• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
HansMustermann said:
Well, it's probably my... very limited understanding of humanity at work, but I still don't get it.

I wanted to be a physicist. I pretty much just changed my mind at the 12'th hour because, well, a good physics university was far away and a computer university was right nearby, and there never were that many jobs for physicists anyway.

But, see, that meant really being interested in physics.

My parents, bless their nerdy souls, had given me a physics book to read when I could barely read. Which was before school actually. I guess I had asked why is the sky blue or some such. I can tell you it was a lot more fascinating than the explanations involving fairies and whatnot.

Soon I was reading Berkeley university books on quantum mechanics, and could talk to anyone for hours about how a radio works, starting from the antenna and ending up with the speaker. I thought they must be really interested too. Heh :p

I'm not saying that to brag or anything, it's just the kind of attitude I'd expect from anyone who's serious about physics. I'd expect them to be genuinely interested in how stuff works. I'd expect them to read a lot more than picking one woo book and sticking with it.

And that's where such woo models come apart. The questions about them start at pretty elementary levels. It's stuff like "why doesn't that iron melt", or "so where does all that hydrogen in the corona and solar wind come from", or more generally for an electric universe "so where is the massive magnetic field to go with the kind of current that would account for the Sun's energy." Even the most elementary actual knowledge of physics, even just not having slept in physics class in high school, should put a dent into that.

I guess what I'm trying to say, and using too many words, is: I have trouble imagining someone who really really wanted to be a physicist too, but slept in physics class in school :/
Click to expand...


Well, it may be that not everyone who wants to be something (physicist, poet, pianist, prima donna ballerina...) has the talent to pull it off. That can be a pretty hard realization. Adopting an obsolete theory and the role of "misunderstood genius" may be a way to avoid that realization. Plus the lure of being a "genius" (in your own mind): the next Einstein, the patent clerk who shocked the world! -- is pretty powerful, too. Seeing yourself as "misunderstood": the roles of "outsider", "martyr suffering scorn for the truth" (sounds familiar), appeal to many for many different reasons. Another basis, maybe: a sort of engrained "religious" mindset which makes it impossible to understand science. Finding a theory which doesn't fit the facts, but which can be clung to as dogmatic TRUTH that transcends the facts! -- better than boring ol' tentatively true real physics anyday. Not to mention truly sad cases of mental illness, etc... I'm just guessing at a few more-or-less rational motivations for wouldbe crank physicists.
 
The Man said:
Some particular questions spring to my mind brantc. Would your iron sun be solid or mostly iron under its ferrite surface? Or would it be a combination of other elements? In either case how did that iron or those other elements originate in quantities sufficient to account for the mass not only of our sun, but also other stars of significantly greater mass? Considering of course that the compatibility of modern cosmology and astrophysics with the standard model of particle physics seems to do quite a nice job of not only explaining how our sun works, but why it is comprised of the elements, in the quantities, it appears to be comprised of.
Click to expand...

I am trying to focus on one aspect of this idea/model right now, the solar surface.

But a quick answer to your questions.
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova.. The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity. All stars are different with differencing trace metals but they ALL have metals.
The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
This is where the iron sphere came from.
The elements are gathered by a process called Marklund Convection and converted by a pinching process forming heavier and heavier elements until iron. Fusion(nucleosynthesis) as a process of nature happens in filamental pinches(reconnection) or the standard Bennett pinch. Temperatures high enough for the CNO cycle have been observed on the sun in "reconnection" (pinches)

In experiments with arcs, hollow spherules are formed in intense arc explosions with metals.

There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova.
Click to expand...

A solid shell is going to form during a massive explossion? Yeah, not so much.

he hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
Click to expand...

That's an understatement. A shell is gravitationally unstable. Any perturbation and it will collapse inward. Hell, given the pressures involved, you probably wouldn't even need perturbations, the iron would simply start to flow. To stabilize an iron shell, you'd need a theory of gravity which is not only completely new, but which contradicts experimental evidence.

All stars are different with differencing trace metals but they ALL have metals.
Click to expand...

Actually, some stars have almost no metal, certainly not enough to form a solid shell.

The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
This is where the iron sphere came from.
Click to expand...

A pinch produces a cylinder, not a sphere.

There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
Click to expand...

Not so much, actually.
 
I would also like to add for brantc's benefit that "metallicity" means something completely different for stars. It just means all elements heavier than hellium. "Metal" there doesn't mean the same as in chemistry.

