It is becoming unreal how easy it is to show why they are wrong in so many ways about most things concerning the stars. It is like they haven't even been looking at them, its like they just do math equations and that's it. Its like they just have given up. Nobody bothers to fix the problems either, they just keep them as if they are sacred text.
Here's another gem from the "stellar structure" page:
"Although LTE does not strictly hold because the temperature a given shell "sees" below itself is always hotter than the temperature above"
So not only is LTE wrong, but they think it gets hotter as you go deeper into the Sun! Yet sunspots are 3,000 Kelvin.
so not only do they believe 5,880 Kelvin = 2 Kelvin, but 3,000 Kelvin > 5,880 Kelvin!!!
Wow.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
1. Standard solar model has the Sun being in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, this is called LTE or Local Thermodynamic equilibrium.
Heat always goes from the hotter to the colder until all bodies are in thermal equilibrium.
To say the Sun is in LTE or Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium is to say the Sun's temp matches outer space. This means the stellar structure models conflict with the zeroth law of thermodynamics. Is it really that easy to debunk their models? Yes, especially when their minds allow for ignoring of all the other laws of thermodynamics to make their Big Bang Creationism work.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I thought this was pretty cool. When I see this picture it makes me think about how diffuse the Sun really is.
This is what the establishment thinks the Earth looked like 500 million years ago.
I think their theories and models are wrong.
This is what the Earth looked like, they forget the vast majority of the atmosphere!
of course they do not realize Earth is an ancient star, or even had a gigantic atmosphere, because to them a star could never cool and become a planet, yet that is what mother nature does. Stellar evolution is planet formation itself.
Well then one of us does not understand what is being presented. My link is to a university. Where does your link connect to?
And where is the documentation that supports your contention that Standard solar model has the Sun being in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment.
I asked for this before. YOu seem to ignore the question if you think it will show you to be wrong. And it is irritating that you do that when I ask very little! If you don't know, say so.. If you are wrong, say so. But to keep defending an error is not very scientific. So, where is your documentation that supports what you are saying about the sun, LTE, and standard theory on that?
Well then one of us does not understand what is being presented. My link is to a university. Where does your link connect to?
And where is the documentation that supports your contention that Standard solar model has the Sun being in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment.
I asked for this before. YOu seem to ignore the question if you think it will show you to be wrong. And it is irritating that you do that when I ask very little! If you don't know, say so.. If you are wrong, say so. But to keep defending an error is not very scientific. So, where is your documentation that supports what you are saying about the sun, LTE, and standard theory on that?
I already said it. The contention is that the Sun in the standard solar model is in LTE.
It is in the equations of stellar structure:
The star is assumed to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) so the temperature is identical for matter and photons.
As noted previously, the equations of stellar structure are used to determine the eventual evolution of stars. Since it is wrong, as per noted above the fact that the Sun is not in thermodynamic equilibrium (5,000+ Kelvin > 2-4 Kelvin) with its environment, the standard equations of stellar structure are flat wrong. Thus if those are wrong, then their models for stellar evolution are wrong. That is why I am here. If their models were even CLOSE to anything resembling anything to do with reality they would have come to the conclusion that these big bright objects will cool and undergo basic thermodynamic phase transitions. Plasma becomes gas, gas solidifies into liquids and solids. The star becomes the "planet", thus they were never mutually exclusive objects!
The reason why they ignore thermodynamics is because they want to force fit math to describe what they believe. In scientism stars are "fusion reactors" with "fully developed cores that are fusing hydrogen and helium to make heavier elements". Yet all the hydrogen on the sun is above the surface. There is no core of hydrogen, plus hydrogen is also the lightest element, so how the hell did it sink?
So in conclusion, in order to do that (keep the sun as a magical fusion reactor), they have to ignore the zeroth law of thermodynamics and they have to ignore the fact that the Sun is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with outer space. If it were it would be the same temperature of outer space.
In other words, the standard solar model can be ignored without consequence. The only thing correct about the standard solar model is that the Sun is hot.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
This is not even about argument from authority either Sparky, this is about basic physics.
If you have an object that is hotter than its surroundings, it is not in thermal equilibrium. All objects in thermodynamic equilibrium are in thermal equilibrium. Thus to say that the Sun is in LTE or Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium is to literally ignore the fact that it is 5000+ Kelvin and outer space is colder than the surface of Pluto.
The Standard Solar Model disintegrates based on first year physics.
Its also another reason why they banned me from cosmoquest forum. They hate being called out.
In forming the stellar structure equations (exploiting the assumed spherical symmetry), one considers the matter density \rho(r), temperature T(r), total pressure (matter plus radiation) P(r), luminosity l(r), and energy generation rate per unit mass \epsilon(r) in a spherical shell of a thickness \mbox{d}r at a distance r from the center of the star. The star is assumed to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) so the temperature is identical for matter and photons.
It is useful to distinguish between global and local thermodynamic equilibrium. In thermodynamics, exchanges within a system and between the system and the outside are controlled by intensive parameters. As an example, temperature controls heat exchanges. Global thermodynamic equilibrium (GTE) means that those intensive parameters are homogeneous throughout the whole system, while local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) means that those intensive parameters are varying in space and time, but are varying so slowly that, for any point, one can assume thermodynamic equilibrium in some neighborhood about that point.
In thermodynamics, a thermodynamic system is in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is in thermal equilibrium, mechanical equilibrium, radiative equilibrium, and chemical equilibrium. Equilibrium means a state of balance. In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there areno net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system. A system that is in thermodynamic equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.
From what I read, you seem to misunderstand what they are saying. I don't do math, so maybe someone who does will post and explain where you went off.
And I can't take your word for what others are saying, until you correct yourself. Just because you believe what you are saying doesn't make it correct.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: there areno net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system.[/b] A system that is in thermodynamic equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.
And I can't take your word for what others are saying, until you correct yourself. Just because you believe what you are saying doesn't make it correct.
Its even more wrong if you add those things!
1. No net flows of matter or energy (the solar wind and the fact that it radiates conflicts with this)
2. No unbalanced potentials or driving forces within the system (the presence of sun spots and convection inside of solar granules conflicts with this)
3. No phase changes (the fact that plasma is recombining with itself to make gas conflicts with this, this is an exothermic reaction and releases heat which causes a large portion of granule convection).
4. The previous argument of the sun not being in thermal equilibrium with its environment (5000+ Kelvin is WAY hotter than 2-4 Kelvin of outer space).
So the reality is that they are wrong in 4 different avenues of approach in the standard solar model. All because they ignore basic thermodynamics. There is no correcting myself, there is only correcting the wikipedia article and all of solar physics. It either comes in agreement with thermodynamic principles or it does not, it does not so the standard solar model is wrong.
Its really, really bad. They think the Sun is an isolated system.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The standard solar model is a zombie theory. Its been dead for a while, but it just won't lay down.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
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.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
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.
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.
Then a pack of high schoolers comes along and starts making scientific discoveries.
The problems are with first principles. Yes. Basic A,B,C's of physics are completely ignored!
My guess is that it got this way because of Big Bang Creationism, they have allowed an atrocious idea such as Big Bang Creationism to be taught in school, you can forget about needing to make sense or having non-contradictory physics!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Another high school student would notice this too, its the very first sentence:
The standard solar model (SSM) is a mathematical treatment of the Sun as a spherical ball of gas (in varying states of ionisation, with the hydrogen in the deep interior being a completely ionised plasma).
SSM has hydrogen as the deepest element even though it is the lightest. Shouldn't it float up to the surface?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, this needs to be placed on a golden plaque above the halls of all university science departments:
CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
This is how I got to make the discovery. I got to examine the first principles and the assumptions that are probably false.
As a wrap up of that statement I have found that it is actually counter to my experience in dealing with people who have "advanced degrees". They ask me what MY education is, yet the fact that its over-education which is the problem. They say, "well you don't have an advanced degree, thus you don't know what you're talking about". That's exactly the problem only reversed! Its the people who DO have advanced degrees is where the problem is!
