JeffreyW wrote: My money is on that thing being a dissipative structure at this moment because all DC current is flowing out of it in the form of free electrons and other particles.
I agree that the Sun is dissipating stored energy, but I think that the DC current problem is much more fundamental. How do you get a sustained DC current in an excellent conductor? That's actually one heckuva problem when conceived in a fully mechanical framework. (Just think like an engineer and imagine trying to build one from parts.) IMO, CMEs eject positive ions, and then there is a sustained electron drift chasing after the +ions. Averaged over the entire solar cycle, there isn't any net current — just the expulsion of a large volume of quasi-neutral matter. But at any given instant, if you're inside a CME, you're measuring a flux of +ions. At all other times, you're measuring electron drift. And the potential between the Sun and the heliosphere created by the CMEs isn't discharged instantaneously because the electrons in the topmost negative layer in the Sun are being held down by their attraction to an underlying positive layer. This means that the negative layer is sandwiched between two positive layers — one deeper inside the Sun, and the other being the heliosphere. Such a tripolar field puts the electrons on a current divider, where they could go either way. This explains the slow drift away from the Sun, and the acceleration in the direction of the drift through the corona. The further the electrons get from the current divider, the less ambiguous the field. I don't know of another EM configuration that can fulfill all of those requirements, so IMO, this is "it".
Okay, this is fine, but we cannot forget the main reason why this understanding will not gain the steam necessary in popular understanding of stars/solar models. That is because the standard models assume the Sun is not a dissipative structure! Yet you and I agree that it IS a dissipative structure! This is a huge black eye on all astrophysics majors and entire astronomy communities! How could they miss something so simple!?
In the standard model, the Sun is not a dissipative structure. At all. The Sun is a nuclear reactor that is not losing any appreciable mass or energy. It is a closed system in thermodynamic terms! It is, according to establishment consensus a body in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. This is shitty reasoning! The Sun is radiating! It is clearly NOT a closed system. It is clearly losing mass and energy. It is a large scale (macro scale) dissipative structure.
Thus with one swoop, we have obliterated all standard models of star evolution, with agreement that they are dissipative structures! It is great! We are in no-man's land in scientific terms!
This is much more fundamental in order to get your own understanding off the ground in light of mainstream physicists. Sure the +ions and the electrons end up being quasi-neutral when they exit the Sun, but the fact that they are exiting and never coming back is not taught in schools! The Sun is not in a giant celestial, invisible box!
It is literally that simple! For mathematical purposes (general relativity mostly) they have put the Sun in a big box and called it quits! They literally took basic thermodynamics and replaced it with General Relativity pseudoscience. The detour in humanities' star sciences started in 1915 when Einstein tried to make Special Relativity explain gravitation. It didn't work! Still doesn't work! Yet, they didn't give a shit! To hell with the basic principles of thermodynamics we have this new physics called "General Relativity"!
Thermal equilibrium is this: Two systems are in thermal equilibrium when their temperatures are the same.
Is the Sun the temperature of outer space? Nope. So the Sun is not in thermodynamic equilibrium!
Yet here it is pasted all over wikipedia, scroll down to the equations of stellar structure:
They make the star in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, but then say, yea, we know its not, but we don't care we're gonna apply this math anyways...
Then they make it also in hydrostatic equilibrium! Gah! The Sun is gravitationally collapsing albeit slowly!
So what they do is this: Ignore thermodynamics, ignore the fact that it is gravitationally collapsing slowly, and then apply gravity to explain its structure with the gravitational constant, forgetting the fact that it is losing mass to the solar wind and radiation!
It's a huge mess! It literally looks like they just made this stuff up off the top of their heads on a rainy day. I call it, "rainy day physics". Instead of actually looking at what the Sun is doing because it is raining outside, just do some math and we're all set! Einstein should have moved to where I live in Florida, I think the dreary weather in Princeton and Germany helped him to ignore the Sun's most prominent property, the fact that it shines.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: For mathematical purposes (general relativity mostly) they have put the Sun in a big box and called it quits!
I tend to think that one of the things that helped them get lost in this mess is that the primary question in astronomy since the late 1800s was figuring out how stars produce black-body radiation.
