Recovered: Iron Sun Theories

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

And this (also from Beaty):

LINK: "Static Electricity" means "High Voltage"

Static electricity" is not electricity which is static.

Actually, the thing we call Static electricity is an imbalance in the amounts of positive and negative charges found within the surface of an object. It's only the imbalance between opposite charges which is important. It's irrelevant whether the charge is moving or "static." In fact, the charge-imbalance can flow along as an electric current, yet it loses none of it's familiar "static electrical" properties. The charge still crackles, glows, and attracts dust and lint, even when it's moving along.) But how can we have "static" that flows? Motionless motion? Simple. "Static electricity" is all about charge-imbalance, and it has nothing to do with charges at rest. "Static electricity" was misnamed.


Then what is "static electricity?" Here's a big clue. There's always a strong e-field (electric field) surrounding these charges, whether the charges are moving still. This e-field is the main feature of so-called "static" electricity. But what's an e-field? One way to say it: an e-field is like a magnetic field, but it's electrical in nature. Another simple answer: an electric field is a voltage without a current; whenever you have pure voltage, then you have a pure electric field with no magnetism involved. Still another way to say it:


"STATIC ELECTRICITY" is not unmoving, it really means "HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICITY."

....

Boundary conditions, double-layers, "sur-faces." Et al.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

- Stefan asked about questions:

1. How do stars/planets form?

Z-pinch and gravitational attraction forces make materials come together and that flotsum and jetsum forms into solar systems.

2. What is composition of the sun?

It's mostly Iron and Nickel.

3. How does the sun function?

It's a conductor of electrical current (I haven't ruled out some sort of scalar effect however). IMO it has a dense core (IMO neutron material) that spins faster than the outer shell and the rotation speed differences between the core and the shell creates a series of induction forces. In other words the sun is both a storage device and also a conductor of of interstellar current.

4. How is the sun powered?

I'm going to have to say at this point in time that I don't really know how it's powered. My best guess is it's powered mostly by the currents of the universe that z-pinch material inside the shell, much like Michael Mc's composite image. IMO that dense rotating core is likely to be neutron material or iron and nickel stripped of most of their electrons.

5. How is space percieved?

I personally percieve it to be eternal at least by my standards of comprehension. I'm definitely not into BB theories, although IMO an EU type of "big bang/big slam" is far viable that most of the mumbo jumbo Lambda-CDM stuff.

6. Do neutron stars exist?

I believe that they probably do exist. It seems to me that there is a dense mass object at the core of most galaxies.

7. Are Blackholes/Bigbang real?

No and no.

- Yes, that's probably close enough, but I'll modify your list anyway a little.
1. How do stars form?

They are typically "pinched" together over time IMO. IMO that also makes the missing momentum problem even more interesting since the z-pinch process would tend to make things spin faster, not slower.

2. Are stars isodense or stratified?

The atmospheric plasma layers are stratified and arranged by atomic weight. The hydrogen corona is above the helium chromosphere, which is above the neon photosphere, etc. There is also a silicon and calcium layer under the photosphere.

3. How does the sun radiate energy?

It's not a black body if that's what you mean. It radiates most of it's visible light much like a neon light bulb radiates most of it's visible light. All it's layers tend to emit light in various wavelengths, all of which contribute to it's total energy output.

4. How does the solar wind operate?

The relatively positively charged photosphere is electrically interacting with the heliosphere. Protons tend to accelerate as the leave the photosphere and travel toward the negatively charged heliosphere.

5. What is space?

And area filled with diffuse plasma.

6. What are neutron stars?

Squished matter under heavy gravitational force.

7. What are black holes?

Mathematical myths.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

I would debate you on the worth of Neutron Stars as there is no proof that there is crushing gravity in the middle of Planets, nor is there even substantial proof they are complete solid. (Example, the Iron Core Model and Hollow Earth model both can decribe the travelling of S and P waves thru the planet.)

Oh, and there is Chemistry that says that Neutrons (Compressed Hydrogen, some say) can be packed that closely. One Atom, thousands of miles across doesn't make sense. Especially in the gravitationally neutral center of mass.

Although, the outside of the sun would dictate the middle of the sun is the opposite polarity, so there is potential devistation going on inside the sun. But again. We can't know for %100 at this stage.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "zeuz"

there is no proof that there is crushing gravity in the middle of Planets, nor is there even substantial proof they are complete solid. (Example, the Iron Core Model and Hollow Earth model both can decribe the travelling of S and P waves thru the planet.)

I second that. I am not one to actually belive in the hollow earth theory as it just seems too far fetched for me, but Jan Lamprecht has written some pretty good articles that I know have made a lot of people (and scientists) believe in the possibility. Scientists such as Tom Van Flandern were impressed with his material;

http://www.hollowplanets.com/HpReviews.asp

I glanced at the book, and despite my backlog of urgent matters, cracked it open, thinking it would be easy to establish that it could be shelved for good. From the title alone, I immediately had two objections that demanded answers -- how to reconclie a hollow Earth with seismic data, and how to reconccile it with Earth's gravity field as established by artificial satellites. I soon found that you had dealt with the seismic data issue head-on, and offerred an intriguing alternate explanation. For merely showing us all that the inferred density profile of Earth's interior is not a unique solution of seismic data -- an important constraint for all theoreticians working in that area -- the book had already made itself worthwhile.

And then theres this alternate interpretation of the seismological data, which basically proposes that the 'shadow zone' at the core where no P or S waves can penetrate is actually gas, and thats why the waves cant penetrate. He also says that the density and pressure as you decend into the earth decreases after a certain point, until it decreases to gas. I take issue with this, as it would mean that seismologists have got it completely backwards, but at the same time I cant really come up with a reason to dismiss it.

If the density did decrease apparently this would be the result;
http://www.hollowplanets.com/journal/Seismic01.asp

Which is roughly the same as what is observed in standard seismology

Our reality truly is an ambigous one


Talking of reality, lets get back to it...

Here's a post I wrote a while ago elsewhere online about some thoughts on gravity inside planets and some of the assumptions involved, I think some of it is originally from Jans website;

Newton's Law of Gravity is one of the most useful mathematical formulae ever devised. This little formula has made space travel and the exploration of the Solar System possible. It made satellites possible. . . . Scientists use this little formula to gain an understanding of galaxies far away, and indeed the behaviour of the universe as a whole. It is now more than 300 years since Newton devised this little formula; and we still do now know what causes gravity.


Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and proven with the bounds of the solar system. However, Newtonian gravity remains untested in other areas. All we have is a formula. This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth. This is based on the concept that for each mass of M inside the Earth, it exerts and attractive force of F. We do not know the valid range for Newtonian gravity. Inside Newton's formula is G. G is the "universal gravitational constant". It is assumed, and assumed is the correct word here, that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where in the universe it may be placed. How did newton work out this assumption? he certainly could not test it back then. It is also assumed that each mass of M exerts the same force F whether it lies on the surface of a planet or star or whether it be deep inside the body.


This assumption rules out the very real possibility that particles near the surface of a body in space might exert a force greater (or less) than those deep down. Its also rules out the very real possibility that other EM forces that are much stronger than gravity can effect these particles. The key to all of our gravity is the mass of the Earth. If the mass of the Earth is wrong, then so are our estimates for those of other bodies. If the mass of the Earth has been overstated, then it follows that the masses of all other bodies in the solar system have also been overstated.


How can we be sure that the Earth really has the mass accorded it by Newtonian gravity? As gravity is so unbelievably weak, is an experiment using two lead balls really representative of the entire Earth? No, of course not, that is probably down to an unknown property of EM force in the first place like maxwell suspected all along, not gravity. There are electrical forces inside earth to account for and magnetic forces that are a lot stronger than gravity, that the current theory does not take into account.


There are a number of odd facts that you can draw from Newtons (now ancient) theory of gravity. Either Newton was an absolute genius and worked all of this out nearly perfectly hundreds of years ago, or his theory has been made to fit with the current forces attributed to gravity. Newtons idea of gravity is that all mass attracts equally, a simple idea, that is very hard to disprove due to the weakness of gravity.


I would point out that a lot of what we think we know about space is also based on special assumptions in gravity. If gravity turns out to not to work exactly how it is thought it would mean that the mass of earth is wrong, and so to every other body in space. That throws a lot of modern astronomy out of the window, it would also render things like gravitational lensing and dark matter pointless.


Newtons theory could be easily tested by measuring gravity at depths in the earth to see if the strength of the gravitational field drops off proportionally as you descend. According to newtons theory, at the centre of every spherical body in space there is absolutely zero gravity, as it cancels out in all directions. (see newtons shell theorem; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem)


So as you descend it should decrease at a roughly constant rate, until you get to the centre where you will be completely weightless. Surprisingly, no-one seems to have tested it. They probably have tested it somewhere, but the results probably did not agree with newtons theory, and so it would not be accepted for any journal. If you could find any data on this, i would greatly appreciate it, i certainly cant find any info on gravity at depths. All journals seem to be surprisingly silent when it comes to ways of confirming certain aspects of newtons theory of gravitation.

I'm not so sure about gravity dropping off proportionally as you descend any more, I have thought about it since and it wouldn't be exactly proportional, as there is thought to be far more mass at the core than at the surface. It would only be exactly true if the Earth was uniform. You shoud be able to work it out by assuming a sphere of spherical shells of variable density, using the densitites of the inner core, outer core, lower and upper mantle and the lithosphere. You could then Integrate, and use Gaus's law to find gravity as a function of the radius.

I would guess that gravity should be highest at some transition about half way down, but i cant be bothered to do the maths at the moment.

But still, we could test that gravity works exactly as thought inside planets and other bodies by taking measurements of gravitational field strength at certain depths at varying points on Earth and compare it with what Newtons theory predicts, but I have never found any data on that from any journal or science paper. I am still very skeptical that gravity works exactly like we currently think it does, and always have been.
_________________
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. ~Cree Indian Proverb

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

I would debate you on the worth of Neutron Stars as there is no proof that there is crushing gravity in the middle of Planets, nor is there even substantial proof they are complete solid. (Example, the Iron Core Model and Hollow Earth model both can decribe the travelling of S and P waves thru the planet.)

I am inclined to agree with that statement in a general sense, and that idea is backed by empirical evidence as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=487fnnjAgZM

The EM fields of spacetime have an interesting effect on objects in space and the arrangement of elements in spheres.

Oh, and there is Chemistry that says that Neutrons (Compressed Hydrogen, some say) can be packed that closely. One Atom, thousands of miles across doesn't make sense. Especially in the gravitationally neutral center of mass.

I would tend to think of any form of heavy matter as a form of dense plasma like material that is composed of individualized particles that can repel one another.

Although, the outside of the sun would dictate the middle of the sun is the opposite polarity, so there is potential devistation going on inside the sun. But again. We can't know for %100 at this stage.

Agreed. All I can observe with great accuracy is the crust. I can't see below the crust at this point in time, and I don't trust that the heliosiesmology models are currently advanced enough to really tell us what lies deep in the core yet.

I do however note that the sun has a very specific 22 year magnetic field rotation cycle that our models must explain. I can really only think of a couple of obvious ways to explain that rotation. One way to explain that rotation cycle involves a rapidly spinning core that slowly rotates inside the core moving from an axis spin position that is parallel to the spin axis of the crust at solar minimum, and rotates to a position that is perpendicular to the crust spin axis every 11 years at solar maximum.

That seems reasonable to me for several reasons, including the fact that the sun seems to have a serious missing momentum problem based on any mass oriented (gravity centric) solar system formation theory. I would think that a z-pinch process would only tend to add energy to the process and would tend to make things spin even faster, significantly magnifying that missing momentum problem. A rapidly spinning core could have a charge that was "relatively" different (opposite) from the crust, and could in theory act a lot like an ordinary plasma ball on the inside.

I liked Michael's earlier composite image because it showed/portrayed the heavier material of the core as a spinning mass tornado like object with an intrinsic magnetic field. That's exactly how I envision it to work. The central core may be a dense, current carrying plasma that acts exactly like any other plasma filament, it just carries more current flow and more kinetic energy (momentum).