So, yes, most stars contain "metals", but those "metals" are actually the likes of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, or neon. Good luck forming a solid shell out of _those_ even at 1000K.

Also it bears remembering what "metal rich" means in percentages, especially if we're talking iron. Most stars won't even produce much of it, and indeed most will die with little more than what they had accreted in the first place. Even a young star like our Sun has only 1.6% iron, by mass, which is to say "bugger all" in layman's terms. A population III star might have a millionth of that. In fact, it might not even have enough C, N and O to start that fusion cycle at all.

So basically it seems to me like a mis-conception based on not even knowing what the terms mean. "Metal rich" means different elements and a very different meaning of "rich."
 
brantc said:
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova..
Click to expand...

Break out the laughing dogs.A shell formed during an explosion? Do you realize just how powerful a supernova is? Probably not,or you would not believe in nonsense like that.
 
brantc said:
There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
Click to expand...

Fred Hoyle would have disagreed with you.Here is a list of the prizes he won,some for his ground-breaking work on nucleosynthesis.How many prizes have you won?
* Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1968)
* Bruce Medal (1970)
* Henry Norris Russell Lectureship (1971)
* Royal Medal (1974)
* Klumpke-Roberts Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (1977)
* Balzan Prize for Astrophysics: evolution of stars (1994, with Martin Schwarzschild)
* Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with Edwin Salpeter (1997)
 
brantc said:
I am trying to focus on one aspect of this idea/model right now, the solar surface.
Click to expand...

As am I, how could your "solar surface" form in the first place?

brantc said:
But a quick answer to your questions.
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova..
Click to expand...

Ok what is "thick" 10% or more of the surface radius? Once you start getting to 30% or 40% you’re talking about something that is mostly solid not just a “thick” “shell”. As Ziggurat inquires above, how exactly does an iron shell form in a supernova? You also say “hollow” does that infer an internal vacuum and absolutely no internal pressure to help support your “shell”?



brantc said:
The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
Click to expand...

Well then it doesn’t account for the destiny measurement if you need “a slightly different model of gravity”. Just what would that “slightly different model” entail?


brantc said:
All stars are different with differencing trace metals but they ALL have metals.
The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
This is where the iron sphere came from.
The elements are gathered by a process called Marklund Convection and converted by a pinching process forming heavier and heavier elements until iron. Fusion(nucleosynthesis) as a process of nature happens in filamental pinches(reconnection) or the standard Bennett pinch. Temperatures high enough for the CNO cycle have been observed on the sun in "reconnection" (pinches)
Click to expand...

What “pinching process” are you referring to that forms “heavier and heavier elements until iron”? Where has fusion been observed occurring “in filamental pinches(reconnection) or the standard Bennett pinch”? When has CNO cycle fusion been observed “on the sun in "reconnection" (pinches)"?

brantc said:
In experiments with arcs, hollow spherules are formed in intense arc explosions with metals.
Click to expand...

Do you know how and why those spherules are formed and what are the factors in that formation limiting their size?

brantc said:
There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you see as that “huge problem”?
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
Other great ideas:

There is no such thing as "Electronics". All of those liitle components contain magix smoke. Let the smoke out, and the component stops working.
Click to expand...

That is actually an accepted concept among Classic British Automobile circles. Lucas Replacement smoke is precious . . . .

http://www3.telus.net/bc_triumph_registry/smoke.htm


BTW, I know almost nothing about cosmology and yet I find these threads addictive. Please stop. I have a job and a family. You can't keep posting these threads!
 
dafydd said:
Break out the laughing dogs.A shell formed during an explosion? Do you realize just how powerful a supernova is? Probably not,or you would not believe in nonsense like that.
Click to expand...

Just to put an approximate number of it, at its peak the temperature of a Type 1a supernova is in the _billions_ of degrees, and its brightness is about 5 billion times that of the Sun. (And pretty invariably at that, which is why it's used as a standard candle.)

The energy released in the Carbon fusion is at the order of 1-2*10^44 Joules. By comparison, the Sun's luminosity is roughly 4*10^26W. That is to say, it equals the Sun's current energy output for about 2-5*10^17 seconds, or about 6 to 10 billion years.

The temperatures and energies involved are... humbling. Trying to contain those in a thin iron sphere is akin to trying to contain a thermonuclear explosion in a paper bag.
 