Earlier in the 1800s, scientists had figured out that all elements radiate at specific frequencies (which Niels Bohr later explained with his concept of electron shells, where an electron absorbing a photon jumps to a larger shell, and where it emits the same photon when it falls back into the inner shell). In the late 1800s, Balfour Stewart, and more famously Gustav Kirchhoff, found that photons inside a box in a thermal equilibrium emitted not distinct frequencies, but rather, a smooth continuum, which came to be known as black-body radiation, because it required at least a little bit of soot to be inside the box. So somehow, a star had to be in thermal equilibrium, at least locally, in order to be radiating like that, and thus a bait-and-switch was set up. The Sun has to be in a local equilibrium, so it can produce black-body radiation, but then that radiation propagates outward and heats the rest of the solar system — problem solved, as long as you don't notice that the solution precludes its own premise — a heating element inside a far larger box, where a complete equilibrium has not been achieved, does not issue black-body radiation. D'oh!
They never even figured out the physical mechanism that generates black-body radiation. Bohr provided a highly detailed model that explained emission/absorption frequencies. But before any of that had happened, Einstein had already grabbed ahold of the black-body problem, and used it as an excuse for Quantum Mechanics, which treats everything with ad hoc maths and evades all of the mechanical questions. Robitaille is the first scientist in 100 years to explore the physical mechanisms responsible for black-body radiation. And guess what? The Sun is not an accountant or a statistician — to Robitaille, it's a physical object! Without mention of QM, Robitaille shows that the distinctive crystal lattice in graphite, and in supercritical hydrogen, is capable of a smooth continuum of vibrational modes, with the result being radiation in a black-body curve. And no, neither the graphite nor the hydrogen has to be inside a box at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings — it just has to have that distinctive lattice, and some reason to be vibrating.
So you're right that the essential principles of thermodynamics are applicable to the Sun, and that the energy budget can be sanity checked that way. If that leaves us without energy sources where we need them, we go looking for what we're missing, and we make discoveries. We don't just bastardize thermodynamics, or ignore it altogether, because Einstein couldn't make sense of it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: For mathematical purposes (general relativity mostly) they have put the Sun in a big box and called it quits!
I tend to think that one of the things that helped them get lost in this mess is that the primary question in astronomy since the late 1800s was figuring out how stars produce black-body radiation.
Earlier in the 1800s, scientists had figured out that all elements radiate at specific frequencies (which Niels Bohr later explained with his concept of electron shells, where an electron absorbing a photon jumps to a larger shell, and where it emits the same photon when it falls back into the inner shell). In the late 1800s, Balfour Stewart, and more famously Gustav Kirchhoff, found that photons inside a box in a thermal equilibrium emitted not distinct frequencies, but rather, a smooth continuum, which came to be known as black-body radiation, because it required at least a little bit of soot to be inside the box. So somehow, a star had to be in thermal equilibrium, at least locally, in order to be radiating like that, and thus a bait-and-switch was set up. The Sun has to be in a local equilibrium, so it can produce black-body radiation, but then that radiation propagates outward and heats the rest of the solar system — problem solved, as long as you don't notice that the solution precludes its own premise — a heating element inside a far larger box, where a complete equilibrium has not been achieved, does not issue black-body radiation. D'oh!
They never even figured out the physical mechanism that generates black-body radiation. Bohr provided a highly detailed model that explained emission/absorption frequencies. But before any of that had happened, Einstein had already grabbed ahold of the black-body problem, and used it as an excuse for Quantum Mechanics, which treats everything with ad hoc maths and evades all of the mechanical questions. Robitaille is the first scientist in 100 years to explore the physical mechanisms responsible for black-body radiation. And guess what? The Sun is not an accountant or a statistician — to Robitaille, it's a physical object! Without mention of QM, Robitaille shows that the distinctive crystal lattice in graphite, and in supercritical hydrogen, is capable of a smooth continuum of vibrational modes, with the result being radiation in a black-body curve. And no, neither the graphite nor the hydrogen has to be inside a box at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings — it just has to have that distinctive lattice, and some reason to be vibrating.
So you're right that the essential principles of thermodynamics are applicable to the Sun, and that the energy budget can be sanity checked that way. If that leaves us without energy sources where we need them, we go looking for what we're missing, and we make discoveries. We don't just bastardize thermodynamics, or ignore it altogether, because Einstein couldn't make sense of it.
Excellent Charles. Thank you for writing this. Makes one wonder what else the mathematicians have bastardized to cover up their inability to solve fundamental mysteries. We are both in agreement (as well as Mr. Robitaille) that the standard stellar equations are garbage. This is great for my own theory! I have the Sun shrinking and cooling becoming a red dwarf for its next stage of evolution.
