in the center, and a positively charged sheath around the outside that is bound firmly to the dust grain by the electric force ("P" = positive, "N" = negative, "-" = void):
---PNNP------PNNP------PNNP------PNNP------PNNP---
Each cell is net neutral, with an equal quantity of both charges. Irving Langmuir would tell you that these cells don't interact electrically with their environment, because of their neutrality. This is why he decided to call them plasmas, like the blood cells that insulate themselves. But that isn't entirely true. If you calculate the electric forces, from each particle, to each particle, you find a slight net repulsion between the cells. While the cells are net neutral, those aren't net-neutral point sources -- the Debye sheaths have a volume. As a consequence, the nearest aspects of one cell to another are their like-charged sheaths. Because of the inverse square law, the repulsion between these like charges dominates. This is why resting dusty plasmas don't collapse under their own weight -- there is an electric repulsion between them that offsets the gravitational attraction.
But if that dusty plasma is perturbed by the ejecta from a nearby supernova, or by a collision with another dusty plasma, the configuration changes. If there are a bunch of counter-streaming Debye cells, friction between them will shear the sheaths off of the dust grains (at least partially), producing this configuration:
-P--NN--P--P--NN--P--P--NN--P--P--NN--P--P--NN--P-
The net negative charge in the dust grains is still stable, because of covalent bonding in the crystal lattice. But now the positive charges in the sheaths have been dispersed in the intercellular space. And if you calculate all of the forces among all of the particles, it's now a very powerful net attraction. There is no longer a net repulsion between cells, because they no longer have sheaths to repel other cells. So the remaining force is the mutual attraction of the negative dust grains to the shared positive charge in the intercellular space. This attraction works out to about 1400 times more powerful than gravity. So that's what causes the collapse. See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692 for a more thorough explanation, including the diagrams and the calculation codes.