HansMustermann said:
Just to put an approximate number of it, at its peak the temperature of a Type 1a supernova is in the _billions_ of degrees, and its brightness is about 5 billion times that of the Sun. (And pretty invariably at that, which is why it's used as a standard candle.)

The energy released in the Carbon fusion is at the order of 1-2*10^44 Joules. By comparison, the Sun's luminosity is roughly 4*10^26W. That is to say, it equals the Sun's current energy output for about 2-5*10^17 seconds, or about 6 to 10 billion years.

The temperatures and energies involved are... humbling. Trying to contain those in a thin iron sphere is akin to trying to contain a thermonuclear explosion in a paper bag.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see brantc's handwave on that one.
 
What density measurments does the hollow iron shell account for

brantc said:
The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
Click to expand...
First asked 2 April 2010
brantc,
What density measurements?
Please give the numerical match from your hollow iron shell model + "slightly different model of gravity" to these measurements.
 
What is your "slightly different model of gravity"

brantc said:
The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
Click to expand...
First asked 2 April 2010
brantc,
What is your "slightly different model of gravity"?
What happens if you apply this model to other situations, e.g. what does it predict for the orbit of Mercury?
 
brantc said:
The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
Click to expand...
A bit of ignorance here:
  1. The Sun was not formed in a supernova. The gas cloud that it formed from included elements from supernovae.
  2. Supernova are exploding stars. The idea that supernova are some sort of pinches is really stupid but I am sure you can cite the published literature on this.
What causes barrel-shaped supernova remnants?
Even from the earliest crude radio maps of 40 years ago, it was apparent that Galactic supernova remnants (SNR) are anything but well-behaved expanding spheres. In particular a significant fraction of SNRs have a bilateral, or ``barrel'', morphology, with a clear axis of reflection symmetry along which there is negligible emission, and with bright flanks on either side. There are numerous theories to explain the appearance of barrel-shaped SNRs, such as the effect of anisotropies in the distribution of supernova ejecta, the structure of the ambient magnetic field, the mass-loss history of the progenitor and the effect of opposed jets or beams from a central source. Three decades of debate have failed to settle the issue, however. Most Galactic SNRs have now been observed in the radio with high resolution and sensitivity, and one can establish a clear bilateral subset of the population. We define such a subset, and find that the symmetry axes of these SNRs are aligned with the Galactic Plane at a high level of statistical significance. This suggests that the Galactic magnetic field is responsible for the appearance of these SNRs at some level. We propose that the ambient field pre-processes the interstellar medium to produce elongated bubbles into which these SNRs expand. This then produces the barrel shape, together with the required alignment. We are in the process of studying the environment of barrel-shaped SNRs in H i\ emission, in order to see if this model is supported by observations.
Click to expand...
 
dafydd said:
I love the idea of Steampunk physics,great to look at but bugger all to do with reality.
Click to expand...

Yah. Fake physics just doesn't do it for me. At least here there are enough folks who know the actual physics, and real physics can be awesome. No need to make things up when the truth is even cooler. Nuclear fusion and plasma is awesome, in every sense of the word.

I used to post a lot on the 'brass goggles' forum about real stuff, till it got overwhelmed by model making and some of the mods started pushing a 'real physics is too scary' policy. Sad days when discussions of high voltage and superheated steam get shouted down in favor of the latest painted plastic aetheric ray.

A
 
tusenfem said:
Usually, dark current is defined as:
The current that flows in a photodetector when it is not receiving any light. It may increase as the temperature rises.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I knew about that one, but it didn't seem to apply to the solar surface; nor did the Faraday dark space in a cold cathode glow tube.

I the same, I think, can hold in a electron gun, the current that is already flowing before a discharge is visible and can be measured by a Faraday Cup. I guess thence cometh Faraday dark current.
Click to expand...
I saw that one, also, but did not see how it would apply, either.
Basically, it's brantc having found a new scientific term (though google does not give any hits on Faraday dark current).
Click to expand...

I had the same search results, and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes these guys absolutely astound me.:D

Cheers,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Seems like a good generalization that if Google doesn't know what a term means, then the person using it made it up. Not a good start to making a case.
The best way to show one knows enough science to talk about science is to use the same language as the rest of the world uses when they talk science. Having to make up your own words doesn't mean that you're pushing the boundries of knowlege. It usually just means you don't know the right words.

A
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom