I tried superluminocity once but found better results with a standard 60w lightbulb in the lighting fixtures in my front room. I retained more of my hair and the child next door wasn’t woken up at night.
How does that compare with your findings, Baudrunner?
Baud, I read the site. I also read the cites. Here’s what I think.
It cites 3 scientists extensively - birkeland, bruce, and manuel.
Birkeland was a scientist from the early 1800’s who made his claims based on research done that planetary B-fields (magnetic fields) are results of shifting E-fields. This led to the logic that our own planetary magnetic field was generated from the incongruities in a solid iron core moving within a liquid iron covering, which is then covered by the mantle, crust, atmosphere, etc. Birkeland would further postulate that the sun’s B-field is also generated by a spinning iron core - one that rotates every 23.7 days.
Bruce was a scientist who further researched that B-fields can be generated by the movements within a cloud of charged particles, and is responsible for much of the solar activity in the solar system, at least atmospherically. This would explain why the surface of the sun is actually hotter than the core.
Oliver Manuel is a professor at U-Missouri Rolla who along with his research associate are the sole scientific advocates of an iron core. He is also the same cite but in the form of a cnn article later as "a small group of maverick scientists).
The main theory of Manuel’s iron core model reasons that the sun and our solar system are survivors of an ancient supernova. The exploded star left a core of iron and expelled most of everything else into orbit around it. The reasoning behind this was that Manuel looked lunar samples and asteroid samples, saw that they were of heavy metals which would be found in the core of a large, aging star, and concluded that it was a possibility that our solar system had been the victim of a small supernova, and our sun was pulsing as an abnormally large and bright dwarf.
Furthermore, the research done by oliver addresses the source of the sun’s energy as neutron decay, which then forms helium and hydrogen ions, which may fuse and that compounded with the B-field generation discovered by Bruce, accounts for the energy released by the Sun.
So… what do i think?
I haven’t done any pen and paper work on this, and am unlikely to, but a brief lookover and mental math tells me that the spontaneous decay of an iron core is highly unlikely to produce the energy that the sun does in itself even under intense pressure. I’m also unimpressed by the static imaging of iron deposits in the sun. Nobody is doubting the presence of iron in the sun. Heavy metals do exist. The question is if it composes a significant amount of the core. An image taken at such a distance would have you believe that the entire core was made of iron when they could just be dispersed sparcely throughout.
What i mean by that is, if you have 10 people, and you arrange them uniformly in a circle, you’d have maybe 5 on the perimeter and a few in between, but if you stand reaaaaally far away and look at the group, you would not be able to see through the group of people and conclude it’s a mass of people, when really they’re just dispersed uniformly. That’s a basic problem with image processing, especially on the astronomical level.
So overall, the idea has weak legs, a lack of scientific support. The site itself, surfaceofthesun.com, probably hurts its cause rather than helps it from my viewpoint. And the condescending, yet baseless insults from Baud doesn’t help the cause either.
Finally, somebody else who omits the article there!
And I’ll be backup for him in case he wanders off for a beer or something.
Alright. You’d rather refute than research, so I decided to cut and paste a contribution I made to the Helium site some time ago on just this subject (the sun), so that you can catch up to the state of current knowledge. At least read this.
I am not familiar with this “iron core model” of which you speak. I think that you do not fully understand the theory presented on the site, and/or that you did not read through the pages under all the tabs on the site’s menu. Here is a quote from “The Birkeland Solar Model” description on the site…
Obviously, he’s talking about axial rotation, because of course the rotation speed at the equator is much greater than at the poles. The operative words he uses here are “UNIFORMLY rotating”.
Nah, I’m just kind of a fan of this whole ‘evidence’ thing, you know, citing sources, giving empirical substantiation to wild claims, that sort of stuff.
For instance, if there are ‘vast amounts of data’ that apparently contradict established consensus, it shouldn’t be too hard to dig up a link to some paper presenting this data and its implications. If TRACE has resulted in conflicts between NASA and Lockheed, cite that conflict! Give some links to Hinode’s results! Show me where iron has remained solid at 5100K. Or the sunspot temperature measurements. Because I’ve tried googling all this, and came up empty, and I’m sorry, but even you have to admit that your claims are a bit too big for me to just take you on your word.
Of course, even if all those assertions of yours are substantiated, you’d still have to show how this then favours your model of the sun over the standard one, and find a way round several problems with it, for instance its low density, given that there’s allegedly so much iron, or its emission spectrum that doesn’t show a neon predominance, or how, as you’re now saying, the sun can be hot on the inside (from the fusion going on), then relatively cold in the mantle region (how, by the way, is the number of 1500-2000K arrived at?), and then again have a hot plasma surface.
So, in short again, to take your theories seriously, I’d need you to provide 1) evidence against the present consensus model (with reputable cites), 2) an explanation how your model fits this evidence better, 3) an explanation how your model fits current evidence the standard model explains quite well, like solar density, solar formation (how should a giant iron shell coalesce from an accretion disk, for example), energy production, neutrino output, astronomical data from other sun-type stars further down/earlier in their lifecycle, and probably some other things I’m forgetting right now. Only then will you even have something approaching a contending model. And it’s not me who’s demanding that kind of rigour – the sun could be god lighting his farts for all I care, as long as it shines. But science needs such measures as a quality control, in order to slowly but surely converge on the way things actually are; if we were to relax those constraints, we might as well start explaining thunderstorm with angry gods who we must appease with virgin sacrifices again.
I must say, that I like **baudrunner **theory and I’m willing to propagate it, but under one condition: I got to pilot that huge bunker-buster riding on fastest rocket evar. Think about countless pick-up line possibilities.
Not going to post a bunch of quotes from it, but I found a link to a site that discusses this whole idea of an iron sun, the supposed neutron star remnant of a supernova question and such. Basically what I take from this and from the discussion on Bad Astronomer’s blog and message board is that most scientists think it’s a bunch of bunk (here is a link to a cite that also contains links to the BA forums and the question asked there). Some think it’s interesting but not enough to change the accepted model of the sun, how it was formed, it’s life cycle and what it is made of.
Even if the sun WERE made of iron (or had a large iron component :dubious:) that still wouldn’t say anything about the OP’s outlandish tale of anti-matter asteroids or vampiric civilizations moving through the cosmos like interstellar locusts, blah blah blah. Whether the iron sun THEORY is correct or not (looks like ‘not’) is moot from the perspective of the OP…this whole aspect of the discussion is simply an attempt to muddy the waters. I’m militantly unsurprised…
-XT
My understanding is that according to the TMBG Groupthe sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace, where hydrogen is built into helium at temperatures of millions of degrees. They do make a quite compelling argument for this position.
Half, a question about the paired particles.
If the act of me observing it changes it’s state, then from my point of view, shouldn’t the particle appear to be constantly in flux?
My eyes, barin, and equipment don’t operate on (insert the smallest scale of time we can think of).
Do subatomic particles actually sit around for long without being affected by their environment in any way?
so what is the material of this surface and where does it reside? is it iron, and lies beneath the outer atmosphere of swirling gasses (solar wind) ? could that be construed as an iron core?
My understanding of the, um, theory is that the core is a neutron star (the remnant of a supernova) shielded in some way by an iron shell.
-XT