Thunderbolts Forum

'12-02-14, 09:54 michaelclarage	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles, a thank you for addressing such an obvious interesting topic as the anomolous density gradient of the sun. I understand your argument in terms of charged rings, like the rings of Saturn. I can see the Birkland currents of opposite charge discs repelling each other. But the sun is a spherical geometry. Would not your explanation only hold for the equator, or at most the lower latitudes? Would there not be some big difference at the poles? Have the helioseismologists seen any difference in the radial density plot as a function of latitude?
'12-02-14, 11:52 dpres	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient I think Micheal V mentioned one important number, the mean density of the sun being about 1408. What really happens when hydrogen is compressed to this density? A little calculation would reveal that the distance between two protons would be about 100pm and the electron shells start to overlap. Under these condition none of the electrons can survive. They either decay or are 'squeezed out' by quantum dynamics. Another calculation would reveal that at this density the gravitational force and the electrical repulsion of the protons cancel out. I think the core of the sun probably starts not far below the photosphere and has an isodense crystal like structure throughout the sun. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just a layman and sorry for my little English. Dieter
'12-02-14, 15:39 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient I said a few posts back: EU theorists only claim that high redshift does not correlate with distance or velocity, but low redshift values do correlate, at least somewhat. * I should have said that's my impression. But I don't recall for certain if the EU theorists think low redshift of starlight indicates distance. * Previously, I posted an image of NGC 1073 that included 3 quasars very near it: http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/Image617.jpg. * This website has a lot more info about that: http://arijmaki.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/ngc-1073-the-quasa~. All 3 quasars and the companion galaxy have different redshifts and the redshifts are quantized. It's excellent evidence that at least high redshift does not indicate distance, since they're all apparently at the same distance.
'12-02-14, 22:10 Michael V	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Dieter, Dieter wrote: I think Michael V mentioned one important number, the mean density of the sun being about 1408. What really happens when hydrogen is compressed to this density? A little calculation would reveal that the distance between two protons would be about 100pm and the electron shells start to overlap. Under these condition none of the electrons can survive. They either decay or are 'squeezed out' by quantum dynamics. Another calculation would reveal that at this density the gravitational force and the electrical repulsion of the protons cancel out. Not sure how you did you calculations, but I do not follow your reasoning. The mean density of the Sun is given as 1408 kg m-3. The mean density of water is 1000 kg m-3. The mean density of Earth is 5515 kg m-3. There can be little doubt that the composition of the interior of the Earth is somewhat different to the crust and markedly different to the atmosphere. The assumption that the solar wind accurately represents the proportional composition of the entire solar globe is very unsafe and easily crosses the line into ridiculous. It would be an extraordinarily safe assumption to say that the innermost regions of the Sun surely contains significant quantities of heavy elements. 100pm? I presume that is 100 pico-metres, which is 1x10-7m. The diameter of a hydrogen atom (i.e. the electron orbit) is 1.06x10-10m. Dieter wrote: They either decay or are 'squeezed out' by quantum dynamics. What? Michael
'12-02-15, 00:48 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient GaryN wrote: How is it determined that there is an outflow? The following source... Livio, M.; Soker, N., 2001: The "Twin Jet" Planetary Nebula M2-9. The Astrophysical Journal, 552: 685-691 ...states that the inner lobes are traveling at 15~40 km/s, while the outer lobes are traveling at ~190 km/s. I thought I saw somewhere how such numbers were determined, but I can't find the source now. They can't do it with Doppler, since the thing is more or less perpendicular to our line of sight. Anyway, I'll post the info if I can find it. michaelclarage wrote: ...anomolous density gradient... But the sun is a spherical geometry. Would not your explanation only hold for the equator, or at most the lower latitudes? Would there not be some big difference at the poles? Have the helioseismologists seen any difference in the radial density plot as a function of latitude? I got into this is a previous post, but I'll briefly summarize it here. The contention is that the prime mover is a rapidly-rotating, positively-charge core, which generates magnetic fields powerful enough to accomplish partial charge separation. This instantiates a negative double-layer outside of it, attracted by the electric force, but repelled by the magnetic force. The negative double-layer then instantiates a third, positively charged layer around the outside (by simple electrostatic principles, as described in more detail in this post). Now, I'm using the analogy of a "natural tokamak", though at velocities of 2~3 km/s there will not be sufficient magnetic confinement for nuclear fusion. Nevertheless, 2~3 km/s will produce magnetic fields, and oppositely charged particles will generate opposing magnetic fields, hence the partial charge separation. But if we're thinking of the core as a tokamak, does that mean that the core is a toroid? The charge separation might be toroidal, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there would have to be a toroidal density gradient — there might be a consistent amount of plasma through the entire interior of the Sun, but electrons are getting chased out of the core by magnetic pressure, making the core electron-poor and the radiative zone electron-rich, all with the same density (all other factors being the same). It's also possible, as mentioned in the first post cited above, that the core is semi-toroidal, but the radiative zone is more spherical, and the convective zone is even more spherical, such that the photosphere doesn't have any more of a bulge at its equator than is predicted just by its centrifugal force. As concerns the magnetic structure in the convective zone, there is an overall field generated by the ~2 km/s rotation at the equator, but with updrafts and downdrafts moving at 2~7 km/s in the granules, generating there own fields as they go, we shouldn't be thinking in terms of an organized magnetic field resulting from the overall rotation. For our purposes, all of that will resolve into a whole lot of nothing with respect to tokamak-like magnetic confinement. So the convective zone is bound to the radiative zone by electrostatic forces, not electrodynamic. dpres wrote: The mean density of the sun being about 1408, what really happens when hydrogen is compressed to this density? A little calculation would reveal that the distance between two protons would be about 100pm and the electron shells start to overlap. Under these conditions none of the electrons can survive. They either decay or are 'squeezed out' by quantum dynamics. Michael, I think that he's referring not to the mean density, but to the core density. I'll leave the technical details on that up to Michael, but I'd like to point out reasons for considering alterate interpretations of the helioseismic data. As noted in previous posts, we have clear evidence that waves are traveling at supersonic speeds in the photosphere. This can only mean that the photosphere is positively charged, and one particle starts to accelerate the next even before the collision occurs, by the Coulomb force, enabling non-hydrodynamic wave propagation. This calls all of the helioseismic conclusions concerning the interior of the Sun into question. If the core is positively charged, waves are propagating through it faster than helioseismology predicts, which means that the density is grossly overestimated. If we put the density back within limits set by atomic theory, and attribute the fast-moving seismic waves to a positive charge in the core, we then have to figure out how that much mass gets packed into that volume. That suggests that it's not hydrogen in the core, but heavier atoms, such as iron. On the basis of seismic data alone (which is all we have), would we be able to tell the difference between hydrogen compressed beyond quantum limits versus loosely packed, positively charged iron? I think not. The difference is that the latter does not require abandoning atomic theory. dpres wrote: Another calculation would reveal that at this density the gravitational force and the electrical repulsion of the protons cancel out. Don't you have to scale both forces by the same factor?