FYI, in such a dense core configuration, I can envision a scenario where the current that is flowing through the core momentarily stops flowing, due to current flow changes in the surrounding areas. As a result, the heavy core is no longer being "z-pinched" together and it flies apart to create a "supernova" event, where all it's internally stored momentum is instantly released from it's core.

I can think of many theoretical advantages to going with a solar model that includes a dense spinning core of material. I'm not emotionally attached to that dense core being composed of degenerate matter, but I do believe that it could be composed of compressed matter, and it could even have a net charge in the way it relates to the plasma around it because of it's spin rate.

The bottom line is that I can't see inside the crust with satellite images, and therefore I try to keep a very open mind to what is inside that crust.

The thing I like about a hollow center concept (and the scalar wave concept as well) is the fact that the average density of the sun suggests it cannot be composed of solid iron, and the materials inside the crust cannot be the same density as the crust itself unless the whole concept of GR and mass estimations are simply way off. Now if scalar waves can be empirically demonstrated in a lab and shown to rotate polarity over time, I could definitely get behind a solar model with a relatively hollow (not actually hollow but less dense) core, that is resonating energy inside the crust.

I could even entertain some exotic mixes and matches on these same themes, including a dense core that becomes the primary focal point of scalar waves and rotates over time. I definitely remain opened minded about the possible internal inner workings of the sun and I try not to rule out models too quickly. About the only things I'm absolutely certain about is the fact that the sun's atmospheric plasma layers are arranged by atomic weight and they are highly electrically active. I can also see that the sun has a very dense (rigid) crust that contains a lot of iron and nickel.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

I second that. I am not one to actually belive in the hollow earth theory as it just seems too far fetched for me, but Jan Lamprecht has written some pretty good articles that I know have made a lot of people (and scientists) believe in the possibility. Scientists such as Tom Van Flandern were impressed with his material;

I think it's noteworthy that the smallest planets have the highest average density, while the largest physical bodies tend to have the lowest average density. In my opinion, that observation does seem to favor a less dense (not necessarily hollow) core model for the largest physical objects. Mercury is very small, and very dense, whereas the Earth seem to be larger and less dense, but Earth is smaller and more dense than the gas giants.

[bboyer]

That's all the posts I recovered.

- 30 -

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: Iron sun Note pad. Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

This is a note pad for the iron sun....


HR diagram.

Voltage is equal to temperature.
Current is equal to size.
Pressure is equal to luminosity.

"With this cathode process, a steady-state discharge can exist.
This is a normal glow discharge. The lowest possible voltage
drop in front of the cathode is connected with a current density
enabling optimum output of these electron generation processes.
If the current becomes higher, the electron source extends over
the whole cathode surface. Thereafter, any further enhancement
of the current is possible only with an increase of current density
and a higher electron emission yield. And this is possible only
with an increased drop in the cathode potential, resulting in the
cathode regime of abnormal glow discharges."

"increased drop in the cathode potential"

Which I take to mean larger. Like red giant.


Is our sun in the Abnormal or normal glow discharge regime?
I notice in the EU description there is no mention of abnormal glow discharge.
They talk about going right from normal glow to arc discharge.

The Correas talk about it and the Cathode spot paper from Ian talks about it.

A large HR diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hert ... Powell.png
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: A new look at the HR diagram. Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

I think the parameter that is missing from the EU model is plasma pressure at the surface.

Here is the glow discharge plot from EU.

Here is the experimentally determined version from the Correas.

image5.gif

(10.8 KiB) Downloaded 428 times

"Our point of departure was a serendipitous observation - made while studying sustained X-ray production - of quasi-regular discontinuities in glow discharges having a minimal positive column at very high vacua (10E-5 to 10E-7 Torr) and at low to medium voltages (10-50 kV DC). These events, which were associated with X-ray bursts, spontaneously originated localized cathode discharge jets (Coronal loops. Upriver)that triggered the plasma glow in a fashion quite distinct from the flashing of a photocathode or from an externally pulsed plasma glow. It would soon become apparent that these discontinuities were elicited by spontaneous electronic emissions from the cathode under conditions of current saturation of the plasma glow, and could be triggered with much lower applied DC field strengths. The discharge was distinct from the VAD regime in that the plasma channel was self-starting, self-extinguishing, and the regime was pulsatory (79)."
http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/Pwr ... sions.html

A picture of the Solar surface. Notice the cathode jets. Emission is over a larger part of the surface(abnormal glow discharge).
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_ ... 033928.jpg
(This is supposed to be a 192nm EUV image of the transition layer)

The way top look at the HR diagram below is from left to right, not diagonally.
Our sun is right at the hump or just over the hump(red circle), putting it slightly in the abnormal glow discharge region.

Notice how the hump at the top of the normal glow discharge region from the Correas plot, matches the Hump in the modified HR diagram. If you look at the bottom of the Correas diagram you can see that the difference is pressure. This scenario matches well with the description of abnormal glow discharge from Ian's cathode spot paper.

My modified HR diagram with the red rectangles.

(click to view larger image)

Any comments from the TPOD crew??
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

Abstract:
Experiments showed that an electric arc in helium between graphite electrodes (I=60–120 A; L=3–6 mm; P He=1–500 Torr) may exist in two different spatial-temporal modes: (i) a stationary mode with axisymmetric current channel and (ii) a nonstationary mode with two helical channels emerging from an anode spot and rotating at 10–20 kHz around the side surfaces of cylindrical electrodes.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/m ... awler=true
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "lk"

What's "a stationary mode with axisymmetric current channel"? Sounds like DNA to me. Actually, the nonstationary mode sounds like DNA too. Now how can something rotate around a cylindrical electrode? Don't they mean revolve? Oh, I see. A coil spring can rotate around a cylinder. And is the cylindrical electrode a cathode? It seems more likely that the helical[?] current channel that's said to come from an anode spot would form around the cathode, rather than around the anode where it originates. Right?

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

What's "a stationary mode with axisymmetric current channel"? Sounds like DNA to me. Actually, the nonstationary mode sounds like DNA too. Now how can something rotate around a cylindrical electrode? Don't they mean revolve? Oh, I see. A coil spring can rotate around a cylinder.

Yes. It sounds like they sparked the plasma channel and as the right hand rule took effect, the plasma crawled down the electrode still spinning.
As you know the right hand rule means there is a physically rotating magnetic field around any wire conducting a current.

And is the cylindrical electrode a cathode?

Sure. In some of the experiments I've done, we stuck a wire through a rubber cork. That was the electrode. We did that for both ends. Anode and cathode. Sometimes we soldered plates(1/4 dia) perpendicular to the wire at the tip, or other shapes.

It seems more likely that the helical[?] current channel that's said to come from an anode spot would form around the cathode, rather than around the anode where it originates. Right?

See above right hand rule. A plasma channel opens in milliseconds.
The rotation rate was 10-20hz. The plasma channel is opened and the rotation starts....
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

Re: Neutron star & iron sun debate?

LK: Below is some major data that you seem to overlook. According to Thornhill, supernovae are very rare events. Sun-like stars on the other hand are very common. So how can sun-like stars be remnants of supernovae? Please read all of the paragraphs below and explain what are the flaws in the statements and reasoning. The conventional explanation of the cause of supernovae seem highly implausible; electrical forces seem to be a highly probable explanation. The conventional theory for the formation of heavy elements from supernovae seems highly implausible; electrical forces as explained below seem highly probable. Another datum you may be overlooking is form or shape. Virtually all of the objects and phenomena seen in the universe, including supernovae, seem to be typical of electrical forces [partly in combination with gravity, which itself is said to be a side effect of electrical forces].
- As for further EU data, Brant Callahan seems to have access to considerable such data. Aetherometry.com I think is one of his sources, but he's been involved in research himself that relates to the iron sun model etc. You can find much of his material on the TB forum under the name Upriver. Can you respond to one of the threads he contributes to there? LK

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVI-01.txt
WAL THORNHILL RESPONDS:
- Here we have an extreme proposal - that the Sun was built upon a collapsed supernova remnant and has an iron core! I suggest that if orthodox astronomers do not understand what a star is in an electrified cosmos, there is no chance that they understand supernova outbursts or their consequences. What is more, the Sun is observed to be an average star. Birth in a supernova is anything but average.
- A supernova has the energy to destroy and disperse any hapless planets it might have had. We have no evidence of planets orbiting supernova remnants. And we have no evidence of stars like the Sun sitting where we expect to
find a supernova remnant.
- With new planetary systems being discovered almost daily, and proposed for brown dwarfs, are we to believe that they all required one of the galaxy's rarest events for their formation? Or is it that we are unique in having rocky planets and moons in our planetary system? Any theory that requires us to be unique is off to a bad start.
- The fixation on rare supernovae as the source of all the heavy elements, which they dissipate into deep space, strikes me as one of the silliest ideas in cosmology (and it has plenty of competition).
- The fact that "strange xenon is enriched in isotopes that are made when a supernova explodes," and we find it in meteorites and on the Moon and Jupiter, does suggest a local origin. But a model that does not require an extraordinary event is to be preferred. One of the simplest means of producing short-lived and strange isotopes is to use a particle accelerator. Plasma discharges are natural particle accelerators. So the simplest solution is to suggest that plasma discharges accompanied the formation of meteorites, the Moon, Jupiter and most likely all other bodies in the solar system.
~Wal Thornhill
http://www.holoscience.com
==

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/01 ... ernova.htm
- None of the three [supernova remnant or precursor] stars is spinning rapidly, as one might expect if it had recently merged with a close orbiting companion star. A merger and the subsequent red-to-blue transition are the key ingredients in the prevailing explanation for the nebula around [supernova] SN1987A, but the three stars discussed by Smith apparently formed similar nebulae without either mechanism.
- From our TPOD "Electric Supernovae":
- In the Electric Universe view, a supernova is also an exploding star. But an electric star is a power-consuming "pinch" — a load — in a galactic circuit of Birkeland currents. The circuit drives the pinch, just as circuits in a house drive the electric lights.
==

http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_strange.htm
4. It is assumed that we understand what causes a supernova explosion.
- The number of ad hoc assumptions required for a mechanical explosion following a sudden stellar implosion results in a highly unlikely explanation. SN1987A showed that such explosions are not spherically symmetrical.
5. It is assumed that a supernova can "squeeze" stellar protons and electrons together to form neutrons.

I do believe that a pinch can "make" neutrons. They just dont stick around for long. I suspect that a supernova could produce an iron sun over a period of time through Marklund convection and spit them out after they are done. There is even evidence for matter creation in extreme plasma pinch events.

- A first-order wild conjecture. The model incorporates many unproven assumptions about the unseen internal structure of stars. If the implosion is not spherically symmetrical there may be insufficient "squeeze" to force protons and electrons to merge, even if that were possible. No account is taken of electrical effects. Our own Sun with a mean density only slightly above that of pure hydrogen shows that electrostatic forces are at work within stars to offset compression forces.

I disagree with the ball of gas/plasma model.
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Mo"

I thought that the Iron Sun theory went along the lines of -
acceleration of ions produces nuclear collisions which
produce heavier nucleuses. And thus, the heavier elements
are formed near the Sun's surface, but instead of these
atoms moving to the core of the Sun, they collect near the
surface of the Sun. And so a solid surface is formed.

Mo

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

I thought that the Iron Sun theory went along the lines of -
acceleration of ions produces nuclear collisions which
produce heavier nucleuses. And thus, the heavier elements
are formed near the Sun's surface, but instead of these
atoms moving to the core of the Sun, they collect near the
surface of the Sun. And so a solid surface is formed.

Mo

I am still thinking that the planets, sun, moon, stars and such are all the "dust" in the universe, and the Sun, The Gas Giants and all of them are constructed mostly from the core of their parent planet, then covered with silicates (or whatever) after they have been ejected from a parent body.

So, there is no difference between this dust except the largest dust attracts more charge. That's the "basic" system.

If you're big, and you are biggest around, you glow bright and form a "heliopause" that encompasses and powers the aurora's your planetary system.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn