Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:53 am

willendure wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: So basically, it has to radiate away 99% of the thermal energy in the original dusty plasma, so that when compressed, it isn't 100 times more temperature and pressure than the force of gravity can contain.
Is this also true of the standard model with a gravity only collapse? I mean in the sense that the dust cloud needs to lose 99% of its energy to collapse into a star?
Yes, I am speaking of the standard model. In my model, the energy is retained. (See below.)
willendure wrote:I'm posting some of these questions up on physics stack exchange too:
And what a bunch of astro-babble you're getting there!!! In the special case of star formation, hydrogen has a negative heat capacity... :D

The standard model starts out with a bunch of assumptions about how the only two factors are gravity and pressure. Then, when the physics doesn't work out, they just corrupt the physics so that they get the answer they want. In reality, hydrogen does not have a negative heat capacity. ;)
willendure wrote:Or is the answer that the energy is contained in the hydrogen that is going to be reacted to helium, and that is far bigger than the gravitational potential energy in the gas cloud?
You won't find a true answer anywhere in there. ;)
willendure wrote:In your electrical model, ff you replace standard model gravitational potential energy in the dust cloud, with electrical potential energy in the dust cloud between ions, do you not end up with a far bigger initial energy budget, and therefore need to lose even more energy to get a collapse? Is the energy really being radiated away during the collapse, or does it somehow end up inside the star instead?
Yes, in my model, the energy isn't radiated away. Rather, it gets converted, from hydrostatic potential, to electrostatic potential.

To understand my model, let's consider a spherically imploding plasma. As I mentioned in a previous post, at any velocity at all, the implosion will pass the hydrostatic equilibrium, and the kinetic energy in the implosion will get stored in hydrostatic potential, in excess of what the gravity can contain. So the hydrostatic potential will then initiate a rebound. It's just like dropping a tennis ball on the concrete -- gravitational potential is converted to kinetic energy -- on impact with the concrete, kinetic energy is converted to hydrostatic potential inside the tennis ball, and maybe some elastic potential in the rubber -- but the amount of potential is, by definition, in excess of what the gravity can contain -- so the tennis ball bounces, because the excess potential gets reconverted to kinetic energy.

Since we know that dusty plasmas don't bounce off of themselves, and rebound back out to their original dimensions, we know that there has to be an energy sink somewhere in there, to convert the hydrostatic potential into some other form of energy that is not repulsive.

There aren't very many choices here, but in the interest of brevity, I'll just go straight for the conclusion: the energy is converted to electrostatic potential.

When matter is compressed, eventually it gets to the point that electrons start getting expelled from the matter. This is because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which is manifested in the incompressibility of solids. Since the atoms are already in a closest packed arrangement, with the electron shells overlapping, a further reduction in volume would force multiple electrons to be in the same place at the same time, and at the same energy level, which they don't like. So electrons are expelled, and then the Coulomb force between +ions resists the compression.

The same is true of plasma. Just to get the overview, we can neglect the equations of state, and just say that once you compress plasma down to a certain density, any further compression will expel electrons, and the Coulomb force will prevent further compression. Well, we certainly have the force for this kind of compression in an imploding dusty plasma of stellar proportions, so we can expect this to happen.

So let's consider that our dusty plasma has collapsed into something the size of the Sun, and we know that it has exceeded the hydrostatic equilibrium, and is about to rebound back out. All of the matter would be under the same pressure, except for the fact that gravity -- the weakest of all of the forces present -- has an interesting property: it is purely attractive. So it adds its own force to the mix. The significance is that it will make sure that the center of the ball has the greatest pressure. As a consequence, the core will start expelling electrons first, leaving the core positively charged. Outside of the core, there will be a layer of excess electrons, attracted to the core, but not able to flow back in, because the core has become too compact for them.

Next we can realize that the charges in the negative layer will induce a positive charge in the plasma around the outside. This is because the plasma near the negative charge feels the force of the negative charge more than the positive charge in the core.

So now we have 3 layers of charge, in a positive-negative-positive configuration, starting in the core.

Interestingly, the force binding these layers together is way more powerful than gravity. Thus the matter is further compacted. Even more interesting is the fact that electric fields remove degrees of freedom from charged particles, since the electric force latches onto the particles, and pulls them into a closest packed arrangement, with no wiggle room. The significance of the removal of degrees of freedom is that it takes away all of the heat. Thus hydrostatic potential has been converted to electrostatic potential. If you eliminate the forced charging of those layers, the opposite charges would recombine, and the arc discharges would regenerate all of the heat. So the Conversation of Energy runs through the whole process. But when sufficiently compressed, the heat goes away, being replaced by electrostatic potential.

Also note that all of this put together constitutes a force feedback loop. The whole thing started with kinetic energy creating excess hydrostatic potential, that should have resulted in a rebound. But gravity concentrated the pressure in one spot (i.e., the core), and the forced charging started. Once the alternating layers of charge got set up, the electric force between them pulled them together even more. This increases the pressure, which increases the forced charging. It also increases the density of the gravity field, which increases the pressure, which increases the forced charging. And the charging makes the alternating layers of charge more robust. So it's a force feedback loop. And this is what preventing the hydrostatic rebound. The plasma was collapsing, but just when it thought that it was supposed to bounce back, something grabbed ahold of it and wouldn't let go, and the tighter it squeezed, the better its grip. That's the action of that force feedback loop.

And yes, there is a lot more potential in my model than in the standard model -- I start out with 1043 J from the adiabatic compression. Then I add in the kinetic energy from the implosion itself. And I don't let any of the energy radiate away, so every bit of it is preserved.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by willendure » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:30 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
willendure wrote:I'm posting some of these questions up on physics stack exchange too:
And what a bunch of astro-babble you're getting there!!! In the special case of star formation, hydrogen has a negative heat capacity... :D
...
In reality, hydrogen does not have a negative heat capacity. ;)
Well, I know what they mean by that. Some of the gravitational potential energy radiates away as heat, but some heats the gas too. There is an analogy with a satellite re-entering earth's atmosphere; as it hits the air friction causes it to lose some energy, but instead of slowing down, it drops into a lower orbit and goes faster. Just as the satellite does not have a negative mass, the hydrogen cloud does not have a negative heat capacity - actually its a very misleading comment for someone to throw into the discussion.
CharlesChandler wrote: The standard model starts out with a bunch of assumptions about how the only two factors are gravity and pressure. Then, when the physics doesn't work out, they just corrupt the physics so that they get the answer they want.
The Virial theorem has a constant in it, which depends on the situation. The 'constant' is really a variable which can be adjusted to fudge the results, but that doesn't seem so bad; its not a perfectly spherical ball of ideal gas.

I think the part where the standard model is not adding up most is the rate at which hydrogen will radiate away heat. Even some of the answers on stack exchange allude to the fact that there needs to be a significant amount of metal elements in the gas, if it is to radiate away heat fast enough. That's kind of why I posted up questions about % of energy to be lost, and how long it takes.

Any more fudging of the physics?

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by willendure » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:34 am

There is a chicken and egg problem in standard model star formation. If H and He do not radiate heat fast enough to collapse a gas cloud, and some metal is needed - how did the first stars form? Since metal is made in stars.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:39 am

willendure wrote:Any more fudging of the physics?
Do you want the whole list???? :o

On the present topic, IMO the biggest error in star formation theory is the first one. They say that dusty plasmas collapse due to their own weight. And yet they acknowledge that all other factors being the same, dusty plasmas don't collapse. Rather, it takes a nearby supernova, or a gas cloud collision, to cause the collapse. Then, in their model, the collapse happens because the gravity is strong and/or because the pressure is weak. (Then you get into the question of whether or not the heat can be radiated fast enough to enable the continued collapse.) But the biggest error has already been made. The supernova, or the gas cloud collision, causes particle collisions at over 20 km/s. Sure, the newly added matter will increase the mass, so the gravity will be stronger. But the thermalization of 20 km/s collisions will greatly increase the pressure. Well, that's understating it -- that sounds more like an explosion, which is basically the opposite of a collapse. Once that error is made, it's hard to think mechanistically, and to spot other errors, because it isn't a physical framework.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by willendure » Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:21 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
willendure wrote:Any more fudging of the physics?
Do you want the whole list???? :o

On the present topic, IMO the biggest error in star formation theory is the first one. They say that dusty plasmas collapse due to their own weight. And yet they acknowledge that all other factors being the same, dusty plasmas don't collapse. Rather, it takes a nearby supernova, or a gas cloud collision, to cause the collapse. Then, in their model, the collapse happens because the gravity is strong and/or because the pressure is weak. (Then you get into the question of whether or not the heat can be radiated fast enough to enable the continued collapse.) But the biggest error has already been made. The supernova, or the gas cloud collision, causes particle collisions at over 20 km/s. Sure, the newly added matter will increase the mass, so the gravity will be stronger. But the thermalization of 20 km/s collisions will greatly increase the pressure. Well, that's understating it -- that sounds more like an explosion, which is basically the opposite of a collapse. Once that error is made, it's hard to think mechanistically, and to spot other errors, because it isn't a physical framework.
I think a collision is not going to help a gravitational collapse that is already dependant on heat slowly leaking away. In the sense that, just as the cloud is settling down to a long slow collapse, it will be ripped apart by the collision.

I think you may well be onto something. Either a dust cloud needs to be left alone to gently settle down, or the collision or supernova shockwave needs to play a very different role in initiating the collapse.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:38 pm

willendure wrote:I think a collision is not going to help a gravitational collapse that is already dependent on heat slowly leaking away. In the sense that, just as the cloud is settling down to a long slow collapse, it will be ripped apart by the collision.
Careful there -- those statements still incorporate the first false assumption. ;) The dust cloud is NOT "settling down to a long slow collapse." Left alone, the dust cloud never collapses. Scientists acknowledge this, but they can't get their minds around the implications, so they keep repeating that gravity is doing the work, even if we don't fully understand how. ;) Now, if we're going to get this right, we have to train ourselves to imagine dust clouds that are already at equilibrium, and with no intention of collapsing just because of gravity -- EVER! ;)
willendure wrote:or the collision or supernova shockwave needs to play a very different role in initiating the collapse.
Exactly. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:43 pm

postby CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:53 am
To understand my model, let's consider a spherically imploding plasma.
Now, if we're going to get this right, we have to train ourselves to imagine dust clouds that are already at equilibrium, and with no intention of collapsing just because of gravity -- EVER! ;)
So does your model depend on a z pinch action to initiate the implosion process? A scavenging action? (Maybe that's a given, M R Ducks :oops: )
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:14 pm

fosborn_ wrote:So does your model depend on a z pinch action to initiate the implosion process?
No, there isn't any electric current there, before the implosion begins. The evidence of currents in nebular filaments comes from the fact that the filaments are already imploding, and the charged particles inside the filaments are generating detectable magnetic fields. In other words, it isn't that currents cause the filaments -- it's that the filaments are the currents.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:27 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:So does your model depend on a z pinch action to initiate the implosion process?
No, there isn't any electric current there, before the implosion begins. The evidence of currents in nebular filaments comes from the fact that the filaments are already imploding, and the charged particles inside the filaments are generating detectable magnetic fields. In other words, it isn't that currents cause the filaments -- it's that the filaments are the currents.
'Im wrestling with this because, I don't see how you justify your plasma behavior.
If there are no supply of external currents to begin the process, I don't understand what initiates your collapse? Or even how a proximity of such volumes accumulate in such a vast void to begin with?

Thanks
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:54 pm

fosborn_ wrote:If there are no supply of external currents to begin the process, I don't understand what initiates your collapse? Or even how a proximity of such volumes accumulate in such a vast void to begin with?
The condition that initiates the collapse is a nearby supernova, or a gas cloud collision. The significance is that this strips Debye sheaths off of their dust grains, resulting in an electrostatic attraction throughout the entire gas cloud (i.e., an inward body force).

Resting Debye cells in a dusty plasma have an electric configuration that looks like the following, with a negatively charged dust grain in the center, and a positively charged sheath around the outside that is bound firmly to the dust grain by the electric force ("P" = positive, "N" = negative, "-" = void):

---PNNP------PNNP------PNNP------PNNP------PNNP---

Each cell is net neutral, with an equal quantity of both charges. Irving Langmuir would tell you that these cells don't interact electrically with their environment, because of their neutrality. This is why he decided to call them plasmas, like the blood cells that insulate themselves. But that isn't entirely true. If you calculate the electric forces, from each particle, to each particle, you find a slight net repulsion between the cells. While the cells are net neutral, those aren't net-neutral point sources -- the Debye sheaths have a volume. As a consequence, the nearest aspects of one cell to another are their like-charged sheaths. Because of the inverse square law, the repulsion between these like charges dominates. This is why resting dusty plasmas don't collapse under their own weight -- there is an electric repulsion between them that offsets the gravitational attraction.