'12-02-15, 05:16 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient * I've been reading more of Mathis to see how many more answers he may provide for us. Here are excerpts from 2 of his papers. It looks like star formation may not be able to occur without galaxy formation occurring first. He doesn't seem to think that it's very likely that galaxies form from quasars, as Arp and Thornhill suppose, but I think he may change his mind ere long. STAR FORMATION by Miles Mathis http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf 95% of Star Formation Process is from E/M Field … [Wikipedia says:] Star formation is the process by which dense parts of molecular clouds collapse into a ball of plasma to form a star. - They now admit the existence of plasma, and admit that plasma is an E/M entity, but somehow a gas collapses into a plasma with gravity only. As if the E/M field didn't exist in the vicinity until after the plasma was created, at which time it magically turned on. And the E/M field now exists only inside the plasma, but if the plasma as a whole interacts with another celestial body, it does so via gravity only. So what is the answer that is being hidden here? Well, it isn't esoteric and it isn't difficult to comprehend. It is simply that star formation, like everything else, is a unified field phenomenon. The charge field (that is to say, spinning photons) is present at its usual strength in this problem, which is a strength that is about 19 times that of normal (baryonic) matter in the field. Meaning, as a function of mass equivalence, the photons in the area outweigh the hydrogen protons and electrons by 19 times. Or, 95% of what is happening here is happening in the photon field, so 95% of the answer here has been totally missed so far. - I have shown that mainstream theory and equations have contained this information almost in plain sight from the beginning. Just look at these three equations, which I have published in several papers before this one: e = 1.602 x 10-19 C 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream) e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s That means the proton is emitting 19 times its mass in charge every second. [I'll try to ask him to explain that better.] Photonic Matter, Not Dark Matter Yes, I have shown that there is no "dark matter," there is only photonic matter, and this photonic matter exists everywhere, not just in esoteric places. In the vicinity of baryonic matter, these photons are recycled by the spinning protons and electrons (and other particles), and that is how they interact. And since photons move in straight lines very quickly, they can link together molecules or ions, even molecules or ions with a very tenuous density. Star Formation Needs Galactic Magnetic Field … [In space] the hydrogen gas is a plasma to start with. It is a cold plasma, but it is a plasma because the electrons and protons are disassociated by a magnetic field. ... Stars form in galaxies because the plasma requires the magnetic input from the galactic core. Which just means the cold gas needs to be bombarded by the right photons [in order to form stars]. It also Needs Large Volume … What does the big mass plasma do that the small mass plasma doesn't? Well, it isn't a matter of mass, it is a matter of volume and density. A big plasma has enough cross section to capture free electrons and other ions arriving from outside. ... We must assume that given the distribution of radiation sources in our galaxy, the Jeans mass is the mass at which the plasma achieves an efficiency of capture of ions to initiate collapse. - And this means that the Jeans mass is not a universal constant. … It is a function of the type and levels of radiation present, which means it is a function of the size and type of the galaxy. [Photons can have 4 spin levels, and galaxies produce different proportions of each level of photon.] - … because the gas remains ionized, … and since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were. The charge field inside the plasma also tends to the same effect, since the spinning protons and electrons are recycling the charge field whether they are part of molecules or not. This means the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another. We have a doubled weight gain. Formation of Molecules Leads to Gravitational Collapse Normally, this would make the plasma tend toward a molecular gas, since the electrons and protons would eventually join. But the high-energy photon traffic from the galactic core continues to knock the protons and electrons apart. So, up to a certain point, the plasma can continue to gain weight. Only when the photon traffic can no longer ionize the entire plasma, do we have a limit to the weight gain. When this limit is reached, the plasma partially collapses, and it will now contain a portion of molecular hydrogen. The plasma portion continues the previous process of capture, however, and the weight gain continues. It continues until the entire original field has gained enough mass that gravity really does kick in and overpower the charge field repulsions. At that point we have the big collapse that we were trying to explain from the beginning. - … The size of the molecular cloud may also matter due to curvature. … [T]he more curvature it contains pre-collapse, the more likely it is to collapse in a defined fashion, as about a center. This may be another explanation of the Jeans mass. Smaller clouds may indeed collapse given the right conditions, but if they don't have enough curvature to begin with, the … collapsing particles [may] miss one another in the collapse, and simply disperse. For the collapse to form a pre-stellar object, we may require a certain amount of initial curvature, which would require a certain size. Otherwise the object is not able to find its own center, and the collapse isn't able to get any feedback. Gravity Only Works with the E/M Field … Gravity by itself has no chance of explaining star formation, not even with a million tacked-on pushes. We simply must look for some sort of unified field solution, one that includes charge. If my ideas are not correct, some set of equally simple ideas will be correct. Charge Field Sources At http://milesmathis.com/engine.pdf MM adds this. - I have shown that what we really have is a line of natural engines. The Earth is an engine that recycles the charge field, creating its E/M field. But the Earth is energized by the Sun, as we know. Not just as a matter of heat or light, but as a matter of charge. In the same way, the Sun is energized by the galactic core, receiving a large part of its total energy via charge. Of course this begs the question, "Where does the galactic core get its charge?" We need to go up the line of influences at least one more step, don't we? - … As the Earth is energized by the Sun and the Sun is energized by the galactic core, the galactic core has to be energized by something even bigger, a universal or cosmic core, if you will. And the Big Bang cannot be this cosmic core. No initial explosion can provide the mechanism here, since explosions dissipate. We require a constant power source. We require a central engine. - … Some will say, "Why not just skip a step and declare that the galaxies are eternal?" Because we have some evidence they are not. Not only do we see them changing and evolving, we see them appearing to begin and end. This is more evidence in favor of an external source, and a larger engine. * That agrees pretty much with Brant's ideas. He has talked about longitudinal Tesla waves from the galactic core energizing the stars. I'll see if he said that in his Aether Battery Iron Sun interview thread.
'12-02-15, 06:31 dpres	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Michael V wrote: 100pm? I presume that is 100 pico-metres, which is 1x10-7m. The diameter of a hydrogen atom (i.e. the electron orbit) is 1.06x10-10m. Micheal, I don't know where you got your information from that 100 pico-meter is 1x10-7m. As far as I know it is 1x10-10m. Dieter
'12-02-15, 07:19 Michael V	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Dieter, Aha: pico = 10-12, so 100pico = -12 + 2, which equals -7. Umm, now I look at it again... just firing up my desktop supercomputer... Oh! Yes, I'm certain now. You are right and I was wrong. Not sure if that was a typo or if I was thinking about something else. OK, if the entire globe of the Sun were atomic hydrogen, then it would have to be squashed hydrogen. But, I still maintain that if this body formed by any degree of gravitational accretion, with or without other causal or assistive mechanisms, it is surely extremely likely that it is also composed of significant quantities of heavier elements. The affect being to drastically reduce the proportion by mass of hydrogen. It is not necessary to invent new atomic structural forms of hydrogen, simply to support a far fetched conjectural theory, that is the standard fusion solar model with its highly inventive and speculative proposed density gradient. In my opinion it is very likely that Stars have a significant planetary core and deep atmosphere. Michael
'12-02-15, 08:47 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient In response to Mathis, I agree that there is a causal relationship between photo-ionization and accretion. But there is an easier way of accounting for it. Hydrogen atoms are not good at hosting net negative charges, because with only one proton, if it already has an electron, there is no net force to capture another. But dust particles can very definitely develop a (weak) negative charge, as it's easy to hide an extra electron per every million protons in the electron cloud of an aggregate. So if the matter is exposed to ionizing radiation, some of the electrons knocked off of loose atoms and smaller particles might land on larger particles, and get lost in the electron clouds, leaving larger aggregates negatively charged, surrounded by positively charged plasma. So now we just have to consider the significance of negative aggregates bathing in positive plasma. What is the force that binds positively charged atoms together to make molecules? It's covalent bonding, which is the sharing of opposite charges. Feynman called this the "like-likes-like" principle, and without it, structured matter would not exist. If that's the case at the molecular level, there is no reason to believe that it would not be present at higher levels as well. Hence two negatively charged dust particles will be surrounded by positively charged plasma. Between the negative charges, the concentration of positive plasma will be far greater, as the positive charges will be attracted to the increased negative charge density where the two fields overlap. Like-Likes-Like.png As the negative charges are closer to the shared positive charge than they are to the other negative charge, the negative charges will be pulled together, as if they were attracted to each other (hence the "like-likes-like" term), when really they're attracted to the shared opposite charge. How much force must be present in order to cause accretion? It seems that the force of gravity would have to be 10 times stronger to account for the galactic organization that we see. This is where CDM comes into play (or charge fields, or aether, or whatever), but the "like-likes-like" principle can easily do the job, and it's already on the payroll. Since the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, it will only take an electron cloud with 10 extra electrons per every thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion protons to supply the missing force in a "like-likes-like" configuration. 10 extra electrons per every trillion would not be a powerful charge by electrostatic standards, so we are easily within range. So a blast of ionizing radiation hits a dust cloud; electrons are knocked off of loose atoms and smaller particles, some of which land on larger aggregates, where they get lost in the electron clouds. Now the larger aggregates are negatively charged, and the surrounding plasma is positively charged, and this generates a "like-likes-like" force that pulls all of the aggregates together. Chuh-ching.
'12-02-15, 09:35 dpres	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient dpres wrote: Another calculation would reveal that at this density the gravitational force and the electrical repulsion of the protons cancel out. CharlesChandler wrote: Don't you have to scale both forces by the same factor? Sorry, I can not answers this correctly but I think the answer is that both forces can not be scaled by the same factor. You have to consider that there is already an ouside force to the core of the sun, a high pressure somewhere in the area of 400 GPa and above. Let me refer to something that Harold Aspden wrote in his book <The Physics of Creation> Harold Aspden wrote: <The Physics of creation> Chapter8"] There is something that cosmologists who theorize about what we see in outer space have yet to learn. There are two very basic errors in the scientific foundations on which they build their understanding of stars. Firstly, they ignore completely the fact that hydrogen as the gas from which stars are formed will, upon compression to a mass density of the order of 1.4 gm/cc as shown in Appendix IV, experience overlap of the electron shells, the K-shells of the atomic structure of hydrogen. This means that the star will be partially ionized, which means that many protons and electrons will roam free. In turn this means that, since the mutual rate of gravitational acceleration by two interacting protons is 1836 times that of two interacting electrons, the star must adopt a uniform mass density throughout its core and have a positive electric core charge density enclosed in a surface shell of negative charge density. The electrostatic repulsion of the core charge will balance exactly the internal gravitational attraction of the star as a whole. That electrical core charge density will be G^1/2 times that mass density 1.4 gm/cc. This happens to be the mass density of our Sun but this fact is surely not a matter of coincidence! I don't like all of Harold Aspdens speculations but some of his work is interresting. Harold Aspden died some time ago. Dieter
'12-02-15, 11:16 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Harold Aspden wrote: Firstly, they ignore completely the fact that hydrogen as the gas from which stars are formed will, upon compression to a mass density of the order of 1.4 gm/cc as shown in Appendix IV, experience overlap of the electron shells, the K-shells of the atomic structure of hydrogen. This means that the star will be partially ionized, which means that many protons and electrons will roam free. In turn this means that, since the mutual rate of gravitational acceleration by two interacting protons is 1836 times that of two interacting electrons, the star must adopt a uniform mass density throughout its core and have a positive electric core charge density enclosed in a surface shell of negative charge density. This is very interesting! I arrived at my model of the Sun not because I had a "natural tokamak" laying around and I wanted to put it to work, but because I had deduced that the core had to be positively charged, in order to set up the electrostatic layering necessary to get the distinct density drop-off at the photosphere. And the magnetic pressure in a "natural tokamak" was the only way I could see it happening. And I totally forgot to check the QED implications of the hydrogen density versus the electron orbital radius. Did Aspden realize what he had with that? I guess I'll have to read the book to find out. Michael: I'd like to ask you not to dismiss this as petty "fusion furnace nonsense" just yet — I have just barely peeped into some of it, and I didn't see any standard mumbo-jumbo. Is there a chance that this is correct, that it's squashed hydrogen in the core (or at the edge of the core, or whatever)? You obviously know way more than me about QED, so I'd like to know your thoughts.
'12-02-15, 13:34 Solar	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient CharlesChandler wrote: Did Aspden realize what he had with that? I guess I'll have to read the book to find out. Yes; he did. His work was mentioned in the 1985 paper of the experimental direct precision measurement of the proton-electron mass-ratio, which was reported some 10 years after Aspden had presented the value (slightly above 1836.152 [5]) derived from his theoretical research of the aether: "The value that they [Aspden and Eagles] calculate is remarkably close to our experimentally measured value (i.e. within two standard deviations) This is even more curious when one notes that they published this result several years before direct precision measurements of this ratio had begun." R. S. Van Dyck, Jr., F. L. Moore, D. L. Farnham and P. B. Schwinberg in Int. J. Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes, 66, p. 327, 1985. - PowerPedia Thank you Dieter for making mention of his passing; he is one my scientific 'heroes' for lack of a better word and fortunately the work derived by his steady course over many, many years lives on.
'12-02-15, 23:51 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient OK, here's what I did to incorporate Aspden's work into my model. I'm essentially sticking with the "like-likes-like" principle as the force that brings ionized dust together, and then magnetic confinement + electrostatics to increase the density, as I already had it. But if sufficient density is achieved, we cross the quantum threshold, where hydrogen is squashed and the electrons are expelled, resulting in a core that is pure positive charge, with a radiative zone that has all of the electrons that were expelled from the core. The convective zone is then the positive double-layer around the outside, bound to the negatively charged radiative zone for electrostatic reasons. Here's the relevant passage from my site: CharlesChandler wrote: The critical reader might further suppose that while some rotation in the core will accomplish some charge separation between it and the radiative zone, whose net charge will then support the enveloping convective zone, we should not expect the edge of the convective zone to be so distinct. So it's possible that the mechanism presented already (i.e., charge separation by opposing magnetic fields) is merely the initial condition that establishes the aggregation of matter, which then activates some other, more powerful mechanism that can accomplish an extreme degree of stratification. As there are no other forces to consider at the macroscopic level, the only remaining place to look will be at the atomic level. The mean density of the Sun is 1.41 gm/cm3. The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.67×10−24 gm. That puts one hydrogen in every 1.06×10−9 cm3. The radius of the electron orbit in hydrogen is 5.29×10−9 cm. This means that the atoms are closer together than their electron orbits allow, which results in the expulsion of the electrons (i.e., ionization by extreme compression). But this does not mean that all of the Sun will be in this condition. The density increases with proximity to the center, so there will be a threshold, with the inner part being ionized by compression and the outer part not. That threshold is achieved at the edge of the core. From this, we know that the core has to be positively charged. And this is not a net charge — it is a pure charge — an incredible thing to consider, but which is nevertheless an inevitable conclusion given the Sun's density. The electrons expelled into the radiative zone will then be attracted by an enormous Coulomb force to the core, establishing the primary charge separation, which then supports the enveloping convective zone for reasons already described. This means that if something (e.g., magnetic confinement) can condense enough matter to develop enough gravitational force to achieve core ionization, enormous electrostatic forces will then accomplish the further consolidation of all of the matter available. This could be the critical threshold in the making of a main sequence star, below which there can only be asteroids and planets. Michael, can you sanity-check this? Beyond simple sanity checking, I'm thinking that this is a goldmine of evidence, and that it will bear out in further calculations. For example, I'm saying, "That threshold is achieved at the edge of the core." Here I'm anticipating mathematical support, but I haven't got my mind around the whole thing yet. Here is what I'm thinking: To start, assume no internal heat source, and a consistent sub-photospheric temperature of something like 3,000 K. Given the known volume and mass of the Sun, calculate the gravitational force, and the effect on density, given the hydrostatic pressure of plasma at 3,000 K. This is a non-linear calculation, as the force of gravity increases the density at the center, which then increases the gravitational force near the center. There is no "center of gravity" of course, but there is nevertheless an increased density nearer the center due to the combined gravitational forces. Somewhere in there, we know that we are going to "cross the threshold" into a density that will expel electrons. So where, exactly, is that threshold? We know from helioseismic data that there is a boundary of some sort between the core and the radiative zone. The standard "fusion furnace" model assigns one set of significances to that, but the temperatures and pressures for nuclear fusion would require gravitational forces that just aren't there, so we are suspicious of the "fusion furnace" model. Still, there is an internal structure there that needs to be explained, and we might have everything we need to get this piece into place. If the density crosses the quantum limit at 27% of the Sun's radius or thereabouts, the internal structure of the Sun will make a lot more sense. Anybody care to step up and throw down some maths on this thing? Somebody more qualified than myself could do it in a fraction of the time that it will take me.
'12-02-16, 01:43 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient OK, nobody bother trying to sanity-check that last post, as there isn't actually any sanity in there to check. As I was writing, "And this is not a net charge — it is a pure charge — an incredible thing to consider, but which is nevertheless an inevitable conclusion given the Sun's density." I was thinking to myself that yes, this would be a truly incredible thing indeed. Well, I think that it would be a little too incredible. The Coulomb force in a core made of pure protons would be more than all of the gravity in the solar system could contain. So forget about that. Realistically speaking, this "quantum limit" (or whatever you'd actually call it) cannot be a threshold which, when exceeded, results in pure positive charge. Rather, it's a limit that can be hit and only barely surpassed before the Coulomb force starts dispersing the matter, which would allow the electrons back in. So you can compress matter up to this limit. Then further compression gets really, really tough, and would take many, many more orders of magnitude of pressure to continue reducing the volume past this limit. We can then expect the entire core to be roughly the same density, from edge to center. All of it will have been pressed up against this limit, and none of it will have exceeded the limit by much. So really what we have is a fully coupled E/G/HD problem, where the force of gravity compresses the matter to a certain extent, limited by the hydrostatic pressure of plasma at that temperature, and then we have this electron orbit limit that prevents further compression, as the consequence of further compression would be more complete ionization. Somewhere in there an equilibrium is achieved. Is the ionization 1 ppm, or 10, or 100? That's the question. There will definitely be a net positive charge. Where the Coulomb force, gravity, and hydrostatic pressure equalize, we'll get a stable core. Of course, this is assuming that the core is all hydrogen, which in light of these facts, now doesn't seem possible. If I understand the numbers correctly, going with the mean density of the Sun, we get one hydrogen atom in every 1.06×10−9 cm3, and the radius of the electron orbit in hydrogen is 5.29×10−9 cm. So even at the mean density, we're already compressed 5 times more than the electron shells can allow, meaning that the entire Sun is pure protons, which is beyond ridiculous. The only possible conclusion is that heavier elements are present. That takes our E/G/HD problem and throws in some unknowable variables (i.e., the species, abundance, and distribution of heavier elements). Still it would be interesting to determine some of the boundary conditions within the solution domain.
'12-02-16, 03:54 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Ionization by Compression? * Kanarev says electrons don't orbit, but they spin in a torus shape above the nucleus, that they're attracted to the protons electrically, but repelled magnetically, so they hover over the protons' spin axes. * Mathis, on the other hand, says electrons move into the nucleus and that the atomic particles are over 100 times larger than believed. He also says, and has plenty of math to show it, that the gravitational force is much stronger than conventionally believed at the atomic level. It's not 10^38 weaker, but maybe 10^16 weaker according to http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html. At http://milesmathis.com/catas.pdf he says: "If we rerun the fundamental equations with this new knowledge, we find that the charge force on the electron is not 8.2 x 10^-8N, it is 8.9 x 10^-30[N], a difference of about 10^22. ... Meaning, gravity is 10^22 stronger at the quantum level than we thought." 10^38 / 10^22 = 10^16. * I gather that there'd be much less ionization by compression then, than what's been considered here. Mathis reworked Coulomb's equation at http://milesmathis.com/coul.html. * Has anyone read his paper on star formation at http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf? I quoted from it here earlier. Cut to the chase. Okay?