Debunking Standard Models - Our Sun

[allancw]

I'm new to the forum but have been studying EU for some time now and attended the Phoenix conference. In brief, I consider EU to be the most significant breakthrough in human understanding since Newton/Galileo/Take Your Pick.

I'm a dilettante in terms of the hard sciences, although I like to think of myself as a serious critical thinker. Based on my research into recent history, I've come to the conclusion that we indeed live in a sort of 'Matrix' (as in the film); I have been unable to find an 'official account' of a major historical event since WW 2 that is not a deception of some sort. Not one. That the 'Standard Models' of science are likewise deceptions (either misinformation or disinformation) should not have surprised me, but it did. 'Science' used to be my litmus test of many major historical events. 9/11 is probably the best example. (Re WTC: damage near the top of a structure cannot cause the whole structure to disintegrate. Etc., etc.)

Although I still rely on Newton's basic laws, the realization that theoretical physics and cosmology is... (to sum it up) pretty much hogwash... came as a great shock to me.

It also pisses me off. This is reflected in my blog, the underlying purpose of which is the exposure of lies. Being a writer with three books that are well thought of (plug 'Allan Weisbecker' in to Amazon.com) gives me a bit of a platform, mostly with other open-minded dilettantes (I have about a thousand active subscribers).

I also made a documentary film that reveals the state of denial (cognitive dissonance) that most of us live under, and which can be viewed at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ViRJ1jgjA

Although I don't hold much hope that EU will ever be accepted by the mainstream, I see it as my duty as a human to do what I can to spread 'truths' (as I see them). One way to do this is to expose deceits such as the Standard Model of the solar system for what they are.

That our sun (or any star) formed via the collapse of a hydrogen gas cloud rests on a transparently false assumption; an assumption that a simple thought experiment debunks. See what you think:

We open a bottle of soda in a vacuum of indeterminate but very large expanse. Since the SM claims that to form a star 'All you need is hydrogen (gas), gravity and time' then if we wait long enough (say, a billion years) the cloud of CO2 will have become a spherical lump of solid matter. If we agree that this will not happen, haven't we likewise refuted the SM of star formation?

Okay. Seems to me that the SM presupposes phase transitions in star formation - gas to solid then to a nuclear reaction (then to a supernova that somehow leaves behind an ALMOST infinitely dense 'solid') - that are transparently impossible, even to a dilettante.

I realize that Standard Model defenders will use the 'You just need A LOT of hydrogen' and the cloud will then collapse into itself. Seems to me, though, that the total of a cloud's gravity will be a summation of each individual hydrogen atom's gravity, represented by the diagram below. (I can't seem to put it between paragraphs...)

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.)

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but my point is to give a simple (for dilettantes) refutation of the SM. If the above is as transparently impossible as I believe it is, we have a way of collapsing (no pun) disinformation. Devil's advocate refutations are welcome...

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/

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Allan,

I'm a dilettante in terms of the hard sciences, although I like to think of myself as a serious critical thinker. Based on my research into recent history, I've come to the conclusion that we indeed live in a sort of 'Matrix' (as in the film); I have been unable to find an 'official account' of a major historical event since WW 2 that is not a deception of some sort. Not one. That the 'Standard Models' of science are likewise deceptions (either misinformation or disinformation) should not have surprised me, but it did. 'Science' used to be my litmus test of many major historical events. 9/11 is probably the best example. (Re WTC: damage near the top of a structure cannot cause the whole structure to disintegrate. Etc., etc.)

Many of the issues here (as well as others raised in your blog articles) is the issue of "man". There is a Hadith qudsi (sacred sayings) :

Man is my secret and I am his secret.

It is said in some mystical system that there are seven levels of life forces within creation - material, vegetable, animal, true human, ... higher levels... Each level has its destiny and aims accordingly. The destiny of the lower forces have the apparent aim to cause the fall of man from his true destiny. The so call salvation of man are injections of higher powers into human society at certain critical juncture in history.

It is said that very few of us can work from the level of the true human level - his rightful seat. The majority of mankind works at below human level and many even at the lowest of level - the material. It is the same whether someone has or have not not a PhD behind them.

The world for the last one hundred years seems to be under the spell of the material force which works mostly through the thinking mind. It can be seen with the present state of physics where complicated mathematics take over without regard to the scientific methods. The so called expert physicists may claim that they are doing science "consciously" whereas the fact may be their inner self are under the spell of the lower forces almost taking over the activity of their mind so much so that the person can't tell what impulses are moving his self. True wisdom and knowledge cannot come until a person can distill the different essences that affect the promptings that moves a person's action.

The times of Galileo and Newton were very different from the current age where the mind of man has lost its bearings with his exposure to the very inventions he made with his mind - a vicious self-perpetuating cycle. In this age, man seems to have lost control of the direction of his mind. He cannot be expected to have sincerity and honesty when it is the forces lower than man playing with the throne which rightfully belong to the true man himself. It is this reason that false science is the order of the day - the science that serves the lower interest of man rather than the science of truth.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

[MerLynn]

The standard model came about because our 6 senses see solid objects and so we feel and think all matter is made up of solid particles.
What we should have understood is that everything has energy (plasma) in its construct/format. We disregard this energy component and relegate it to some small particle surrounding the mass/particles. A match burning is releasing plasma but where is it in the match before hand? This is the key to understanding what the sun and plasma is. Understand the nature of things around you and the rest will follow suit.
Plasma Science which supersedes Particle Science will take some time to become understood. Mostly because academia's wages are paid by believing in 'particles'. AND no one wants to admit believing a lie about 'particles' their whole life and those at the end are just too tired to learn new tricks.
So more enlightened thinkers postulate the existence of suns plasma but still cling to 'particles' as a way to explain it. and claiming it as another 'state' of matter when in fact it is the ONLY state of matter/energy.
Experiments done at magneticwaterscience.com where we turn fresh water into oil and if left to dry out becomes coal with just the application of a magnetic field is duplicating the Earths magnetic fields and underground water. In other earth duplicating magnetic field experiments we can take ANY liquid and turn it into fresh water 100% in seconds.
see
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=15919

It is pointless to look up and postulate what our sun is when you have little to no concept of whats under your feet.

[CharlesChandler]

Here's my dismissal of the standard model of star formation. The entire article, and links to related articles, are on my website.

In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his Universal Law of Gravitation, which identified the force that keeps planets in orbit around the Sun, and moons in orbit around the planets. But in his day, the prevailing opinion was that these objects were created, in situ, just a couple thousand years ago. Only later did people start considering the possibility that celestial bodies were somehow formed, and over much longer periods of time.

By the 1800s, improved telescopes were detecting dust clouds in space. And sometimes, there were voids in dust clouds, with new stars in the centers of the voids (such as the star in the center of Figure 1). The conclusion was that the missing dust had formed the stars when it collapsed under its own weight. At the same time, scientists knew that the hydrostatic pressure in the cloud would oppose the gravitational collapse. Still, the evidence was mounting that stars do form. So scientists supposed that there was a threshold that had to be crossed to enable the collapse — if the hydrostatic pressure was weak, and/or if the gravity was strong, the collapse would begin. As the density of the cloud increased in the center, the force of gravity would get stronger, further consolidating the matter. In a sufficiently dense cloud, gravity would overpower hydrostatic pressure, packing all of the matter into a star. This came to be known as the Jeans Instability, and it has become the standard model of star formation, now so deeply entrenched as to be difficult to challenge.

Yet it is fundamentally flawed. In Newtonian mechanics, there is no gravitational instability. Rather, there is a hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the opposite of an instability. It is true that gravity exerts an inward force, and as matter gets pulled inward, it gets more dense, which makes the gravity field even stronger — and not by just a little bit. Rather, gravity obeys the inverse square law, which means that it increases exponentially as the volume decreases. Nevertheless, there is an opposing force — the pressure increases as a direct function of the decreasing volume (i.e., Boyle's Law), and that's also an exponential function. In fact, it's a cubic function, since it's based on volume, while gravity only increases by a square function. So as a gas gets compressed, the hydrostatic pressure increases faster than the gravity. 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.

Knowing this, scientists have concluded that something must be removing the hydrostatic pressure. So they suppose that as the compression raises the temperature, eventually the matter gets hot enough to start issuing EM radiation (i.e., photons). If the photons escape the dusty plasma and proceed on out into space, this represents a net energy loss for the dusty plasma, and it will have cooled itself. But photons are an extremely inefficient heat transfer mechanism. And if somehow the collapse continues, eventually the dust will be thick enough that it will absorb all of its own radiation, making the energy loss via photons even less efficient. And even if it could cool itself this way, when it gets down to the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, it still won't collapse under its own weight, even if it's inside the gravity field of a very large solid object, because the hydrostatic pressure still won't let it, as we've already seen.

Ongoing studies of stellar nurseries have further compounded the problem. Dusty plasmas actually do not collapse under their own weight — they require a trigger in order to collapse. Considering the facts just mentioned concerning hydrostatic equilibria, this isn't surprising, since dusty plasmas shouldn't collapse on their own. But it does beg the question of what over-rides the pressure and accomplishes the final compression. The trigger is the collision of two gas clouds (especially when two galaxies are merging) or a gas cloud that got impacted by the debris from a nearby supernova. The naïve interpretation of this is that the combination of the masses of the two gas clouds (or one gas cloud plus a bunch of supernova ejecta) increased the gravity, forcing the collapse. It's true that the mass will increase, but we also have to consider the other half of the equation — in Newtonian mechanics, the collapse would only happen if something increased the gravity and/or decreased the hydrostatic pressure. A gas cloud collision will increase the mass, but with particles impacting each other at 20 km/s, the thermalization of the momentum will greatly increase the hydrostatic pressure, causing the gas to expand (or explode), not collapse.

[willendure]

Rather, gravity obeys the inverse square law, which means that it increases exponentially as the volume decreases. Nevertheless, there is an opposing force — the pressure increases as a direct function of the decreasing volume (i.e., Boyle's Law), and that's also an exponential function. In fact, it's a cubic function, since it's based on volume, while gravity only increases by a square function. So as a gas gets compressed, the hydrostatic pressure increases faster than the gravity.

Hi Charles,

Can you supply a derivation of the gravity as a squared function, and pressure as a cubed function? I'm trying to work this out for myself, but so far not quite getting it.

Boyle's Law says that the pressure P is proportional to 1/V, but of course that is with unchanged temperature. Perhaps Boyle's Law is not the right way to derive this?

[CharlesChandler]

Can you supply a derivation of the gravity as a squared function, and pressure as a cubed function?

Here are the formulas (which surely you know), but just to get them on the table:

Gravity:
F = Gm1m2/r2
where:
F = force (newtons)
G = gravitational constant
m1 = mass of first object (kg)
m2 = mass of second object (kg)
r = distance between centers (m)

Pressure (using the Molar Ideal Gas Law):
P = ρRT/M
where:
P = pressure (pascals)
ρ = density (kg/m3)
R = Ideal Gas Constant
T = temperature (kelvins)
M = molar mass (g/mol)

Pascals can be converted to newtons if you know the surface area of the container (one pascal = one newton per square meter). But yes, gravity is an inverse square function (r2), while pressure is a direct cubic function (m3). It isn't quite that simple but in rough terms, it's the right basic idea, since the pressure definitely increases faster than the gravity, ultimately establishing an equilibrium between the opposing forces.

I'm currently working on code that will calculate all of this, plus the electric force (like gravity but 39 orders of magnitude more powerful ) for an imploding dusty plasma. During the implosion, there is a change of regimes, from charged Debye cells, to fully unbound atoms and free electrons. The inward body force obeys the same principle (i.e., mutual attraction to shared opposite charges, if they're unbound). But there will be a lull in the transition, and I want to know where that occurs. It will be a function of temperature, which is a function of compression. I have an idea of how much force is accelerating the Debye cells inward -- it's mainly electrostatic, but with a little bit of gravity. So I need to generate the velocity curve from the cumulative acceleration, minus the increasing pressure. And I need to find out when the compression heats the Debye cells up to the point that the dust grains are no longer solid, and thus the cells will no longer be organized. This will be a function of the elements in the dust grains, which I'm currently researching. I'll let you know when I have this done.

Boyle's Law says that the pressure P is proportional to 1/V, but of course that is with unchanged temperature.

Boyle's Law assumes that the gas is adiabatic, such that it doesn't lose any of the heat gained in compression, or regain any heat from its surroundings that was lost to its expansion. So the temperature inside the gas will change with compression/expansion.

[willendure]

I figured it out.

Boyle's Law says that the pressure P is proportional to 1/V. But thinking in terms of volume (V) confused me. If the gas is roughly a sphere, lets think in terms of its radius r. Now the volume is related to r^3, so P is proportional to 1/r^3.

Gravity falls of as the square of distance. A sphere of matter has a centre of gravity, and can be thought of as having all of its mass at the cog, for the purposes of applying GMm/r^2. As the sphere shrinks, the gravity at its surface is going to be proportional to 1/r^2.

Could the radiating away of heat as photons allow the collapse though? You point out it is very inefficient, and I think I am right in saying the H and He do not radiate heat as easily as heavier (or metal) elements do. But given millions or billions of years...? Do we know that stars form in a short enough time frame to rule that out?

[willendure]

Boyle's Law assumes that the gas is adiabatic, such that it doesn't lose any of the heat gained in compression, or regain any heat from its surroundings that was lost to its expansion. So the temperature inside the gas will change with compression/expansion.

I don't know if wikipedia is wrong, in that case, it says that:

"The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

Anyway, if the temperature does rise, the pressure will be even higher as a result, so either way it does not contradict your statement that pressure will rise faster than gravity.

[willendure]

Possibly also worth noting that beneath the surface of the collapsing ball of gas, gravity will be lower (smaller radius of material beneath the measurement point) but pressure higher (greater weight of material above the measurement point). Further compounding the difficulty of compressing a ball of gas into a dense enough state under gravity alone.

[willendure]

Possibly also worth noting that beneath the surface of the collapsing ball of gas, gravity will be lower (smaller radius of material beneath the measurement point) but pressure higher (greater weight of material above the measurement point). Further compounding the difficulty of compressing a ball of gas into a dense enough state under gravity alone.

I'm thinking wrongly here. If the pressure in the middle were higher, due to the weight of material above, then that would mean that material is being compressed much more in the middle.

The pressure rising faster than gravity is definitely true at the surface, but given a large enough ball of gas, might some critical compression threshold still be overcome in the middle, allowing the star to ignite even though the ball of gas as a whole has only shrunk down to an equilibrium between pressure and gravity?

[CharlesChandler]

Could the radiating away of heat as photons allow the collapse though? You point out it is very inefficient, and I think I am right in saying the H and He do not radiate heat as easily as heavier (or metal) elements do. But given millions or billions of years...? Do we know that stars form in a short enough time frame to rule that out?

Excellent question, and that's another thing that I want to figure out. My rough estimate for the time to implosion is 100 million years, but most of that time is spent in the slow acceleration at first. As the implosion continues, it gets faster. And not just because of a constant acceleration -- the acceleration increases, because the electric force gets stronger as the opposite charges get closer to each other. The following graph shows how much more powerful than gravity the electric force is, given the spacing between the Debye cells in the dusty plasma.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12790_wbg.png

So as the implosion continues, it isn't just that the speed increases -- the acceleration increases, because the force is stronger. The result is that most of the action is going to be at the very end of the 100 million years.

Then comes the question of when the temperature gets up to the point that the plasma starts radiating. That's when it can begin to shed its heat (albeit very inefficiently, as you noted). The other question is: when will it stop radiating effectively, because the implosion continued, and the plasma got so dense that it began absorbing all of its own radiation? The answers to those questions will set the beginning and ending times for the diabatic phase. Then the question is: how much heat can the plasma radiate in that period of time? Mainstream scientists believe that this period is roughly 1 million years, and yep, they think that it's plenty of time. I can rule out the argument just by looking at the Earth's atmosphere, which is way cooler than the plasma will be when it gets to that density, and the gravity field is a lot stronger, but the air still doesn't collapse under its own weight, because the pressure is already too great. But I don't want to dismiss their argument with a metaphor -- I want the real numbers.

[CharlesChandler]

If the pressure in the middle were higher, due to the weight of material above, then that would mean that material is being compressed much more in the middle.

Yes, that's true, once everything comes to rest.

The pressure rising faster than gravity is definitely true at the surface, but given a large enough ball of gas, might some critical compression threshold still be overcome in the middle, allowing the star to ignite even though the ball of gas as a whole has only shrunk down to an equilibrium between pressure and gravity?

On implosion, it's definitely going to ignite. But given any velocity at all, the plasma will overshoot the hydrostatic equilibrium. Then there will be too much pressure for gravity to contain, and it will rebound off of itself, and since heat gain/loss due to compression/expansion is non-lossy, it should rebound all of the way back out to its original dimensions. The only way to not get a rebound is to lose a bunch of energy somewhere in there. How much energy? Just with adiabatic compression as the only energy source, the Sun should average 2 orders of magnitude hotter, and it should be under 3 orders of magnitude more pressure. (See Solar Energy Budget for a more complete explanation.) 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. I'm betting that this just isn't going to work. So my model identifies other forces.

[willendure]

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? The seems a little unlikely to me, given that before its a star its going to be a lot colder. So stars must spend >>99% of their lifetimes as gas clouds.

[willendure]

I'm posting some of these questions up on physics stack exchange too:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... 062_216629

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... an-collaps

[willendure]

Some interesting answers here, about energy loss and timescales:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... -star?rq=1

From the first answer, the energy loss for our sun is estimated as being from 2.3*10^41J to 3*10^35J, which is way over 99%.

The second answer gives a time-scale of 10 million years.

Now that does not add up. Our sun is supposed to continue burning for billions of years, but already in the first 10 million years it lost almost all of its energy. 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?

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?