What mechanism in your model can explain what the structure of the Sun will become as it cools and dies? Surely it will join ranks with the millions of red dwarfs in our galaxy as predicted via stellar meta? Or do you take the stance of establishment in which it will expand for no reason against the force of gravity into a "red giant"? Or do you take the stance that it will not evolve and change its structure?
In stelmeta, the first model is garbage because the standard stellar equations are garbage. The middle one posits a core, so it is only partially correct. The red dwarf on the right, is much more correct in that the interior will experience convection and the star will flare considerably becoming a "flare star" along its evolution. What do you think? Keep in mind it has been found out that most flare stars are dim red dwarfs. In other words, extreme flaring is just a stage in a star's evolution. This flaring allows for the star to evolve further into a much less massive brown dwarf, which then continues to change its structure and the amount of heat it can radiate, thus cooling significantly like a dying campfire.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: What mechanism in your model can explain what the structure of the Sun will become as it cools and dies? Surely it will join ranks with the millions of red dwarfs in our galaxy as predicted via stellar meta?
Yes — in my model, as a star loses mass to its stellar winds, the force feedback loop holding it together gradually relaxes. (With less mass, there is less charge separation, and less electric force pulling the charged double-layers together.) So the density relaxes. To an external observer, this will make the star appear cooler, and thus redder, but not exactly for obvious reasons — the apparent temperature of a star is just the temperature of the visible surface (i.e., the plasma above the optical depth). In a tightly packed star, such as a blue giant, with a very vigorous force feedback loop holding it together, we get a supercritical fluid all of the way up to the surface, so it looks very hot. If the star was loosely packed, there would be a cooler atmosphere hovering above supercritical fluids at greater depths, making the star look cooler. The net result is that heavy stars are very bright, and emit high-frequency black-body radiation from their supercritical hydrogen surfaces, while lighter stars emit redder BB radiation from their atmospheres that is less bright. But the redness isn't just a simple product of heat dissipation — it's more a function of the density gradient at the surface.
I'm not sure about the "flare-up" stage — I think that it's possible. I have identified 5 charged layers within the Sun (3 positive and 2 negative). It's possible that with mass loss, eventually the Sun will not have the field densities necessary to hold onto all of those layers, and it might lose 2 of them in a catastrophic flare-up, where all of the remaining potentials in those 2 layers gets discharged. But I'm not sure that the "red giant" scenario is how it would happen. I'd rather think that it would be bright white, but for a very short period of time. Maybe the double-layers that just recombined would cool as they expanded, producing a larger but redder star for a while. But I'm not sure that I'm talking about the same thing as a "red giant". In particular, the red giant stage seems to last for a million years or so, and I don't see a double-layer recombination lasting that long — I think that it would be all over in just a couple of years at most, and the whole process might only take a couple of weeks. In that kind of timeframe, the flare-up sounds more like a supernova than a red giant phase. And if it's just a stable star shedding a few outer layers in a relatively non-violent way, that would explain how there could be a remnant left behind when it's done — it isn't a thermonuclear explosion from the inside out, but rather, just a flare-up in the outermost layers, that leave the inner layers undisturbed. So that's the avenue I'll be exploring as concerns late-stage stars. But I don't see any guarantee that there would have to be a flare-up at all — I could see the whole thing winding down gradually. And red giants might actually be birthing instead of dying — they might be blue giants in the making, where the collapsing dusty plasma is just starting to heat up.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Stars may not die, if there is a source, besides electrons, for their matter to be replaced.
starbiter
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Stars may not die, if there is a source, besides electrons, for their matter to be replaced.
Hi Sparky,
All of the images of planetary nebula have a star at the center according to my understanding. The images linked below seem to have circuits between the stars and the surrounding area.
The Sun might have similar circuits. If viewed from afar the the circuits might be visible. It might require higher current density to image the circuits. Not all stars are planetary nebula. These images give me a certain amount of confidence that stars are connected to circuits.
One more point about vacuum in space. It's my understanding from reading EU material that a vacuum in space hasn't been found by NASA. Instead a diffuse plasma is found to be ubiquitous.
michael
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: What mechanism in your model can explain what the structure of the Sun will become as it cools and dies? Surely it will join ranks with the millions of red dwarfs in our galaxy as predicted via stellar meta?
Yes — in my model, as a star loses mass to its stellar winds, the force feedback loop holding it together gradually relaxes. (With less mass, there is less charge separation, and less electric force pulling the charged double-layers together.) So the density relaxes. To an external observer, this will make the star appear cooler, and thus redder, but not exactly for obvious reasons — the apparent temperature of a star is just the temperature of the visible surface (i.e., the plasma above the optical depth). In a tightly packed star, such as a blue giant, with a very vigorous force feedback loop holding it together, we get a supercritical fluid all of the way up to the surface, so it looks very hot. If the star was loosely packed, there would be a cooler atmosphere hovering above supercritical fluids at greater depths, making the star look cooler. The net result is that heavy stars are very bright, and emit high-frequency black-body radiation from their supercritical hydrogen surfaces, while lighter stars emit redder BB radiation from their atmospheres that is less bright. But the redness isn't just a simple product of heat dissipation — it's more a function of the density gradient at the surface.
I'm not sure about the "flare-up" stage — I think that it's possible. I have identified 5 charged layers within the Sun (3 positive and 2 negative). It's possible that with mass loss, eventually the Sun will not have the field densities necessary to hold onto all of those layers, and it might lose 2 of them in a catastrophic flare-up, where all of the remaining potentials in those 2 layers gets discharged. But I'm not sure that the "red giant" scenario is how it would happen. I'd rather think that it would be bright white, but for a very short period of time. Maybe the double-layers that just recombined would cool as they expanded, producing a larger but redder star for a while. But I'm not sure that I'm talking about the same thing as a "red giant". In particular, the red giant stage seems to last for a million years or so, and I don't see a double-layer recombination lasting that long — I think that it would be all over in just a couple of years at most, and the whole process might only take a couple of weeks. In that kind of timeframe, the flare-up sounds more like a supernova than a red giant phase. And if it's just a stable star shedding a few outer layers in a relatively non-violent way, that would explain how there could be a remnant left behind when it's done — it isn't a thermonuclear explosion from the inside out, but rather, just a flare-up in the outermost layers, that leave the inner layers undisturbed. So that's the avenue I'll be exploring as concerns late-stage stars. But I don't see any guarantee that there would have to be a flare-up at all — I could see the whole thing winding down gradually. And red giants might actually be birthing instead of dying — they might be blue giants in the making, where the collapsing dusty plasma is just starting to heat up.
I guess I could re-word the question like this:
Why are there no O, B, A, F, G or K spectral classes of stars with masses LESS than red dwarfs? If this was only a matter of charge and electricity, then why are there no stars less massive than red dwarfs which shine in the O, B, A, F, G or K spectrum?
In other words, why is there a direct relation to a star's mass with its spectral characteristics? The more massive, the bluer? The less massive the dimmer? I am looking at the "Harvard Spectral Classification" right below the table of contents:
Clearly "mass" is directly related to the star's spectral characteristics. Or is this just a coincidence? If it was only a matter of charge, and layered material, why have there not been found Earth mass stars with spectrums in the O, B, A, F, G or K classes?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Clearly "mass" is directly related to the star's spectral characteristics. Or is this just a coincidence? If it was only a matter of charge, and layered material, why have there not been found Earth mass stars with spectrums in the O, B, A, F, G or K classes?
In my model, there is a direct relationship between mass, luminosity, and color. But it isn't just the mass that matters. There is a force feedback loop involving gravity and the electric force, where gravity separates the charges (via electron degeneracy pressure), and then the electric force removes the degrees of freedom from the matter, reducing the hydrostatic pressure, and then the matter can be compressed even more than if it was neutrally charged. The greater density then concentrates the gravity field, hence the feedback loop. And the heavier the star, the more exponentially powerful this feedback loop is. But it isn't the mass, or even the average density, that is responsible for the luminosity, or for the color. Rather, these are functions of the state of the outer layer of the star. No matter the core temperature, a star with a thick, cool atmosphere will be red, while a star with an exposed supercritical liquid at its surface will be blue. So how do you get exposed supercritical fluid? That can only be evidence of the electric force.
To highlight the point, we should acknowledge that by the standard model of the Sun, all stars should be the same color. The reason is that the density gradient of the Sun is thought to be defined by the ideal gas laws. If all stars were like this, heavy stars would be very large, and light stars would be small, but the outer layer of all stars should have pretty much the same characteristics. In the ideal gas laws, if gravity is the containing force, the density tapers off to nothing at an infinite distance from the center of gravity. As the density tapers off, so does the temperature. For a heavy star, the outermost layer is very far from the center, while in a light star it isn't so far away. But either way, the density of that top layer, and thus the temperature, will be pretty much the same, because it is tapering off to the density and temperature of the interstellar medium. Well, if the outer layer of all stars is the same temperature, and if that's the layer that issues the visible photons, all stars should be the same color. The only way to get around this roadblock is to go outside of the ideal gas laws for the defining characteristics of the outermost layers. And what else is there? Only EM. How could EM affect the density gradient? With charged double-layers clinging together due to the electric force.
Read what Robitaille is saying about the proofs that the surface of the Sun is liquid-like. The ideal gas laws do not allow for this, since the density has to taper off gradually. It doesn't matter if the interior of the Sun is dense enough to be liquid by the ideal gas laws — that doesn't change the fact that the Sun should be covered with a gradually thinning atmosphere. So how could there be an exposed liquid-like surface? In the ideal gas laws, there can't be. But if that top layer (i.e., the photosphere) is charged, and it's being held down firmly to an opposite charge, you could get a liquid, or even a supercritical fluid, at or very near the surface. The more powerful the charge, the greater the density of that supercritical fluid. And the greater the density, the shorter the mean free path between oscillating particles, hence the hotter the black-body temperature. So everything fits, with no spare parts, if you include charged double-layers. And the charge separation mechanism is gravity. So heavier stars have a more dense supercritical fluid surface issuing hotter BB radiation from a larger surface area, meaning greater luminosity. Smaller stars have a thinner fluid at the surface, meaning cooler BB radiation, from a smaller surface area, meaning less luminosity.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Clearly "mass" is directly related to the star's spectral characteristics. Or is this just a coincidence? If it was only a matter of charge, and layered material, why have there not been found Earth mass stars with spectrums in the O, B, A, F, G or K classes?
In my model, there is a direct relationship between mass, luminosity, and color. But it isn't just the mass that matters. There is a force feedback loop involving gravity and the electric force, where gravity separates the charges (via electron degeneracy pressure), and then the electric force removes the degrees of freedom from the matter, reducing the hydrostatic pressure, and then the matter can be compressed even more than if it was neutrally charged. The greater density then concentrates the gravity field, hence the feedback loop. And the heavier the star, the more exponentially powerful this feedback loop is. But it isn't the mass, or even the average density, that is responsible for the luminosity, or for the color. Rather, these are functions of the state of the outer layer of the star. No matter the core temperature, a star with a thick, cool atmosphere will be red, while a star with an exposed supercritical liquid at its surface will be blue. So how do you get exposed supercritical fluid? That can only be evidence of the electric force.
To highlight the point, we should acknowledge that by the standard model of the Sun, all stars should be the same color. The reason is that the density gradient of the Sun is thought to be defined by the ideal gas laws. If all stars were like this, heavy stars would be very large, and light stars would be small, but the outer layer of all stars should have pretty much the same characteristics. In the ideal gas laws, if gravity is the containing force, the density tapers off to nothing at an infinite distance from the center of gravity. As the density tapers off, so does the temperature. For a heavy star, the outermost layer is very far from the center, while in a light star it isn't so far away. But either way, the density of that top layer, and thus the temperature, will be pretty much the same, because it is tapering off to the density and temperature of the interstellar medium. Well, if the outer layer of all stars is the same temperature, and if that's the layer that issues the visible photons, all stars should be the same color. The only way to get around this roadblock is to go outside of the ideal gas laws for the defining characteristics of the outermost layers. And what else is there? Only EM. How could EM affect the density gradient? With charged double-layers clinging together due to the electric force.
Read what Robitaille is saying about the proofs that the surface of the Sun is liquid-like. The ideal gas laws do not allow for this, since the density has to taper off gradually. It doesn't matter if the interior of the Sun is dense enough to be liquid by the ideal gas laws — that doesn't change the fact that the Sun should be covered with a gradually thinning atmosphere. So how could there be an exposed liquid-like surface? In the ideal gas laws, there can't be. But if that top layer (i.e., the photosphere) is charged, and it's being held down firmly to an opposite charge, you could get a liquid, or even a supercritical fluid, at or very near the surface. The more powerful the charge, the greater the density of that supercritical fluid. And the greater the density, the shorter the mean free path between oscillating particles, hence the hotter the black-body temperature. So everything fits, with no spare parts, if you include charged double-layers. And the charge separation mechanism is gravity. So heavier stars have a more dense supercritical fluid surface issuing hotter BB radiation from a larger surface area, meaning greater luminosity. Smaller stars have a thinner fluid at the surface, meaning cooler BB radiation, from a smaller surface area, meaning less luminosity.
Excellent. Thank you for the response Charles.
An additional question, where exactly do specific phase transitions happen inside of the star? In stellar meta, the energetic matter is moving to lower energy states, thus liquid becomes solid, gaseous matter becomes solid and liquid, plasma or ionized matter becomes gaseous, etc.
What would convince the material in your model to require osmium versus iron and nickel, to move to the center and settle out in the star first? What properties of osmium besides being heavy dictate why it should comprise the center of stars instead of iron and nickel, which have lower ionization potentials (they recombine at higher temperatures)? In other words, do the ionization energies of specific elements/molecules play a part in the differentiation process in stellar evolution, a.k.a. Marklund Convection?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@ Charles
As a challenge, and I think you would be up to it, please make the posts easier to read for newcomers. I know you have good ideas, I just think they need to be broken down in as simple language as possible. I am striving to do the same, its just we already have enough vague nonsense coming out of establishment physics, our job is to take it in a more understandable direction, with ideas that are not contradictory and easy to digest.
I guess we can do this by pruning sentences. I mean taking out unnecessary words that just clutter everything up. Both you and I can type relatively fast, but more words does not mean greater understanding. Also, if you could make your ideas have more metaphors people could understand easier what is being said. Like the acorn to oak tree metaphor to explain quasar to galaxy evolution.
Could you use similar metaphors?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@Charles
Also, the truth is that any model (at this moment in time) which tries to explain how the Sun dies and cools as a dissipative structure is automatically superior to any model in which it does not. This is because the establishment has it as a non-dissipative structure in their standard models.
The field of star sciences is now officially wide open for all walks of life to make new discovery and insight!!! The veil has been lifted! This is a genuine apocolypse!
AS long as their models don't violate basic thermodynamics, and have the process of stellar evolution being THE process of planet formation, meaning a star is a young planet, and a planet is an ancient evolving dying star, I am satisfied.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Star Flaring.
CC said: I'm not sure about the "flare-up" stage — I think that it's possible. I have identified 5 charged layers within the Sun (3 positive and 2 negative). It's possible that with mass loss, eventually the Sun will not have the field densities necessary to hold onto all of those layers, and it might lose 2 of them in a catastrophic flare-up, where all of the remaining potentials in those 2 layers gets discharged.
Cardona said that Saturn was a brown dwarf that flared upon reaching the heliosphere from outside and it then became a gas giant. If the data are accurate, do you see anything at the heliopause that would trigger a flare and the loss of a double layer etc from Saturn?
Interstellar Currents.
Michael S. said: The Sun might have similar circuits.
Until about 2 years ago I thought that was likely, but CC and Michael Mozina explained why it's unlikely. For example, MM explained that there should be a huge magnetic field detectable if there is such a current to the Sun. And CC has said that the currents should be visible like the streamers in a plasma globe, esp. near the Sun's surface. MM says the stars may be weakly connected by electric currents, but the currents don't power the stars. Instead, the stars generate the currents. If currents from outside power the stars, MM asks where is the power generated. He and CC say it's the stars that generate power. And they do so more or less as a battery, having previously accumulated stored energy during star formation.
Stellar Constancy.
Sparky said: Stars may not die, if there is a source, besides electrons, for their matter to be replaced.
That's what CC has said before as well. Matter is constantly falling into the Sun both from within the solar system and from outside of it. So if the infalling matter is equal to or greater than the matter being radiated away, the Sun will not diminish. There are figures available on how much is being radiated away, but I don't know about infalling matter. Does anyone?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I speculate that the large gravity field of a star draws in the aether matter.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: An additional question, where exactly do specific phase transitions happen inside of the star?
That's an excellent question! To know where the phase transitions occur, we'd have to know the internal temperatures, which is information that we do not have. It's made tougher to discern by the extreme pressures, meaning that most of the Sun is probably a supercritical fluid. IMO, the granular layer on the Sun is 4 Mm deep, and is made up of plasma at near supercriticality, while everything below that is supercritical. So it has the compressibility of a gas or plasma, but hydrodynamics of a liquid, and the density and conductivity (both thermal and electrical) of a solid. Further still, powerful electric fields remove the degrees of freedom, bringing in the properties of cryogenic superconductors. So I think that the core is actually at absolute zero, if you measure temperature by atomic motion, though in such unusual conditions, the whole concept of temperature isn't terribly meaningful.
JeffreyW wrote: What would convince the material in your model to require osmium versus iron and nickel, to move to the center and settle out in the star first? What properties of osmium besides being heavy dictate why it should comprise the center of stars instead of iron and nickel, which have lower ionization potentials (they recombine at higher temperatures)? In other words, do the ionization energies of specific elements/molecules play a part in the differentiation process in stellar evolution, a.k.a. Marklund Convection?
It wasn't ionization that dictated the elemental abundances in my model. Rather, I took the abundances in the photosphere, and calculated the density of the Sun. That came out way, way too light, using 75% hydrogen, 24% helium, and 1% traces of heavier elements. So I just re-scaled the abundances, reducing the relative amounts of light elements, and increasing the heavier elements, assuming that if there are traces of heavy elements in the photosphere, there are larger quantities of those elements deeper down. When I found the scaling factor that produced the proper overall density (i.e., 1408 kg/m3), it also produced three distinct layers, with 6th period elements in the core (osmium & platinum), 4th period elements in the radiative zone (nickel & iron), and 1st period elements in the convective zone (helium & hydrogen). These steps in mass would explain the helioseismic boundaries inside the Sun at .27 and .7 of the solar radius. And the additional information that we have about convection near the surface (especially supergranulation) fit neatly into the model. So it might not be a lot of information, but this model assimilates all of the information that we do have, and it all fits. So I'm going with it.
JeffreyW wrote: ...please make the posts easier to read for newcomers.
You're so right. I'm trying. And thanks for the questions, because it is only in explaining this stuff to others that I find the lapses in clarity.
As concerns the points in the previous post, let's see if I can do a decent metaphor.
Imagine the surface of the Earth as a heating element, at something like 1000 degrees C, but with a thick atmosphere, capable of blocking direct infrared radiation from the surface. From another planet, what would be the apparent temperature of the Earth? Well, it would be the temperature of the topmost layer of that thick atmosphere, at the edge of space, which is near absolute zero. So you think that it's a cold planet.
Now imagine that you could magnetize the layers in the atmosphere, and polarize them, and the solid surface, such that they are all attracted to each other. Now the layers of the atmosphere would all slam down against the surface like so many refrigerator magnets stacked on top of each other. Under such a force, the atmosphere will be compacted into a solid right on top of the surface. And if the surface is running 1000 degrees C, and if all of that "atmosphere" now has the thermal conductivity of a solid, it will now be running at 1000 degrees C as well. Thus the apparent temperature of the Earth from elsewhere in space goes from near absolute zero to 1000 degrees C, even if the total thermal energy of the Earth was exactly the same as before, if you introduce another force that artificially alters the density near the surface. So this is what I'm saying about charged double-layers in the Sun, though it's the electric force, not the magnetic force.
JeffreyW wrote: AS long as their models don't violate basic thermodynamics, and have the process of stellar evolution being THE process of planet formation, meaning a star is a young planet, and a planet is an ancient evolving dying star, I am satisfied.
I agree!
Lloyd wrote: Cardona said that Saturn was a brown dwarf that flared upon reaching the heliosphere from outside and it then became a gas giant. If the data are accurate, do you see anything at the heliopause that would trigger a flare and the loss of a double layer etc from Saturn?
There is an electrical double-layer at the heliopause that might be relevant. Particles streaming in from the interstellar wind have their electrons stripped off in collisions, while the +ions burrow deeper into the heliosphere, due to the greater momentum. This leaves a layer of negative charge around the outside, with a layer of positive charge on the inside of the heliopause. Anything passing through the heliopause would get exposed to rapid changes in electrical potentials. That could certainly disrupt its own layers, possibly resulting in a flare-up, with disrupted layers recombining. And under those conditions, it wouldn't be just one big spark — it would be a sustained flare-up, where recombination generated heat, that caused lower layers to expand, which reduced their density, which enabled them to recombine as well. It would have made an impressive sight.
Lloyd wrote: Interstellar Currents
For those interested, I continue to flesh out my description of the various models, with for/against points. I really think that our time would be better spent laying out all of the reasoning for each model, rather than repeating ourselves over and over. In some cases, it has taken me years to discover the for/against points for some of the models, because they aren't all listed in one place. Like the "EU model" — which EU model? I can't help but think that some of the ideas that I have neglected actually have more going for them, but the people who were so convinced that they were right and I was wrong didn't realize that there were things that they knew that I did not. So we need to lay these things out. Here's the folder for the Electric Star hypothesis:
Lloyd wrote: There are figures available on how much is being radiated away, but I don't know about infalling matter. Does anyone?
From what I've seen, reliable numbers aren't available for that. Brant would know. IMO, the Sun undergoes a net mass loss to the solar winds, so it's dissipating. But for stellar theory in general, we should acknowledge that stars don't just keep accumulating matter until they have all that they will ever have, and then they wait a few seconds, and then they ignite themselves. Rather, "ignition" occurs when the compression of the matter creates temperatures sufficient for luminosity, which is surely when the "star" is still just a collapsing dusty plasma. The mainstream acknowledges that stars are formed this way, and that the temperatures exceed several thousand kelvins long before anything resembling a star gets organized. But they do not acknowledge that this should be visible in the night sky as a red giant. Perhaps that would get them too close to the realization that the dusty plasma should just bounce off of itself, so they fast-forward through that part, and their theory picks back up once all of the matter has accumulated in the center, when presto! the light bulb comes on.
Sparky wrote: I speculate that the large gravity field of a star draws in the aether matter.
Wild, unfounded speculation!!! Shame on you, Sparky... of all the people in world who should never be allowed any speculation whatsoever...
gamma ray
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: For mathematical purposes (general relativity mostly) they have put the Sun in a big box and called it quits!
They never even figured out the physical mechanism that generates black-body radiation. Bohr provided a highly detailed model that explained emission/absorption frequencies. But before any of that had happened, Einstein had already grabbed ahold of the black-body problem, and used it as an excuse for Quantum Mechanics, which treats everything with ad hoc maths and evades all of the mechanical questions. Robitaille is the first scientist in 100 years to explore the physical mechanisms responsible for black-body radiation. And guess what? The Sun is not an accountant or a statistician — to Robitaille, it's a physical object! Without mention of QM, Robitaille shows that the distinctive crystal lattice in graphite, and in supercritical hydrogen, is capable of a smooth continuum of vibrational modes, with the result being radiation in a black-body curve. And no, neither the graphite nor the hydrogen has to be inside a box at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings — it just has to have that distinctive lattice, and some reason to be vibrating.
So are you saying that carbon was always present during measurement of black body radiation experiments and so the cause of black body radiation is the heating of carbon, the element? That would make more sense because all other emission lines spectra are due to heating are due to the element itself. Also I'm reading Walter Russell right now and his theory is that the sun is incandescent carbon. And that carbon is the foundation for all life because of it's geometry and how it relates to the fundamental vibrational structure of matter. Which would explain the wide spectrum seen.
To know where the phase transitions occur, we'd have to know the internal temperatures, which is information that we do not have. It's made tougher to discern by the extreme pressures, meaning that most of the Sun is probably a supercritical fluid. IMO, the granular layer on the Sun is 4 Mm deep, and is made up of plasma at near supercriticality, while everything below that is supercritical. So it has the compressibility of a gas or plasma, but hydrodynamics of a liquid, and the density and conductivity (both thermal and electrical) of a solid. Further still, powerful electric fields remove the degrees of freedom, bringing in the properties of cryogenic superconductors. So I think that the core is actually at absolute zero, if you measure temperature by atomic motion, though in such unusual conditions, the whole concept of temperature isn't terribly meaningful.
JeffreyW wrote:It wasn't ionization that dictated the elemental abundances in my model. Rather, I took the abundances in the photosphere, and calculated the density of the Sun. That came out way, way too light, using 75% hydrogen, 24% helium, and 1% traces of heavier elements. So I just re-scaled the abundances, reducing the relative amounts of light elements, and increasing the heavier elements, assuming that if there are traces of heavy elements in the photosphere, there are larger quantities of those elements deeper down. When I found the scaling factor that produced the proper overall density (i.e., 1408 kg/m3), it also produced three distinct layers, with 6th period elements in the core (osmium & platinum), 4th period elements in the radiative zone (nickel & iron), and 1st period elements in the convective zone (helium & hydrogen). These steps in mass would explain the helioseismic boundaries inside the Sun at .27 and .7 of the solar radius. And the additional information that we have about convection near the surface (especially supergranulation) fit neatly into the model. So it might not be a lot of information, but this model assimilates all of the information that we do have, and it all fits. So I'm going with it.I can't help but think that some of the ideas that I have neglected actually have more going for them, but the people who were so convinced that they were right and I was wrong didn't realize that there were things that they knew that I did not. So we need to lay these things out. Here's the folder for the Electric Star hypothesis:
