PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Is Iron Causing All the Flares?



Fraser
2003-Nov-18, 08:29 PM
SUMMARY: Space scientist Dr. Olivier Manuel from the University of Missouri-Rolla believes that the Sun's core is mostly iron and not hydrogen as most astronomers believe; and this could help to explain how solar flares occur. Dr. Manuel's highly controversial theory proposes that stars like the Sun formed around older neutron stars, and flares are caused by the magnetic interaction between the core and the rest of the star. He believes that trace elements found in meteorites and the clouds of Jupiter support this theory.


Comments or questions about this story? Feel free to share your thoughts.

Donald A. Rosenfield
2003-Nov-18, 08:52 PM
Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don't see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.

michaelBirks
2003-Nov-18, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Donald A. Rosenfield@Nov 18 2003, 08:52 PM
Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don't see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.
It seems a little out to me, as well. A couple of questions, though:

1) Could the "Strange Xeon" have been generated in a Supernove outside the System, and 'blown' in on the solar wind? Or is there too much of it for that to be reasonable.

2) Regarding Donald A. Rosenfield's comment above about the disparity between Neutron and 'solar-type' stars, is it possible that there are a large umber of Neutron Stars being effectively 'masked' inside solar-types?

Testing this theory:

Is it plausible that having a neutron star at its core could have verifiable consequences that could be differentiated from a conventional cored star? I'm thinking things along the lines of density profiles, emissions spectra, etc.

Josh
2003-Nov-19, 12:33 AM
If he is right... What does that do for the 5 billion years we thought we had for all the hydrogen to be exhausted?

Jack Lass
2003-Nov-19, 03:44 AM
Dr. Manuel's theory is interesting if only for its rather counter-factual
conclusion concerning the evidence of what he calls "strange Xenon" and the
evidence that many stars with large amounts of iron are seen to have planets.

Because the heavier elements (Oxygen and up) are made by supernovas, it is
altogether logical that stars of later generations --such as our sun and
similar stars-- should be enriched with these elements. If we examine those
areas of the galaxy where new stars are forming, we can see that those clouds
of gas are highly enriched with heavy elements created in supernova explosions.

In short, the present astrophysical theories of solar and planetary formation
account quite well for the evidence cited my Manuel et al. The accretion of a
sun around a rapidly spinning white dwarf remnant or even a neutron star might
conceivably take place if the dense remnant were surrounded by a sufficiently
large cloud of available hydrogen (though I think the rapid rotation might not
allow it), but it would not explain the formation of rocky planets.

IMHO professor Manuel's theory is interesting but probably wrong.

Haglund
2003-Nov-19, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Josh@Nov 19 2003, 12:33 AM
If he is right... What does that do for the 5 billion years we thought we had for all the hydrogen to be exhausted?
And wouldn't it change the mass of the sun?

AusJosh
2003-Nov-19, 06:55 AM
I think the mass of the sun that we have worked out was determined from its gravity on us (As well as rotation and all that stuff).

Presumably, this theory doesnt change its mass, just the stuff the mass if made up of.


-Josh

Josh
2003-Nov-19, 11:24 AM
But that would significantly change the size of the sun wouldn't it? You'd think that would've been taken into consideration when calculations were made as to the size of the sun but no-one seems to have had a problem with the size of the sun that i've ever heard of.

Haglund
2003-Nov-19, 11:31 AM
That's what I was thinking too, Josh.

Oliver K. Manuel
2003-Nov-20, 04:07 PM
To Fraser:

Thanks for posting this news report on the Forum. :D

The conclusion of an iron-rich Sun is the culmination of over 40 years of measurements since 1960. Solar-wind elements implanted in the surfaces of lunar samples returned by the Apollo mission confirm that lighter mass (L) isotopes of each element are enriched relative to heavier mass (H) isotopes by a common mass fractionation factor (F), where

log (F) = 4.56 log (H)/(L) …… eq. (1)

When the elemental abundance in the photosphere is corrected for the mass fractionation [eq. (1)] it is found that the seven most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca. These seven elements have even atomic numbers (Z), high nuclear stability, and are produced in the deep interior of supernovae. They are the same seven elements Harkins reported in 1917 to comprise 99% of the material in meteorites [W. D. Harkins, “The evolution of the elements and the stability of complex atoms” in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 39, pp. 856-879 (1917)].

The probability (P) that this agreement is accidental (fortuitous or meaningless) is almost zero, P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002.

Experimental evidence for an iron-rich Sun, which has accumulated like water behind an earthen dam since 1960, is summarized in our paper, "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003) 27 Oct - 1 Nov 02, Big Bear Lake, CA

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

Fraser
2003-Nov-20, 05:15 PM
Welcome to the forum Dr. Manuel. I&#39;m glad you found the site and posted your responses to peoples&#39; comments and challenges.

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-20, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Donald A. Rosenfield@Nov 18 2003, 08:52 PM
Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don&#39;t see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.
To: Donald Rosenfield

Your comment about the low ratio of neutron stars to solar-type stars in intriguing. What would the ratio be if each neutron star accreted material and became a neutron star? The number of observable neutron stars is much lower than expected [Nature, vol. 379, p. 233 (1996)]. Perhaps the missing ones are in solar-type stars, closely orbited by rocky, iron-rich planets made out of supernova debris near the collapsed supernova core.

The first planetary system discovered beyond our own was rocky, Earth-like planets orbiting very close to a neutron star [Nature, vol. 355, p. 145 (1992); Science, vol. 264, p. 538 (1994)]. Since these planets could not have survived the supernova explosion that created the neutron star (pulsar), there is little doubt they formed out of supernova debris close to the collapsed supernova core.

The iron cores of the terrestrial planets probably formed in a similar fashion, and were then layered with silicates as material further away lost angular momentum and fell toward the Sun. Today we call those objects meteorites.

We discussed this in a paper, "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete", distributed at a news conference before the 199th annual meeting in Washington, DC. It is available on-line at

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

Menikmati
2003-Nov-20, 06:00 PM
Thanks for the papers in .pdf&#33; I have yet to read all of the papers you posted so maybe I am asking a question I could find myself but what effect does the theory that the Sun could be made up of iron oposed to hydrogen which we have been taught for many years. What calculations are gonna change i.e. The mass of the sun? Are there different elements in supernova blast then thought? etc. Thanks for your feedback.

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-20, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by michaelBirks+Nov 18 2003, 09:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (michaelBirks &#064; Nov 18 2003, 09:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Donald A. Rosenfield@Nov 18 2003, 08:52 PM
Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don&#39;t see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.
It seems a little out to me, as well. A couple of questions, though:

1) Could the "Strange Xeon" have been generated in a Supernove outside the System, and &#39;blown&#39; in on the solar wind? Or is there too much of it for that to be reasonable.

2) Regarding Donald A. Rosenfield&#39;s comment above about the disparity between Neutron and &#39;solar-type&#39; stars, is it possible that there are a large umber of Neutron Stars being effectively &#39;masked&#39; inside solar-types?

Testing this theory:

Is it plausible that having a neutron star at its core could have verifiable consequences that could be differentiated from a conventional cored star? I&#39;m thinking things along the lines of density profiles, emissions spectra, etc.[/b][/quote]
To: Michael Birks

1) “Strange Xenon” could not have formed outside the Solar System because primordial helium was initially associated only with “Strange Xenon”, not with “Normal Xenon” like that here on Earth [Science, vol. 195, p. 208 (1977); Icarus, vol. 41, p. 312 (1980); Meteoritics, vol. 15, p. 117 (1980); etc.]

There is also too much “Strange Xenon”. In 1983 we predicted that the Galileo mission would find “Strange Xenon” in Jupiter [Meteoritics, vol. 18, p. 220 (1983)]. That was confirmed. The data are available on the web at

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

2) Yes, Michael, we suspect that neutron stars may be masked inside “solar-type” stars. Of course, we don’t know that. But we are rather certain something like a neutron star is lurking inside the Sun. The mono-isotopic H-1 that rises upward and leaves the solar surface in the solar wind (3 x 10^43 per year) is probably the product of neutron decay outside the core, n -> H + anti-neutrino + 0.782 MeV.

3) Yes, Michael, our model can be tested. We propose several possible tests in our papers. The most simple and straight forward would be the detection of low energy solar anti-neutrinos from the decay of neutrons in the interior of the Sun. The most plausible detector seems to be Cl-35. Capture of low-energy anti-neutrinos on this would produce 87-day S-35. I presented this at a conference in Dubna, Russia this past summer. You will find that test listed with several other possible tests near the end of our papers, e.g.,

"Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proc. SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003) 27 Oct - 1 Nov 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA


http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

"Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

With kind regards,
Oliver

Paul Copping
2003-Nov-20, 08:18 PM
If there was a supernova in the vicinity of our sun, would there not be clues and reminice of this massive explosion. Looking at the centre of our gallaxy, there is evidence of supernova&#39;s which could still be observed as voids with shock fronts.

VanderL
2003-Nov-20, 09:31 PM
Wait a minute, can anyone tell me what a neutron star is? Before we can say that our Sun has an "neutron star core" we need to know what it is. I haven&#39;t seen any proof of a neutron star other than theoretical evidence. What is the difference between a neutron star and an ordinary star and how de we measure this?

cheers.

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-20, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Josh@Nov 19 2003, 12:33 AM
If he is right... What does that do for the 5 billion years we thought we had for all the hydrogen to be exhausted?
To: Josh

Don’t worry, Josh. The Sun will probably be here much longer if its core is a neutron star than it would if the core were hydrogen-filled like the solar surface. The fraction of mass that can be converted into energy is over twice as high in a neutron star as in a star made of pure Hydrogen. See "Attraction and Repulsion of Nucleons: Sources of Stellar Energy", J. Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.ps

Kuroda and Myers combined U/Pb and Pu/Xe age dating to show that a supernova exploded here about 5 Gy ago, at the birth of the Solar System. See Figure 4, p. 364 of the paper on the “Composition of the Solar Interior”

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

We know the Sun has remained relatively stable since then, except for a period of flash heating about 4.5-4.7 Gy ago, when Hydrogen fusion was re-ignited in the Sun and some planetary dust was converted into glassy, aerodynamically shaped droplets in meteorites called “chondrules.”

In my opinion, our poor understanding of interactions between nucleons and of possible neutron tunneling of the gravitational barrier around a neutron star poses a much greater threat to us than does the exhaustion of fuel in the Sun

I challenged a group of theoretical physicists to address these issues at the 6th Workshop on Quantum Field Theory Under the Influence of External Conditions (QFEXT03) at the University of Oklahoma, Norman (Sept 15-19, 2003). I will send you a reference if our paper is not censored from the proceedings. That battle is on-going.

With kind regards,
Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
===============================

Josh
2003-Nov-20, 10:54 PM
Phew&#33;&#33; I was about to start selling off all my footy cards. Good to hear we have a few more years. And thanks for the clarifications through out the discussion.

Tinaa
2003-Nov-20, 11:26 PM
I hate showing my ignorance but here goes: To form a neutron star doesn&#39;t it go nova and blast off it&#39;s outer shell? If that is true, how did the planets form? From the elements from the outer shell? And wouldn&#39;t the sun have a faster rotation?

Haglund
2003-Nov-20, 11:28 PM
The planets could have been there from the start, although in our case maybe not. Didn&#39;t think about the spin, that&#39;s a good question.

Jack Lass
2003-Nov-21, 05:08 AM
&#91;FONT=Impact&#93;&#91;SIZE=5&#93;&#91;COLOR=orange&#93;Dr. Manuel&#39;s attention to this board is of course quite flattering, however, I think this is not the venue where such questions can be decided. Nor is it good scientific practice to issue press releases prior to scientific conferences. Such actions serve only to garner headlines. The truth or falsity of Dr. Manuel&#39;s theories are not matters of majority vote or opinion. Time and further research will show that he is correct in whole or in part, or incorrect entirely. I for one look forward to seeing how it turns out.&#91;/COLOR&#93;&#91;/SIZE&#93;&#91;/FONT&#93; ;)

Josh
2003-Nov-21, 08:00 AM
Well said Jack Lass.

I was unaware that this hadn&#39;t been peer reviewed yet. That seems like a necessary first step.

Guest_luke
2003-Nov-21, 09:55 AM
:blink: If the Suns core is comprised of Iron then how does this effect the theory of when the Sun is supposed to go into Red Giant phase? Instead of roughly 2 billion years left we may have more or less time to move to the stars and seek refuge from our dying sun. Is the Dr. out there? Can he or anyone else give me an answer?

Josh
2003-Nov-21, 10:54 AM
Yeah ... I asked that about ten or so posts ago and the answer is about six posts up. happy reading.

IonDrive
2003-Nov-21, 02:52 PM
Some arguments against that thesis:

1) Why do iron-rich (= metal-rich) stars seem to have planets more often than iron-poor (= metal-poor) ones?
Simply, because planets (especially planets large enough to detect with the methods currently in use) require a certain amount of heavier elements to form, as kind of a condensation core. But the difference between metal-rich stars and metal-poor ones is not necessarily whether their core contains hydrogenium or not, but it&#39;s simply their age. A cloud which formed stars one or three (or 4.6) billion years ago simply had much more time to collect heavier elements ejected from earlier star generations than one which collapsed to form stars already 8 or even 10 billion years ago.
So this is actually the old chicken and egg question, and somebody took eggs for chickens here. :D
Also I personally don&#39;t think that stars with much less metal content than the sun didn&#39;t form planets at all, but that simply the average mass of the most massive planet in a metal-poor system is WAY smaller than the average mass of the most massive planet in a metal-rich system (like perhaps 5 earth masses, compared to Jupiter&#39;s over 300), so they are just too small to be detected with nowaday&#39;s methods, while in 10 or 20 years instruments have been perfected enough to detect these too. Actually, these 3, 5 or 10 jupiter mass "monsters" have all been found orbiting stars which are most probably WAY younger than the sun.

2) Where do all these supernova-related (xenon and other) isotopes come from?
YES, they were produced in a supernova. YES, they were created in that supernova that FORMED the solar system. But that doesn&#39;t mean that the sun is centered around a neutron star that was a remnant from that supernova.
It&#39;s a different story: While stars are created by the dozen or hundred (see pleiades) from collapsing clouds of interstellar gas and dust (dust is important for the cooling mechanism of the cloud, otherwise stars as small as the sun wouldn&#39;t be created by these events but only very massive ones), these clouds do not collapse from themselves. On the contrary, without anything spectacular happening in their vicinity they are stable for billions of years (which is why there are still clouds where young stars can be born). But all observations point to the fact that such collapses are actually TRIGGERED by near supernovae. The sheer brute mass and speed and heat of the expanding gas shell of the outer(&#33;) envelopes of a star gone supernova is enough to cause severe density fluctuations in an interstellar cloud, and the most dense of these fluctuations then simply collapse into a new (singular or binary or whatsoever) star system. Thus, EVERY star (except the very very first generation of stars which seemingly doesn&#39;t exist anymore, because no specimen was found yet) contains isotopes which were created in the outer layers of a supermassive star gone supernova. But MOST of that star&#39;s matter (the hydrogenium and most of the helium, actually) does NOT originate from the supernova but from the gas cloud which the supernova caused to collapse.
NOTE: since stars going supernova shed 90-95% of their mass and only the remaining few percent remain as neutron star (or black hole, for that matter), also a portion from the inner parts of that star is spread into space, which is why we can also find isotopes created in the inner parts of supermassive stars in less massive, sun-like stars (and their planets).

3) Why are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca so abundant in the sun and meteorites, compared to other elements in their vicinity within the period system?
That&#39;s due to two (or actually one-and-a-half) reasons: First, while O is so abundant in supernova remnants because most of the hydrogen is fused in massive stars by the CNO-cycle and not by the proton-proton cycle common in sun-like stars, the other six of these elements are, within the "Light Metal"-part of the period system (most chemicians tend to let what they name "Heavy Metals" start with copper, as the lightest "heavy metal", which is COINCIDENTALLY :D the element right after Ni in the period system), those with the most stable isotopes. For example, Iron has 4 stable isotopes, while it&#39;s "neighbor" Cobalt possesses just one; Sulfur also posesses 4 while it&#39;s neighbor Chlorine has only 2 stable isotopes. So simply, if an isotope of these six elements is created, the probability that it&#39;s stable for these elements is much larger than for other elements. The reason is that nuclei with even proton numbers are more stable than those with odd proton numbers, and isotopes who possess both even proton and neutron numbers are the most stable nuclei we know. (The most stable known nucleus is actually Fe-56, with 26 protons and 30 neutrons). This also leads us further: Second, the probability for an isotope to be created also increases very much (we are talking about factors of 10 or even 100 here) for even proton and neutron numbers. So we can find very good reasons to why, not counting H and He of course, these seven elements are so abundant in meteorites and stars, without having to resort to new theories about exotic matter in average star&#39;s cores. (For those who know the expression: Occam&#39;s Knife&#33; ;) )

4) Last, but not least, my MAIN argument against the hypothesis that the sun contains a neutron star:

Neutron stars have a MINIMUM MASS of at least 1.4 times the mass of the sun&#33;
They can&#39;t have less mass because 1.4 solar masses are the minimum required to create gravitational forces great enough to make neutronium out of ordinary matter. Anything with less than 1.4 solar masses ends as ordinary white dwarf.
So where is the rest of the mass of that neutron star that&#39;s said to be inside the sun?
Actually, we have to count the mass of the "sun-like" H-containing ordinary matter envelope too. But since neutron stars are very small (average diameter about 20 km), we have to assume that if the rest of the solar volume has the same density as we think it has today, the sun&#39;s mass would have to be at minimum 2.4 times the mass we know it has&#33; So if the sun really contained a neutron star, Earth&#39;s year length would not be 365.25 days, but 235.76 days or less&#33; No we know that it&#39;s not like that, don&#39;t we? :D

But what would actually happen IF a neutron star collected an amount of ordinary matter sufficient in amount to create such a "sun envelope"?
If you drop ANY matter on the surface of a neutron star, the strong gravitational forces simply would "neutronize it too". (Actually the surface of a neutron star contains of ordinary matter, but more mass on it&#39;s surface would exert more pressure on it&#39;s core and more neutronium would be created on the inner edge of the crust.) If you drop more matter on it, the same thing happens again. And so on and so on, til eventually the neutron star would reach it&#39;s UPPER mass limit and collapse to a black hole&#33;
So if you add a neutron star with a certain mass and ordinary matter of a certain mass together, the result of that equation would be either a black hole or simply a neutron star which is just more massive than the neutron star you started with.
And NO, it would NOT take 4.6 billion years for the neutron star to "neutronize" that additional matter&#33; :D

VanderL
2003-Nov-21, 06:59 PM
Hate to nag again, but what is neutronium, has it ever been detected? What is a neutron star, what makes is different from a normal star? Which properties are unique to neutron stars and how do we know what triggers a nova/supernova?
Anyone, please?

Jack Lass
2003-Nov-22, 02:50 AM
I would like to thank Ion Drive whoever he or she may be and wherever he or she is from for a lucid rebuttal to doctor Manuel&#39;s thesis. I wish I had said it myself. (I wish I COULD have said it myself. :rolleyes:

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-22, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Paul Copping@Nov 20 2003, 08:18 PM
If there was a supernova in the vicinity of our sun, would there not be clues and reminice of this massive explosion. Looking at the centre of our gallaxy, there is evidence of supernova&#39;s which could still be observed as voids with shock fronts.
Hey, :D there is a great deal of evidence for a supernova that exploded here&#33;

:rolleyes: Primordial helium (from outer layers of the supernova) was trapped with "strange xenon" in carbon-rich minerals when meteorites formed.

:P The Galileo mission found "strange xenon" with abundant helium and carbon in Jupiter. See the data at: http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf) Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus (giant, gaseous planets) came from the outer layers of the supernova.

:D Iron-sulfide minerals of meteorites trapped "normal xenon", like that on Earth, but no primordial helium. These minerals formed out of elements from the interior of the supernova, where fusion converted light elements like helium into heavier ones, like iron.

:lol: Earth and Mars contain "normal xenon" and abundant iron and sulfur from the interior of the supernova.

B) The Sun contains mostly "normal xenon" but the lighter atoms (isotopes) of xenon at the surface of the Sun are enriched by 9-stages of mass fractionation. Each stage enriches the amount of the lighter (L) atom relative to the amount of the heavier (H) atom by the square root of (H)/(L). For xenon, that means the lighter atoms (isotopes) are all enriched by about 3.5% per mass unit.

:) When the abundance of elements at the surface of the Sun is corrected for this mass-fractionation, the interior of the Sun turns out to be mostly iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, and calcium. In other words, the surface of the Sun is 91% hydrogen and 8.8% helium because these are the lightest and the next-lightest elements.

:rolleyes: But the Sun contains "normal xenon" and abundant iron and sulfur in its interior, just like the iron suldife mineral in meteorites and the planets (Earth and Mars) rich in iron and sulfur. The Sun and the small, rocky inner planets formed out of elements from the interior of the supernova.

These observations are summarized in papers available on-line. See, for example:

1. "The Sun&#39;s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy", 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conf., Abstract #1041, Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.ps

2. "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete", presented at a news conference in Washington, DC, January, 2002

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v32n4...4/aas197/60.htm (http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v32n4/aas197/60.htm)

3. "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proc. SOHO/GONG 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

The Oort cloud and background radiation may also be remnants of the supernova explosion, Paul. Thanks for your comment.

With kind remarks,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-22, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Josh@Nov 21 2003, 08:00 AM
Well said Jack Lass.

I was unaware that this hadn&#39;t been peer reviewed yet. That seems like a necessary first step.
Jack, the concept of an iron-rich Sun has been peer-reviewed many times since the mid-1970s. Please go to my web-page and check the list of publications on this subject.

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://umr.edu/~om
http://umr.ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-22, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Guest_luke@Nov 21 2003, 09:55 AM
:blink: If the Suns core is comprised of Iron then how does this effect the theory of when the Sun is supposed to go into Red Giant phase? Instead of roughly 2 billion years left we may have more or less time to move to the stars and seek refuge from our dying sun. Is the Dr. out there? Can he or anyone else give me an answer?
Thanks for the question. The short answer is that we do not know if the Sun will go through a Red Giant stage. :unsure:

:D The core of the Sun is probably a neutron star. But there is little doubt that iron is the most abundant element in the interior of the Sun. Its surface is 91% H (the lightest of all elements) and 8.8% He (the next lightest element). I gave this on-line references earlier.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

:P [Gosh, does lighter material float? I thought the Earth was 67% water&#33;]

This internal structure of the Sun is based on many measurements since 1960. However, this composition is unlike the structure assumed in standard text-book descriptions of stellar evolution. :unsure:

As I recall, I told Josh earlier the life-time of the Sun if it had this structure will probably be longer than it would if composed of hydrogen. :) But we do not know if it will go through a Red Giant stage.

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://umr.edu/~om
http://ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-22, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by IonDrive@Nov 21 2003, 02:52 PM
Some arguments against that thesis:

1) Why do iron-rich (= metal-rich) stars seem to have planets more often than iron-poor (= metal-poor) ones?
Simply, because planets (especially planets large enough to detect with the methods currently in use) require a certain amount of heavier elements to form, as kind of a condensation core. But the difference between metal-rich stars and metal-poor ones is not necessarily whether their core contains hydrogenium or not, but it&#39;s simply their age. A cloud which formed stars one or three (or 4.6) billion years ago simply had much more time to collect heavier elements ejected from earlier star generations than one which collapsed to form stars already 8 or even 10 billion years ago.
So this is actually the old chicken and egg question, and somebody took eggs for chickens here. :D
Also I personally don&#39;t think that stars with much less metal content than the sun didn&#39;t form planets at all, but that simply the average mass of the most massive planet in a metal-poor system is WAY smaller than the average mass of the most massive planet in a metal-rich system (like perhaps 5 earth masses, compared to Jupiter&#39;s over 300), so they are just too small to be detected with nowaday&#39;s methods, while in 10 or 20 years instruments have been perfected enough to detect these too. Actually, these 3, 5 or 10 jupiter mass "monsters" have all been found orbiting stars which are most probably WAY younger than the sun.

2) Where do all these supernova-related (xenon and other) isotopes come from?
YES, they were produced in a supernova. YES, they were created in that supernova that FORMED the solar system. But that doesn&#39;t mean that the sun is centered around a neutron star that was a remnant from that supernova.
It&#39;s a different story: While stars are created by the dozen or hundred (see pleiades) from collapsing clouds of interstellar gas and dust (dust is important for the cooling mechanism of the cloud, otherwise stars as small as the sun wouldn&#39;t be created by these events but only very massive ones), these clouds do not collapse from themselves. On the contrary, without anything spectacular happening in their vicinity they are stable for billions of years (which is why there are still clouds where young stars can be born). But all observations point to the fact that such collapses are actually TRIGGERED by near supernovae. The sheer brute mass and speed and heat of the expanding gas shell of the outer(&#33;) envelopes of a star gone supernova is enough to cause severe density fluctuations in an interstellar cloud, and the most dense of these fluctuations then simply collapse into a new (singular or binary or whatsoever) star system. Thus, EVERY star (except the very very first generation of stars which seemingly doesn&#39;t exist anymore, because no specimen was found yet) contains isotopes which were created in the outer layers of a supermassive star gone supernova. But MOST of that star&#39;s matter (the hydrogenium and most of the helium, actually) does NOT originate from the supernova but from the gas cloud which the supernova caused to collapse.
NOTE: since stars going supernova shed 90-95% of their mass and only the remaining few percent remain as neutron star (or black hole, for that matter), also a portion from the inner parts of that star is spread into space, which is why we can also find isotopes created in the inner parts of supermassive stars in less massive, sun-like stars (and their planets).

3) Why are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca so abundant in the sun and meteorites, compared to other elements in their vicinity within the period system?
That&#39;s due to two (or actually one-and-a-half) reasons: First, while O is so abundant in supernova remnants because most of the hydrogen is fused in massive stars by the CNO-cycle and not by the proton-proton cycle common in sun-like stars, the other six of these elements are, within the "Light Metal"-part of the period system (most chemicians tend to let what they name "Heavy Metals" start with copper, as the lightest "heavy metal", which is COINCIDENTALLY :D the element right after Ni in the period system), those with the most stable isotopes. For example, Iron has 4 stable isotopes, while it&#39;s "neighbor" Cobalt possesses just one; Sulfur also posesses 4 while it&#39;s neighbor Chlorine has only 2 stable isotopes. So simply, if an isotope of these six elements is created, the probability that it&#39;s stable for these elements is much larger than for other elements. The reason is that nuclei with even proton numbers are more stable than those with odd proton numbers, and isotopes who possess both even proton and neutron numbers are the most stable nuclei we know. (The most stable known nucleus is actually Fe-56, with 26 protons and 30 neutrons). This also leads us further: Second, the probability for an isotope to be created also increases very much (we are talking about factors of 10 or even 100 here) for even proton and neutron numbers. So we can find very good reasons to why, not counting H and He of course, these seven elements are so abundant in meteorites and stars, without having to resort to new theories about exotic matter in average star&#39;s cores. (For those who know the expression: Occam&#39;s Knife&#33; ;) )

4) Last, but not least, my MAIN argument against the hypothesis that the sun contains a neutron star:

Neutron stars have a MINIMUM MASS of at least 1.4 times the mass of the sun&#33;
They can&#39;t have less mass because 1.4 solar masses are the minimum required to create gravitational forces great enough to make neutronium out of ordinary matter. Anything with less than 1.4 solar masses ends as ordinary white dwarf.
So where is the rest of the mass of that neutron star that&#39;s said to be inside the sun?
Actually, we have to count the mass of the "sun-like" H-containing ordinary matter envelope too. But since neutron stars are very small (average diameter about 20 km), we have to assume that if the rest of the solar volume has the same density as we think it has today, the sun&#39;s mass would have to be at minimum 2.4 times the mass we know it has&#33; So if the sun really contained a neutron star, Earth&#39;s year length would not be 365.25 days, but 235.76 days or less&#33; No we know that it&#39;s not like that, don&#39;t we? :D

But what would actually happen IF a neutron star collected an amount of ordinary matter sufficient in amount to create such a "sun envelope"?
If you drop ANY matter on the surface of a neutron star, the strong gravitational forces simply would "neutronize it too". (Actually the surface of a neutron star contains of ordinary matter, but more mass on it&#39;s surface would exert more pressure on it&#39;s core and more neutronium would be created on the inner edge of the crust.) If you drop more matter on it, the same thing happens again. And so on and so on, til eventually the neutron star would reach it&#39;s UPPER mass limit and collapse to a black hole&#33;
So if you add a neutron star with a certain mass and ordinary matter of a certain mass together, the result of that equation would be either a black hole or simply a neutron star which is just more massive than the neutron star you started with.
And NO, it would NOT take 4.6 billion years for the neutron star to "neutronize" that additional matter&#33; :D
:D Hey, please address the observations. They are summarized on-line:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

:angry: Read the paper and explain the observations, e.g.,

Why are variations in abundances of isotopes of heavy elements linked with variations in abundances of light elements?

Look at the data in Figure 2 and tell us how a supernova trigger explains this correlation.

Why is "strange xenon" in Jupiter?

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

Why is "normal xenon" in FeS inclusions of meteorites and in planets rich in Fe and S (Earth and Mars)?

Why is the amount of O-16 characteristic of the class of meteorite?

Why is primordial helium linked with excess Xe-136?

Good luck in your endeavors&#33; :P

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://umr.edu/~om
http://ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-22, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Tinaa@Nov 20 2003, 11:26 PM
I hate showing my ignorance but here goes: To form a neutron star doesn&#39;t it go nova and blast off it&#39;s outer shell? If that is true, how did the planets form? From the elements from the outer shell? And wouldn&#39;t the sun have a faster rotation?
:D Hey, thanks for the question. People who don&#39;t ask questions are protecting their ignorance as if it were a valuable possession&#33;

:) Yes, the neutron star is believed to be made at the core of a supernova.

:P The first planetary system found beyond our own was small, rocky, Earth-like planets going around a pulsar. I referenced that in an earlier response.

:rolleyes: We think the supernova that formed the solar system was spinning. That is why planets move around the Sun in the same direction.

B) That also caused the star to implode and explode axially, leaving supernova debris moving around the collapsed supernova core in the equatorial plane.

:lol: Iron should be most abundant close to the neutron star. We think irom meteorites and the iron cores of the inner planets formed out of this iron-rich material.

:D The outer planets formed out of supernova debris from the outer layers of the supernova.

:o The rotation rate of the core of the Sun may be different than its surface. In fact, the separation of d- and l-amino acids at the birth of the solar system may have been caused by circular polarized light from the rapidly spinning neutron star (pulsar) on which the Sun formed.

Hang in there&#33; And never hesitate to ask. There are no dumb questions.

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://umr.edu/~om
http://ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-22, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by VanderL@Nov 21 2003, 06:59 PM
Hate to nag again, but what is neutronium, has it ever been detected? What is a neutron star, what makes is different from a normal star? Which properties are unique to neutron stars and how do we know what triggers a nova/supernova?
Anyone, please?
:rolleyes: Thanks for the comments and questions. I regret that I have been too busy :unsure: to respond in a timely manner.

Anyone who doesn&#39;t get a response to a question here can e-mail me at <om@umr.edu>

I do not know what neutronium is. Sounds fictional to me :angry:

Any textbook on astronomy will tell you what we think we know about neutron stars. :blink: They are believed to be ordinary matter squashed down to nuclear dimensions. I.e., their density will be about a million-billion times greater than ordinary matter.

There are far too few neutron stars observed :unsure: Perhaps many of them accrete ordinary matter and become solar-type stars like our Sun.

Textbooks on astronomy will also tell you what we think we know about the cause of supernova explosions. But that is sort of backward science :( We actually see supernova explosions B) We know they occur, and theorize on the cause.

:D My views on the cause of the supernova explosion that produced the solar system and a neutron star are illustrated in Figure 1 of our paper presented at the 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.ps

Again, thanks for your comments and questions. Please check Fig. 1 and let me know if you have questions.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
<om@umr.edu>
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-22, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Menikmati@Nov 20 2003, 06:00 PM
Thanks for the papers in .pdf&#33; I have yet to read all of the papers you posted so maybe I am asking a question I could find myself but what effect does the theory that the Sun could be made up of iron oposed to hydrogen which we have been taught for many years. What calculations are gonna change i.e. The mass of the sun? Are there different elements in supernova blast then thought? etc. Thanks for your feedback.
:D Hey, thanks for the question. I regret that I have been too busy to respond in a timely fashion :(

I hope you will read and comment on the papers in pdf, please :)

In other postings, we have shown that the probability (P) that the inside of the Sun is hydrogen-filled like its surface is P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002 :blink:

What effect will this finding have? :unsure: Well, the Sun serves as a model for most stars in the cosmos, so it could be

1. Enormous :D

2. None :angry: if it is ignored

3. Raise doubts about an education system :unsure: in which everyone was taught the solar surface is 91% hydrogen (the lightest element) and 8.8% helium (the next lightest element) and nobody asked if lighter elements might be floating to the surface&#33; :angry:

4. Affirm that the red peeling on an apple is like the H-peeling on the Sun :rolleyes: [I once took a sack of apples to a science conference in Washington, DC to illustrate that the inside of objects is sometimes unlike their surfaces :P]

:huh: No, the mass of the Sun won&#39;t change.

The presence of a neutron star at the Sun&#39;s core violates what many people thought they knew about the fate of neutron stars <_<

They knew there were too few neutron stars around :( --- just didn&#39;t consider the possibility that these gravitational sinks might accrete ordinary matter back on them :blink:

Again, thanks for your interest. Please read the pdf papers and send me your comments or questions.

With kind regards.

Oliver :D
<om@umr.edu>
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

star-tled
2003-Nov-22, 09:31 PM
I&#39;m glad no question is considered dumb, because I have one that is fairly basic to the argument.

Could you explain why the element xenon - strange or otherwise - is being used as a benchmark in this discussion?

Why is that fundamental to the determination of whether our sun is mostly made of helium or has an iron core?

Thanks for the insight.

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-23, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by fraser@Nov 18 2003, 08:29 PM
SUMMARY: Space scientist Dr. Olivier Manuel from the University of Missouri-Rolla believes that the Sun&#39;s core is mostly iron and not hydrogen as most astronomers believe; and this could help to explain how solar flares occur. Dr. Manuel&#39;s highly controversial theory proposes that stars like the Sun formed around older neutron stars, and flares are caused by the magnetic interaction between the core and the rest of the star. He believes that trace elements found in meteorites and the clouds of Jupiter support this theory.


Comments or questions about this story? Feel free to share your thoughts.
Dear Fraser,

My co-authors, Barry Ninham and Stig Friberg, deserve a great deal more credit than they received in the news report. In fact, our explanation for solar magnetic fields is based on Barry Ninham&#39;s 1963 paper in which he noted that Bose-Einstein condensation might occur in iron-rich supernova debris. That paper is in Physics Letters, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 278-279 (1963). He noted there that this might explain the origin of magnetic fields.

My work has focused on showing that the interior of the Sun is iron-rich [See the paper Professor Stig Friberg and I presented at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference].

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://ballofiron.com

PS - A pdf preprint of the paper on "Superfluidity in the Interior of the Sun" is available on
request. Other references are in my resume http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

http://www.ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-23, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by star-tled@Nov 22 2003, 09:31 PM
I&#39;m glad no question is considered dumb, because I have one that is fairly basic to the argument.

Could you explain why the element xenon - strange or otherwise - is being used as a benchmark in this discussion?

Why is that fundamental to the determination of whether our sun is mostly made of helium or has an iron core?

Thanks for the insight.
Dear Star-tled ;)

A great name and an even better question&#33;

"In the beginning" <_< most elements reacted and condensed.

A few acted like nobility :angry: not associating with the common element.

These Inert Gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr & Xe) are chemically inert :ph34r:

They are even called Noble Gases :D

Most elements reacted to form the minerals we see in meteorites today.

Noble Gases are our "window" to see BEFORE geochemical differentiation.

In 1972 two types of xenon (Xe-1 & Xe-2) were found in meteorites [Nature, vol. 240, p. 99]. In 1975 came the bombshell&#33;&#33; :blink: &#33;&#33;

He and Ne are trapped in meteorites with Xe-2, but not with Xe-1&#33;&#33;
At the birth of the Solar System, there were two reservoirs of Noble Gases.

One contained "normal" Xe-1, Kr-1 and Ar-1 - - - but no He or Ne.

Another had "strange" Xe-2, Kr-2, Ar-2 - - - and all the "normal" He and Ne&#33;&#33; :blink: &#33;&#33;

Additional measurements showed that:

Xe-1 is trapped in iron sulfide, FeS, in meteorites.
Xe-2 is trapped in carbon-rich minerals with He and Ne.
Xe-1 is abundant in the inner planets.
Xe-2 is abundant in the He-rich atmosphere of Jupiter.
Xe-1 is in the Sun, but the lighter atoms are enriched by 3.5% per mass unit at the solar surface

When the abundance of elements in the Sun&#39;s photosphere is corrected for this mass-fractionation, one finds that the interior of the Sun is rich in Fe and S.

Thus the presence of Xe-1 is a tracer for Fe and S - - - in meteorite minerals, in planets, and in the Sun.

That is why the element xenon - strange or otherwise - is used as a benchmark in this discussion.

That is why xenon is fundamental to the determination of whether our sun is mostly made of hydrogen and helium or has an iron core.

All these findings were reviewed in the paper available on-line at:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps


With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-23, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Jack Lass@Nov 22 2003, 02:50 AM
I would like to thank Ion Drive whoever he or she may be and wherever he or she is from for a lucid rebuttal to doctor Manuel&#39;s thesis. I wish I had said it myself. (I wish I COULD have said it myself.
Dear Jack,

Your endoresment suggests you understand Ion Drive&#39;s "lucid rebuttal to doctor Manuel&#39;s thesis".

I posted a reply, but Ion Drive has not responded. :angry:

I would appreciate your comments.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http:/www.umr.edu/~om
http:/www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

IonDrive
2003-Nov-23, 05:38 PM
I didn&#39;t reply yet because I don&#39;t visit this website every day.

What I call "neutronium" is neutronized matter.
In a neutron star, the gravitational force of it&#39;s huge mass and density together with the pressure exerted by the mass of it&#39;s outermost layer is sufficient to actually press all the electrons into the protons of the matter at the neutron star&#39;s core. When you press an electron into a proton you get a neutron. In the very core of a neutron star, the pressure is not only high enough that all protons and electrons are "eliminated" by fusing them, but so high that the neutrons are also pressed into a very crystal-like form. The result is some form similar to a solid but not only much denser but also much more incompressible than any solid on earth.
In layers which are more outward there are also no protons and electrons left, but there is (just) not enouh pressure to create this "crystal" so the "neutronium" behaves rather like a liquid there, also much more dense than all liquids we know but "superfluid" like liquid helium. That means: 1) it&#39;s a superconductor (which is why neutron stars have very strong magnetic fields), 2) it&#39;s able to conserve most of the inital star&#39;s rotational momentum for a very long time, which is why neutron stars rotate so fast (sometimes more than 100 times per second). Only a very thin crust (just a few meters thick, according to the model calculations I know of) consists of matter which is ordinary in so far as that it contains protons, neutrons and electrons like the kind of matter we are used to on earth, but it is still as dense as the matter at the core of a white dwarf probably is.

The problem is: To initiate the process of neutronization, the supernova remnant must have at least 1.4 solar masses. Less mass would simply not exert enough gravitational force to counter the nuclear force which keeps the electrons out of the protons in ordinary matter. So, a neutron star MUST start with least 1.4 solar masses. There is also no process that we know (I actually can&#39;t imagine one) which could make a neutron star lose mass afterwards. Also, since the diameter of a neutron star is somewhere around 20 kilometers and the sun&#39;s is 1.4 million kilometers, that means that 99.999... % of the sun&#39;s volume had still to be ordinary matter, which, if not of very much (orders of magnitude&#33;) lower density than model calculations which were calculated downward from the sun&#39;s photosphere (without taking the composition of the very core into calculation) show, would account for some significant additional mass. That&#39;s the reason why I can&#39;t believe that stars with less than at least 1.7 solar masses can have a neutron star inside. I admit that all the other facts are discutable and we can talk about stars more massive than that being a "camouflaged" neutron stars.
But even if I drop all my other arguments against your theory I recently posted, I still can not understand how the core of a star with lower than the minimum mass for a neutron star could be a neutron star&#33;


I think I also have to make something clear at this point:
From other recent posts I just read, I have the impression that some (a portion, not everyone) people who reacted to my post had the impression I would have posted my arguments just to make fun of Dr. Manuel&#39;s theory, or perhaps of Dr. Manuel himself. I do not intend to make fun of anything or anyone in here and I ask all others to keep to the same policy. Actually I think that, no matter how funny or silly a theory or hypothesis SOUNDS, as soon there&#39;s just some good point in it (and Dr. Manuel has several good points) which make it possible that this theory might be at least close to reality, it should be honestly and earnestly discussed without taking into account whether that theory very much adheres to our current picture of the world or would make some significant changes to it.
(Also, even if a hypothesis proves wrong afterwards, that should be no reason to "diss" it&#39;s creator or not to listen to what he has to say on other topics.)

Although I personally still do not think that Dr. Manuel is right here, I was actually shocked to read that my post was called a "Rebuttal" by someone. :(
While I also do not think that my qualification is sufficient to "rebutt" theories which recognized and respected scientists introduce, I also would rather hear my posts called a "valuable add-on to a valuable discussion", and not as a REBUTTAL.

Hey people, I do not even like the word&#33; :D

IonDrive
2003-Nov-23, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by IonDrive@Nov 23 2003, 05:38 PM
...and we can talk about stars more massive than that being a "camouflaged" neutron stars.

Oops&#33; :D
Forget the &#39;a&#39;.

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-24, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by IonDrive@Nov 23 2003, 05:38 PM
I didn&#39;t reply yet because I don&#39;t visit this website every day.

What I call "neutronium" is neutronized matter.
In a neutron star, the gravitational force of it&#39;s huge mass and density together with the pressure exerted by the mass of it&#39;s outermost layer is sufficient to actually press all the electrons into the protons of the matter at the neutron star&#39;s core. When you press an electron into a proton you get a neutron. In the very core of a neutron star, the pressure is not only high enough that all protons and electrons are "eliminated" by fusing them, but so high that the neutrons are also pressed into a very crystal-like form. The result is some form similar to a solid but not only much denser but also much more incompressible than any solid on earth.
In layers which are more outward there are also no protons and electrons left, but there is (just) not enouh pressure to create this "crystal" so the "neutronium" behaves rather like a liquid there, also much more dense than all liquids we know but "superfluid" like liquid helium. That means: 1) it&#39;s a superconductor (which is why neutron stars have very strong magnetic fields), 2) it&#39;s able to conserve most of the inital star&#39;s rotational momentum for a very long time, which is why neutron stars rotate so fast (sometimes more than 100 times per second). Only a very thin crust (just a few meters thick, according to the model calculations I know of) consists of matter which is ordinary in so far as that it contains protons, neutrons and electrons like the kind of matter we are used to on earth, but it is still as dense as the matter at the core of a white dwarf probably is.

The problem is: To initiate the process of neutronization, the supernova remnant must have at least 1.4 solar masses. Less mass would simply not exert enough gravitational force to counter the nuclear force which keeps the electrons out of the protons in ordinary matter. So, a neutron star MUST start with least 1.4 solar masses. There is also no process that we know (I actually can&#39;t imagine one) which could make a neutron star lose mass afterwards. Also, since the diameter of a neutron star is somewhere around 20 kilometers and the sun&#39;s is 1.4 million kilometers, that means that 99.999... % of the sun&#39;s volume had still to be ordinary matter, which, if not of very much (orders of magnitude&#33;) lower density than model calculations which were calculated downward from the sun&#39;s photosphere (without taking the composition of the very core into calculation) show, would account for some significant additional mass. That&#39;s the reason why I can&#39;t believe that stars with less than at least 1.7 solar masses can have a neutron star inside. I admit that all the other facts are discutable and we can talk about stars more massive than that being a "camouflaged" neutron stars.
But even if I drop all my other arguments against your theory I recently posted, I still can not understand how the core of a star with lower than the minimum mass for a neutron star could be a neutron star&#33;


I think I also have to make something clear at this point:
From other recent posts I just read, I have the impression that some (a portion, not everyone) people who reacted to my post had the impression I would have posted my arguments just to make fun of Dr. Manuel&#39;s theory, or perhaps of Dr. Manuel himself. I do not intend to make fun of anything or anyone in here and I ask all others to keep to the same policy. Actually I think that, no matter how funny or silly a theory or hypothesis SOUNDS, as soon there&#39;s just some good point in it (and Dr. Manuel has several good points) which make it possible that this theory might be at least close to reality, it should be honestly and earnestly discussed without taking into account whether that theory very much adheres to our current picture of the world or would make some significant changes to it.
(Also, even if a hypothesis proves wrong afterwards, that should be no reason to "diss" it&#39;s creator or not to listen to what he has to say on other topics.)

Although I personally still do not think that Dr. Manuel is right here, I was actually shocked to read that my post was called a "Rebuttal" by someone. :(
While I also do not think that my qualification is sufficient to "rebutt" theories which recognized and respected scientists introduce, I also would rather hear my posts called a "valuable add-on to a valuable discussion", and not as a REBUTTAL.

Hey people, I do not even like the word&#33; :D
:D Hey, Ion Drive, thank you for the response. It would be helpful if you or Jack Lass tell us how you explain the observations.

Giving the definition of a newly invented term like "neutronium" <_< doesn&#39;t help.

Nor does the re-statement of your conviction that neutron stars must have "at least 1.4 solar masses" <_<

I don&#39;t agree, but that is immaterial. Can you explain the observations?

They are summarized on-line:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

:blink: Please read the paper and tell us how you explain observations that compelled us to conclude the Sun is iron-rich. For example,

1. Why are variations in abundances of isotopes of heavy elements linked with variations in abundances of light elements?
2. Look at the data in Figure 2 and tell us how a supernova trigger explains this correlation.
3. Why is "strange xenon" in Jupiter?
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf
4. Why is "normal xenon" in FeS inclusions of meteorites, in planets rich in Fe and S (Earth and Mars), and in the Sun?
5. Why is the amount of O-16 characteristic of the class of meteorite?
6. Why is primordial helium linked with excess Xe-136?

These are only a few of the observations we address. Please tell us how you explain them? :unsure:

Our new paper suggests that the iron Sun may also explain the Sun&#39;s magnetic fields.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...perfluidity.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...uperfluidity.ps (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.ps)

On the other hand, observations of solar magnetic storms with the Ulysses spacecraft led Louis Lanzerotti to state in a BELL LABS/NJIT JOINT NEWS RELEASE on 14 Nov 2003 that "No one really knows how it" (the sun&#39;s magnetic field) "is formed and why it changes as it does."

So it would be helpful to know if you have viable alternative explanations for the observations.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://umr.edu/~om
http://ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

Zenpi314
2003-Nov-24, 04:12 AM
To Mr. Manuel.

Interesting conversation ...
I have never visited this forum, but was attracted to it by this topic.

Mr. Manuel, besides the evidence that you have found within our solar system, have you found any evidence elsewhere in our galaxy?

With all the billions of stars, have you seen any evolutionary stages that show the accretion of "normal" matter onto an existing neutron star?

I&#39;m always open (I hope) to any theory that dares to leave the beaten path, but could you be so kind as to explain the 1.4+ solar mass problem that IonDrive mentioned in an earlier post.

Thank you,

Arno

Zenpi314
2003-Nov-24, 04:18 AM
Sorry,

One more question.

Neutron stars are rapid spinners. I understand that the outer layer does not necessarily have to spin at the same speed, but would the Sun not have a much stronger magnetic field than it is currently showing?
Or is that just what causes the otherwise poorly explained sunspots and solar flares?

Thanks again,

Arno

Josh
2003-Nov-24, 04:40 AM
I got this from a bit of a search on the web about iron rich cores of stars.
Strange xenon came from the helium-rich outer layers of the supernova, while normal xenon came from its interior. There was no helium in the interior because nuclear fusion reactions there changed the helium into the heavier elements, Manuel says.
(here are the possible websites it comes from (found the same article in two places). the site1 (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html), the site2 (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031002191731data_trunc_sys.shtml) if you&#39;d like to read the whole article.)

Anyway...Strange xenon is only found in the outer layer of the sun/supernova (from which the outer planets formed) and therefore found only in the outer planets. Normal xenon is found in the inner part of the sun/supernova (from which the inner planets formed) and are only found in the inner planets. Helium is also only found in the outer parts. Why then is there helium found on Earth?

And back to another question I had earlier about the length of time we have if the core is iron instead of hydrogen. Does this mean that in this theory the core is stable and not reacting as we thought the core of a hydrogen cored star does - fusion reaction? If so ... what happens once the hydrogen in the outer parts of the sun has been depleted? Does this affect the inner iron core? What happens when the outer parts opf the sun are depleted altogether? Are we just going to be orbiting a neutron star?

Also, I heard a while back that Jupiter may have been captured by the sun and was itself a smaller version of the sun. It was captured and never began fusion reactions because of it (or something along those lines). I take it that theory is out in this iron core theory?

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-24, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Zenpi314@Nov 24 2003, 04:12 AM
To Mr. Manuel.

Interesting conversation ...
I have never visited this forum, but was attracted to it by this topic.

Mr. Manuel, besides the evidence that you have found within our solar system, have you found any evidence elsewhere in our galaxy?

With all the billions of stars, have you seen any evolutionary stages that show the accretion of "normal" matter onto an existing neutron star?

I&#39;m always open (I hope) to any theory that dares to leave the beaten path, but could you be so kind as to explain the 1.4+ solar mass problem that IonDrive mentioned in an earlier post.

Thank you,

Arno
:D Dear Arno,

Thank you for the message and for your interest in this problem.

First, I should stress that I am a simple experimentalist :blink: who started studying the abundances of isotopes in meteorites, planets, the solar wind, lunar samples, etc. in 1960.

If I can&#39;t measure it, my opinions are of little value <_< . I have only measured samples from the solar system, so I have no evidence from "elsewhere in our galaxy."

However, Arno, the background radiation we see here :unsure: may be from the supernova that made the Solar System :rolleyes: .

I use a mass spectrometer to measure the relative abundances of isotopes. Since I do not peer through a telescope :blink: , I have not seen any evolutionary stages that show the accretion of "normal" matter onto an existing neutron star.

Initially, I had no interest in the Sun. But measurement after measurement on meteorites kept indicating that something was basically wrong with the belief our Solar Sytem formed out of a well-mixed cloud of interstellar material :o .

See 1975-1981 papers in my short resume: http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

There was no escaping it, the nebular model of Immanuel Kant and Marquis de LaPlace was simply wrong :(.

The Sun serves as a model for other stars in the cosmos :blink: , and in my opinion there is little or no doubt that the Sun is mostly iron. However, I will change my mind :) if you or anyone else offers a better explanation for the observations summarized at:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

Now, Arno, neutron stars are believed to be formed at the core of a collapsing supernova <_< . Just outside the core, the equilibrium-process generates nuclear species of high nuclear stability - - - species like Fe-56 (doubly magic Ni-56 when first produced).

In the Solar System, the abundance of Fe-56 increases toward the Sun, from <1% in Jupiter, to 30% in Mars, 40% in Earth, to 60% in Mercury, to about 80% in the Sun B) . Given that trend, the presence of a neutron star at the core of the Sun should come as no surprise :D .

These trends could not be from geochemical differentiation :ph34r: . Inner and outer parts of the Solar System never mixed :o . Isotope ratios of xenon shift from "strange" xenon (Xe-2) to "normal" xenon (Xe-1) in going from outer to the inner regions of the Solar System :D .

We think the precurson star was much larger than the Sun, but mostly blown away in an axially directed explosion :blink: about 5 Gya ago.

In our preprint, we quote Oppenheimer and Volkoff&#39;s original estimate ;) on the mass of neutron star that might remain, (0.33-0.75) solar mass [Phys. Rev., vol. 15, pp. 374-381 (1939)].
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...perfluidity.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...uperfluidity.ps (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.ps)

It is my understanding, Arno, that self-collapse to a neutron star would not have been possible if the parent star had been less that 1.4 solar mass. So in that sense you and/or IonDrive are correct about this mass limit. However, the "pile-driven" collapse of a massive star can, from my understanding, produce less massive neutron stars, more like those suggested by Oppenheimer and Volkoff.

Again, Arno, I appreciate your comments :) .

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-24, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Zenpi314@Nov 24 2003, 04:12 AM
To Mr. Manuel.

Interesting conversation ...
I have never visited this forum, but was attracted to it by this topic.

Mr. Manuel, besides the evidence that you have found within our solar system, have you found any evidence elsewhere in our galaxy?

With all the billions of stars, have you seen any evolutionary stages that show the accretion of "normal" matter onto an existing neutron star?

I&#39;m always open (I hope) to any theory that dares to leave the beaten path, but could you be so kind as to explain the 1.4+ solar mass problem that IonDrive mentioned in an earlier post.

Thank you,

Arno
:D Dear Arno,

Thank you for the message and for your interest in this problem.

First, I should stress that I am a simple experimentalist :blink: who started studying the abundances of isotopes in meteorites, planets, the solar wind, lunar samples, etc. in 1960.

If I can&#39;t measure it, my opinions are of little value <_< . I have only measured samples from the solar system, so I have no evidence from "elsewhere in our galaxy."

However, Arno, the background radiation we see here :unsure: may be from the supernova that made the Solar System :rolleyes: .

I use a mass spectrometer to measure the relative abundances of isotopes. Since I do not peer through a telescope :blink: , I have not seen any evolutionary stages that show the accretion of "normal" matter onto an existing neutron star.

Initially, I had no interest in the Sun. But measurement after measurement on meteorites kept indicating that something was basically wrong with the belief our Solar Sytem formed out of a well-mixed cloud of interstellar material :o .

See 1975-1981 papers in my short resume: http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

There was no escaping it, the nebular model of Immanuel Kant and Marquis de LaPlace was simply wrong :(.

The Sun serves as a model for other stars in the cosmos :blink: , and in my opinion there is little or no doubt that the Sun is mostly iron. However, I will change my mind :) if you or anyone else offers a better explanation for the observations summarized at:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

Now, Arno, neutron stars are believed to be formed at the core of a collapsing supernova <_< . Just outside the core, the equilibrium-process generates nuclear species of high nuclear stability - - - species like Fe-56 (doubly magic Ni-56 when first produced).

In the Solar System, the abundance of Fe-56 increases toward the Sun, from <1% in Jupiter, to 30% in Mars, 40% in Earth, to 60% in Mercury, to about 80% in the Sun B) . Given that trend, the presence of a neutron star at the core of the Sun should come as no surprise :D .

These trends could not be from geochemical differentiation :ph34r: . Inner and outer parts of the Solar System never mixed :o . Isotope ratios of xenon shift from "strange" xenon (Xe-2) to "normal" xenon (Xe-1) in going from outer to the inner regions of the Solar System :D .

We think the precurson star was much larger than the Sun, but mostly blown away in an axially directed explosion :blink: about 5 Gya ago.

In our preprint, we quote Oppenheimer and Volkoff&#39;s original estimate ;) on the mass of neutron star that might remain, (0.33-0.75) solar mass [Phys. Rev., vol. 15, pp. 374-381 (1939)].
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...perfluidity.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...uperfluidity.ps (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.ps)

It is my understanding, Arno, that self-collapse to a neutron star would not have been possible if the parent star had been less that 1.4 solar mass. So in that sense you and/or IonDrive are correct about this mass limit. However, the "pile-driven" collapse of a massive star can, from my understanding, produce less massive neutron stars, more like those suggested by Oppenheimer and Volkoff.

Again, Arno, I appreciate your comments :) .

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

Jack Lass
2003-Nov-24, 05:30 PM
Dr. Manuel seems to be attempting to cause a paradigm shift in the field of Astrophyics. :o Now as anyone who has studied the history of science knows paradigms have as much inertia as mountains --or maybe more. :angry: Such shifts do occur from time to time usually slowly with the accumulation of evidence contrary to the current paradigm. Occasionaly in rapid jumps as with the work of Newton and Einstein. :)

From a strictly layperson&#39;s point of view, it is exceedingly difficult to judge whether Dr. Manuel&#39;s thesis is fully supported by the evidence we have from all sources on the origin and nature of the Sun and the Solar System. I am frankly unable to evaluate the material in the papers Dr. Manuel has cited here because I am not an astrophyisicist or nuclear chemist. ;)

I would therefore ask Dr. Manuel the following:1. What has been the reaction of the Astrophysical community to his thesis?

2. Has he or anyone else considered other explanations for the evidence he has cited in his papers?

3. If the answer to 2 is yes, can he provide citations to such contradictory papers?
I cannot dispute Dr. Manuel&#39;s claims because my ignorance precludes me from judgement on the subject. And it may well be that he is on to something that will have the effect of shifting the paradigm. :rolleyes: One must remember the case of Alfred Wegner whose ideas were not confirmed until long after his death. :( Let&#39;s hope that the rapid pace of our ability to obtain and analyze data on the workings of the Sun and the makeup of asteroids will allow us to come to a decision long before Dr. Manuel passes from the scene. :unsure:

Whichever way things fall our, Dr. Manuel has given us a great deal to think about. For this and for his kind attention to our comments we owe him thanks.

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-24, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Josh@Nov 24 2003, 04:40 AM
I got this from a bit of a search on the web about iron rich cores of stars.
Strange xenon came from the helium-rich outer layers of the supernova, while normal xenon came from its interior. There was no helium in the interior because nuclear fusion reactions there changed the helium into the heavier elements, Manuel says.
(here are the possible websites it comes from (found the same article in two places). the site1 (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html), the site2 (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031002191731data_trunc_sys.shtml) if you&#39;d like to read the whole article.)

Anyway...Strange xenon is only found in the outer layer of the sun/supernova (from which the outer planets formed) and therefore found only in the outer planets. Normal xenon is found in the inner part of the sun/supernova (from which the inner planets formed) and are only found in the inner planets. Helium is also only found in the outer parts. Why then is there helium found on Earth?

And back to another question I had earlier about the length of time we have if the core is iron instead of hydrogen. Does this mean that in this theory the core is stable and not reacting as we thought the core of a hydrogen cored star does - fusion reaction? If so ... what happens once the hydrogen in the outer parts of the sun has been depleted? Does this affect the inner iron core? What happens when the outer parts opf the sun are depleted altogether? Are we just going to be orbiting a neutron star?

Also, I heard a while back that Jupiter may have been captured by the sun and was itself a smaller version of the sun. It was captured and never began fusion reactions because of it (or something along those lines). I take it that theory is out in this iron core theory?
Thanks, Josh, for your comments :D .

First, much of the helium at the Earth&#39;s surface came from alpha-decay of heavy elements, like uranium and thorium :D .

Second, inside the Earth is non-radiogenic helium that looks like it may have been implanted by the solar wind into material accreting to form the Earth :unsure: . Dwarka Das Sabu and I published a paper on this in the Geochemical Journal of Japan in 1980. There wasn&#39;t room to include this in my short resume, but you can go to the longer version from links there.

http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

Third, don&#39;t worry that hydrogen in the outer parts of the Sun will be depleted <_< . Each year the Sun generates 3 x 10^43 more hydrogen atoms than it consumes :lol: . This excess goes flying off into space as the solar wind :D .

Finally, Josh, 40+ years of measurements convince me the Sun is mostly iron with a neutron star at its center :rolleyes: . Alternative explanations ;) are now needed for the observations summarized at:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

Again, Josh, I thank you for your comments :) .

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-24, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Jack Lass@Nov 24 2003, 05:30 PM
<span style=&#39;font-family:Times&#39;><span style=&#39;font-size:11pt;line-height:100%&#39;>Dr. Manuel seems to be attempting to cause a paradigm shift in the field of Astrophyics. Now as anyone who has studied the history of science knows paradigms have as much inertia as mountains --or maybe more. Such shifts do occur from time to time usually slowly with the accumulation of evidence contrary to the current paradigm. Occasionaly in rapid jumps as with the work of Newton and Einstein.

From a strictly layperson&#39;s point of view, it is exceedingly difficult to judge whether Dr. Manuel&#39;s thesis is fully supported by the evidence we have from all sources on the origin and nature of the Sun and the Solar System. I am frankly unable to evaluate the material in the papers Dr. Manuel has cited here because I am not an astrophyisicist or nuclear chemist.

I would therefore ask Dr. Manuel the following:1. What has been the reaction of the Astrophysical community to his thesis?

2. Has he or anyone else considered other explanations for the evidence he has cited in his papers?

3. If the answer to 2 is yes, can he provide citations to such contradictory papers?

I cannot dispute Dr. Manuel&#39;s claims because my ignorance precludes me from judgement on the subject. And it may well be that he is on to something that will have the effect of shifting the paradigm. One must remember the case of Alfred Wegner whose ideas were not confirmed until long after his death. Let&#39;s hope that the rapid pace of our ability to obtain and analyze data on the workings of the Sun and the makeup of asteroids will allow us to come to a decision long before Dr. Manuel passes from the scene. :unsure:

Whichever way things fall our, Dr. Manuel has given us a great deal to think about. For this and for his kind attention to our comments we owe him thanks.</span></span>
Thanks, Jack, for the posting and for your kind comments. :D

You nearly "hit the nail on its head": Over 40 years of measurements are inconsistent with the standard solar model of a hydrogen-filled Sun with a well-behaved fusion reactor at its core :blink: .
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

Thus, Jack, measurements themselves are pushing for a paradigm shift in the field of Astrophyics :P.

Need we fear the paradigm shift will not occur :unsure: ? Not at all&#33; :D

Science is based on measurements. Measurements can easily overcome the inertia of mountains. Good data are inherently more powerful than all the political forces on Earth :D .

Now, to your three questions:

1. What has been the reaction of the Astrophysical community to his thesis?

i) Ed Anders (University of Chicago) claimed he could make "strange" xenon by fission of a superheavy element <_< .

ii) A. G. W. Cameron proposed a supernova trigger for formation of the solar system <_< at the 1976 National AGU meeting in Washington, DC. As I recall, he had no abstract.

iii) Al Cameron, Don Clayton, Robert Clayton, Robert Walker, Gerry Wasserburg, Ernst Zinner, and most of their students and post-docs have now jumped on the "interstellar dust grain" bandwagon <_< .

However, there is no convincing evidence of any "interstellar dust grains" in meteorites that are older than the meteorite itself, or were exposed to cosmic radiation during an interstellar journey before being embedded in the meteorite :unsure: .

Further, the link of "strange" xenon with light elements, including primordial helium, and the link of "normal" xenon with iron and sulfur (in the microscopic scale of meteorite minerals and across planetary distances) are unexplained by any of these hypotheses :D .

They are popular, like the road to H, but frankly inconsistent with observations :D.

2. Has he or anyone else considered other explanations for the evidence he has cited in his papers?

Yes, we have considered and, for the reasons given above, rejected these partial explanations for the observations.

3. If the answer to 2 is yes, can he provide citations to such contradictory papers?

i) The last issue of Science, in December of 1975, had both research articles devoted to the discovery of "Super-heavy Element Fission" in meteorites*.

ii) As I recall, the May 19, 1976 issue of Science had a major news report about Al Cameron&#39;s amazing new hypothesis of a "Supernova Trigger for Formation of the Solar System"*.

iii) The AIP Conference Proceedings 402, "Pre-solar Material in Meteorites" [American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, NY (1997) shows the evidence in support of "Interstellar Dust Grains" embedded in meteorites. I was there and presented the opposing position, but my paper was excluded from the Proceedings.

* Sabu and I responded to i) and ii) in the January 1977 issue of Science, listed in this short resume: http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

Again, Jack, I appreciate you comments and you interest. Questioning people like you will catalyze the paradigm shift. With or without the catalyst, the shift will occur :D .

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

Josh
2003-Nov-24, 11:50 PM
Why was your paper excluded for the proceedings? Late entry or some other more sinister reason?

Perhaps the best way settle this is send a probe to actually find out.

om@umr.edu
2003-Nov-25, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Josh@Nov 24 2003, 11:50 PM
Why was your paper excluded for the proceedings? Late entry or some other more sinister reason?

Perhaps the best way settle this is send a probe to actually find out.
Thanks, Josh, for the inquiry :D .

My entry was not late. :angry: In fact, I objected vigorously to the exclusion of opposing opinions.

The published proceedings paint a rosy picture of interstellar dust grains embedded in meteorites <_< .

:angry: NASA seems to like flashy discoveries - "Super-heavy Elements Found in Meteorites", "Interstellar Diamonds Found in Meteorites", "Stardust Found in Meteorites", etc, over mundane findings, e.g., lighter isotopes of each element are enriched in the solar wind.

In my opinion, a small clique in the scientific community has too much control over the budgets of federal funding agencies <_< . Thus, federal funds sometimes finance dishonest science :( .

Scientists at the conference who might be able to answer your question are Robert Walker, Gerry Wasserburg, or Al Cameron :unsure: . Robert Walker&#39;s assistant, Ernst Zinner, or Al Cameron&#39;s former student, David Arnett, or some of Wasserburg&#39;s former students were there and might be able to shed some light B).

:D Anyway, we sent the paper to Budapest and published it as the "Origin of the Solar System and its elements", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 238, nos. 1-2, 213-225 (1998).

We also noted in other papers that interstellar dust grains do not explain the observations, e.g. the link of primordial helium with strange xenon, etc.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu:80/facres/manuel.html

om@umr.edu
2004-May-18, 12:41 PM
The discussion continues at:

1. Physics & Astronomy Discussion Forum at PhysicsLink.com

"An Iron Core for the Sun?"

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/v...m=18&Topic=2421 (http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=2421)

2. Universe Today Forum

a. "Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery"

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2435 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2435)

b. "Iron Sun Discussion"

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2544 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544)

Hope to see you there&#33;

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-02, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Paul Copping@Nov 20 2003, 08:18 PM
If there was a supernova in the vicinity of our sun, would there not be clues and reminice of this massive explosion. Looking at the centre of our gallaxy, there is evidence of supernova&#39;s which could still be observed as voids with shock fronts.
Paul,

For recent confirmation of a supernova in the vicinity of our sun, see the paper by Hester et al in the 21 May 2004 issue of Science 304 (2004) 1116-1117.

Here&#39;s the link to a discussion of that report on Universe Today:

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...pic=3306&st=15& (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3306&st=15&)

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Duane
2004-Jun-03, 05:18 PM
Hmm, lets look at Dr Manuels claim. He says the sun has an iron core which arose from a supernova explosion.

He cannot explain how the core overcame the escape velocity of the material it ejected to begin reaccreting it. He uses neutrino flux, which is later explained, to support the idea, and dismisses findings which explained the original paradox. He claims the Earth has an undifferentiated solid lower mantle, and ignores research showing the mantle is not only melted throughout, it recycles. He cannot account for the current mass of the sun. He cannot explain how the sun could burn steadily for 5 billion years, nor explain why the sun is slowly heating up. He cannot explain how material accreting on the the "neutron core" would not become part of the degenerate shell. He cannot explain the means by which the iron star could shine, nor can he explain the the opacity problem which lead to the hypothesis that the sun burned hydrogen in the first place. He ignores literally stacks of research papers which explain the diverse isotopes found in meteorites, including several lines of research by different disiplines of science suggesting more than one incident of material injection into the pre-solar, forming and post-solar enviroment. He cannot explain how a small mass neutron star could form, nor can he explain how a star that requires the Chadrasekhar limit to collapse, could shed up to 4/5&#39;s of its mass. He cannot point to one single instance anywhere in the galaxy where a neutron star is accreting material, despite the literally hundreds of star-forming regions all around us. When questioned, he hides behind the lists and graphs he repeatedly (15 times? 20? more?) puts up to somehow support his now thoroughly debunked premise and ignores the questions.

Hmm, something fishy about that claim.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-03, 11:22 PM
Thanks, Duane, for your insight.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-05, 11:08 PM
At the Denver AAS meeting on 31 May 04, UC Berkeley graduate student Jason Wright reports that the vast majority of stars identified as Maunder minimum stars are either evolved stars or stars rich in metals like iron and nickel .

The “Maunder minimum” refers to the 70-year period from 1645 to 1714, when there was very little sunspot activity.

The “Maunder minimum” coincides with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age in Europe and North America.

In a news report, Wright&#39;s advisor, Geoffrey Marcy, said "The fact is, we still don&#39;t understand what&#39;s going on in our sun, how magnetic fields generate the 11-year solar cycle, or what caused the magnetic Maunder minimum."

"In particular, we don&#39;t know how often a sun-like star falls into a Maunder minimum, or when the next minimum will occur. It could be tomorrow."

For the complete news report see:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release...1_maunder.shtml (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/01_maunder.shtml)

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Guest_wjwduke
2004-Jun-06, 01:13 AM
Hello to you all, (I will forgo the use of icons - thanks; besides I don&#39;t know how to use them)
I am a 60+ year old retired systems analyst (CDC/Cray). I "fell" into the business when computers were considered voodoo magic black boxes while serving my hitch in the Navy. After discharge in 62 with a smigeon of exposure to those old EMI machines and a IBM 7090 while serving, I decided to persue the field. Not having a formal education, I was hired by CDC as an operator/delivery driver (those punched cards and listings were heavy&#33;) Spending day and night learning how those black boxes worked, I advanced rapidly and contributed quite a lot in this dicipline including, while still in diapers, developing one of the 1st computer to computer (CDC 160) h/w and s/w communication systems working with Bell Labs and their 1st accoustic coupler modems. Those were the days my friends. Enough of me.

I do wish I could contribute technically/scientifically but it is beyond my knowledge of scientific expertise (1 -10 scale; <1) however. I would like to contribute this;

My point in jumping into this thread is to simply say that my hat goes off to you Antoniseb, Vanderl, Duane, Tim et. al. for your miraculous "girth". I would have given up weeks ago. How do you find the time? It is proffessionals such as yourselves that keep an even keel in the real world of science and provide avenues (articles/rersearch papers etc.) for laymen such as myself to do our own research and formulate our own opinions.

No offence to Dr. Oliver however I would like to "respectfully" say this to him; Throughout my career, which advanced exponetially early on, I was at the top of the game; I use to gloat when I wrote complicated algorithms in assembly language faster that my peers who used Fortran (remember that language?). I later had a rude awakening which set me on a downhill spiral to early retirement from the industry. I was "bullheaded" (maybe too proud?). With my head in the sand, I stuck to my old ways and beliefs and while computer speed and capacity was doubling and tripling year by year, I didn&#39;t bother to keep up with onslaught of new O.S. and language technology and I was left to eat dust. Who needs an "old" ASM/RISC programmer these days? Bottom line is (and I know you and I are in the same boat) if you want to go faster and keep up with the traffic Dr. Oliver, trade in your Model T for a Model A. Pride can be as hazerdous to your health (and career) as any of the other negative emotional baggages we carry through life.
WJWDUKE
P.S. Thank you Dr. Frasier Cain for this web site and the forum you have opened to all that strive for a better understanding of ourselves, our world and the Universe that was "created" for this purpose.

antoniseb
2004-Jun-06, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Guest_wjwduke@Jun 6 2004, 01:13 AM
My point in jumping into this thread is to simply say that my hat goes off to you Antoniseb, Vanderl, Duane, Tim et. al. for your miraculous "girth". I would have given up weeks ago.
Thanks Guest_wjwduke.

For anyone looking at this, most of this discussion has moved to another thread.
New Iron Sun Thread (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544)

Comments in the new thread will be more easily found and referenced in the future. These story related threads can be a bit more fugitive. I&#39;d encourage anyone inclined to respond here to look at the [now quite long] newer thread.

Duane
2004-Jun-06, 01:32 PM
Now, data from a group of UC Berkeley astronomers cast doubt on the hundreds of stars thought to be examples of stellar minima analogous to the quiet period the sun experienced 300 years ago.


In a poster to be presented Monday, May 31, at the Denver meeting of the American Astronomical Society, UC Berkeley graduate student Jason Wright shows that nearly all the supposedly sun-like stars displaying minimal activity are, in fact, much brighter than and significantly different from the sun and therefore not examples of Maunder minima. The findings throw into question all studies using these stars to make inferences about the sun&#39;s own activity and future minima, Wright said.


The question, Wright said, is whether the cause of decreased calcium emission is a stellar Maunder minimum or something else, like age - stars spin more slowly as they age, lose their magnetic dynamo and no longer produce magnetic fields or spots - or high metal content.

It seems like you are misinterpreting the main points of the article.

Hey Oliver, when are you going to address the problems that have been pointed out in your theory?

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-06, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Guest_wjwduke@Jun 6 2004, 01:13 AM
I do wish I could contribute technically/scientifically but it is beyond my knowledge of scientific expertise (1 -10 scale;* <1) however. I would like to contribute this;

Who needs an "old" ASM/RISC programmer these days?* Bottom line is (and I know you and I are in the same boat) if you want to go faster and keep up with the traffic Dr. Oliver, trade in your Model T for a Model A.*

Pride can be as hazerdous to your health (and career) as any of the other negative emotional baggages we carry through life.

WJWDUKE

P.S.* Thank you Dr. Frasier Cain for this web site and the forum you have opened to all that strive for a better understanding of ourselves, our world and the Universe that was "created" for this purpose.
Welcome, W J W Duke.

I join antoniseb in encouraging you to join the Iron Sun discussion.

You are right. Fraser Cain provides a great service in maintaining this site for an open discussion of the puzzling observations that point the way to a better understanding of ourselves, our world, and the Universe.

We agree: Pride is a character defect. But we have been given different talents and must each stand firm for our understanding.

I&#39;ll bet &#39;an "old" ASM/RISC programmer&#39; has been given the mathematical skills to figure out the puzzling observation at the root of the Iron Sun discussion:

Lighter mass ( L ) isotopes of elements are systematically enriched relative to heavier mass ( H ) isotopes in the solar wind by a common mass fractionation factor ( MF ), where

log ( MF ) = 4.56 log ( H )/ ( L ) or

( MF ) = [( H )/ ( L )]^4.56

The surface of the Sun is composed almost entirely of Light elements, 91% H and 9% He.

The abundance of Heavier elements fall off exponentially at the solar surface, like the empirical mass fractionation measured across isotopes coming from the solar surface.

When the abundance of elements at the solar surface (determined by line spectra measurements on the photosphere) is corrected for the above empirical mass fractionation (determined by isotope analysis on the solar wind),

The most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun are found to be Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg & Ca, elements that exist only at the part-per-million level at the solar surface.

These same seven elements:

-a.- All have even atomic numbers.

-b.- Are made deep in the interior of supernovae.

-c.- Have high nuclear stability.

-e.- Make up bulk material in planets close to the Sun

-e.- Comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites.

The probability ( P ) that this agreement is meaningless is essentially zero, P < 0.0000000000000000000000000000002% &#33; &#33;

That, WJWDUKE, is the puzzling observation that awaits the application of your considerable experience and expertise at the Iron Sun discussion.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om