But if that dusty plasma is perturbed by the ejecta from a nearby supernova, or by a collision with another dusty plasma, the configuration changes. If there are a bunch of counter-streaming Debye cells, friction between them will shear the sheaths off of the dust grains (at least partially), producing this configuration:

-P--NN--P--P--NN--P--P--NN--P--P--NN--P--P--NN--P-

The net negative charge in the dust grains is still stable, because of covalent bonding in the crystal lattice. But now the positive charges in the sheaths have been dispersed in the intercellular space. And if you calculate all of the forces among all of the particles, it's now a very powerful net attraction. There is no longer a net repulsion between cells, because they no longer have sheaths to repel other cells. So the remaining force is the mutual attraction of the negative dust grains to the shared positive charge in the intercellular space. This attraction works out to about 1400 times more powerful than gravity. So that's what causes the collapse.

See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692 for a more thorough explanation, including the diagrams and the calculation codes.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:54 pm

by CharlesChandler
But if that dusty plasma is perturbed by the ejecta from a nearby supernova, or by a collision with another dusty plasma...This attraction works out to about 1400 times more powerful than gravity. So that's what causes the collapse.
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692
The likeliest configuration would be with the Debye sheaths becoming like cometary tails trailing away from their parent dust grain, in the direction of the drag force. Insofar as the tails of these Debye comas will find dust grains, such a configuration would first resolve into the comas forming threads connecting dust grains. The net attraction in that configuration will probably be even greater than it is for Debye sheaths in the center of the intercellular space.
Ok, thanks, I think I read that article or one like it, several months back, and each time I read it, I get a little better comprehension. Thanks for your patience and explanations.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:34 pm

fosborn_ wrote:Ok, thanks, I think I read that article or one like it, several months back, and each time I read it, I get a little better comprehension. Thanks for your patience and explanations.
No worries. When you have the time, be sure to check out the next four articles in the series. The "Accretion" article hasn't changed much recently, but the next four just got a major update, and are now considerably more specific in their contentions. The "imploding filament of dusty plasma" seems quite consistent with the available data, and is shown to be responsible for the formation of single stars (such as our Sun), binary companions of main sequence stars, and exotic stars (such as white dwarfs, pulsars, etc.). The case study on the Egg Nebula is particularly interesting, due to its high degree of specificity.

Accretion
Filaments
Tokamaks
Egg Nebula
Supernovae

Cheers!
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Roshi
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by Roshi » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:02 pm

allancw wrote: No matter how many atoms you add to the cloud, there is still no reason - no force - acting on any (each) atom to move it toward some theoretical 'center.' (This is based on the SM of gravity, wrong as it no doubt is.)

My latest blog entry delves into this subject (and others) in greater detail. (Before you scoff at my Hawking-as-puppet shill hypothesis, read the linked essay.) My blog post is at:

http://blog.banditobooks.com/science-and-nonsense/
Very interesting. I always wondered what happens if someone would fall through a hole in the Earth:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... thole.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Depth

It looks like gravity would be decreasing as one goes down, and this would pose another problem to classical star formation.
CharlesChandler wrote:This leads invariably to an equilibrium, beyond which gravity is weaker than pressure, and that's where the compression stops. This is why, for example, the Earth's atmosphere doesn't collapse under its own weight, despite having a higher concentration of heavy elements than is typical in space, making it more subject to the force of gravity, and despite being much cooler than a dusty plasma of the same density, and despite the Earth providing a lot more gravity than a dusty plasma provides for itself — the hydrostatic equilibrium has already been achieved, and the gravitational collapse doesn't happen.
CharlesChandler - the idea of the atmosphere collapsing due to gravity has never crossed my mind, but I presume it should collapse under the standard model... But gravity is not just increasing as someone descends.

Also, about "black holes", I did not read much about black hole formation except wikipedia, but did they take into account what happens to gravity as one goes down into the giant mass?
Sorry if these are stupid questions, I don't know enough, maybe the standard model did take into account these things, I'm just poking it.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:08 am

Roshi wrote:Also, about "black holes", I did not read much about black hole formation except wikipedia, but did they take into account what happens to gravity as one goes down into the giant mass?
They didn't take any physics into account. Black holes are not formed -- they are imagined into existence. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

BeAChooser
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

Unread post by BeAChooser » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:36 pm

I'm surprised that noone in this thread mentioned the solar system formation model of Alfven and Arrhenius. Is there a reason?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests