A Solid Sun?

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...


Andy Resnick wrote:
Double-A wrote:

Does the Sun really have a solid surface below the photosphere?

If so, most of what we've been taught is wrong!

Or is this just another crackpot theory?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/


The sun is a liquid.

http://thermalphysics.org/nytimes_ad.html


You see Bert, here is a professor of physics at Ohio State University
who thinks as you did that the plasma on the Sun is liquid! He states
his theory logically and in scientific terms and shows the advantages
of his theory for explaining the observed phenomena. As I cited
earlier, plasmas can behave as a liquid.

Don't let people "shoot you down" just because your idea isn't what's
printed in the textbooks, Bert!

That's what I like about alt.astronomy as compared to sci.physics, an
openness to new ideas. Without new ideas, science can never advance.
Over in sci.physics you are either reciting approved textbook material,
or you are a crackpot. There is no in between. Over here we like new
and divergent ideas to be heard so that scientific knowledge may be
advanced!

Double-A



insert snarky emoticon for the sarcasm-impaired here

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

I don't see what the controversy is here, unless there are some of the
resident "physicists" that aren't aware of the existaence of supercritical
fases. These are gases under such extreme temperature and pressure
conditions that they behave much like liquids, but technically are gases.

Supercritical steam (5000 psi, 2500 F) is in use in few power plants. acts
a lot like water as far as density goes, but it is indeed steam.

Or is this "controversy" born of ignorance of advanced gas management?

chuck in persia

The sun is a plasma heated by nuclear fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_physics

persian ram wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...


Andy Resnick wrote:
Double-A wrote:

Does the Sun really have a solid surface below the photosphere?

If so, most of what we've been taught is wrong!

Or is this just another crackpot theory?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/


The sun is a liquid.

http://thermalphysics.org/nytimes_ad.html


You see Bert, here is a professor of physics at Ohio State University
who thinks as you did that the plasma on the Sun is liquid! He states
his theory logically and in scientific terms and shows the advantages
of his theory for explaining the observed phenomena. As I cited
earlier, plasmas can behave as a liquid.

Don't let people "shoot you down" just because your idea isn't what's
printed in the textbooks, Bert!

That's what I like about alt.astronomy as compared to sci.physics, an
openness to new ideas. Without new ideas, science can never advance.
Over in sci.physics you are either reciting approved textbook material,
or you are a crackpot. There is no in between. Over here we like new
and divergent ideas to be heard so that scientific knowledge may be
advanced!

Double-A



insert snarky emoticon for the sarcasm-impaired here

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

I don't see what the controversy is here, unless there are some of the
resident "physicists" that aren't aware of the existaence of supercritical
fases. These are gases under such extreme temperature and pressure
conditions that they behave much like liquids, but technically are gases.

Supercritical steam (5000 psi, 2500 F) is in use in few power plants. acts
a lot like water as far as density goes, but it is indeed steam.

Or is this "controversy" born of ignorance of advanced gas management?

chuck in persia


Thanks Chuck.

I wonder how they would classify the material of a white dwarf?

There are lots of references to them having "surfaces", and that
hydrogen gas falls onto and accumulates on these "surfaces", and that
it finally fuses and causes nova fashes.

Double-A

Hi Double-A Did not mind getting shot down when I posted I thought
plasma was a liquid. In reality features of molecules change
with mass "density" Do we not make solid stable hydrogen. We do and its
done with great pressure,and pressure creates density. That is why I
have the implosion of the big bang as just as important as the outward
explosion(possibly more important) If not for large very dense stars
imploding we would not be here. If not for pressure at there core
there would be no stars Nature's balancing act is holding the Sun up.
"outward radiation pushing back gravities compression force" For 10
billion years its the dog trying to catch its own tail. Gravity wins in
the end. It always does. Best to keep in mind the implosion comes
first,and then explosion. This is a very,very important time lapse,and
without it no universe. I'm big on the way nature uses time lapses
Might as well throw this in. Plasma is natures most common type
molecule in the universe That guy at Ohio State U must be pretty
smart. Double-A you have known me well enough to know I don't run to
text books. Bert

In sci.physics, Orion

wrote
on 11 Jul 2005 20:44:44 -0700
.com:
The sun is a plasma heated by nuclear fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_physics


I for one certainly hope so; were it a carbon-oxygen mixture generating
light by oxidation it would have gone out long ago. :-)

In fact, one can make a rough calculation.

Sun mass: 1.9862*10^30 kg
Sun power output: 3.94*10^26 W

C-C bond enthalpy: 347 kJ/mol
C=O bond enthalpy: 805 kJ/mol
O=O bond enthalpy: 498 kJ/mol

1 C-C broken, 1 O=O broken, 2 C=O formed = 765 kJ/mol

Optimum ratio (by mass): 8/11 oxygen, 3/11 carbon

Moles carbon available: 4.514 * 10^31 moles
Moles consumed per second: 5.150 * 10^20
Expected lifetime: 8.765 * 10^10 seconds, or about 2800 years.

One could postulate various silly things such as a backreflector
(the only power actually hitting the Earth is about 8 * 10^17 W)
but that's inconsistent with other astronomical observations.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Orion

wrote
on 11 Jul 2005 20:44:44 -0700
.com:
The sun is a plasma heated by nuclear fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_physics


I for one certainly hope so; were it a carbon-oxygen mixture generating
light by oxidation it would have gone out long ago. :-)

In fact, one can make a rough calculation.

Sun mass: 1.9862*10^30 kg
Sun power output: 3.94*10^26 W

C-C bond enthalpy: 347 kJ/mol
C=O bond enthalpy: 805 kJ/mol
O=O bond enthalpy: 498 kJ/mol

1 C-C broken, 1 O=O broken, 2 C=O formed = 765 kJ/mol

Optimum ratio (by mass): 8/11 oxygen, 3/11 carbon

Moles carbon available: 4.514 * 10^31 moles
Moles consumed per second: 5.150 * 10^20
Expected lifetime: 8.765 * 10^10 seconds, or about 2800 years.

One could postulate various silly things such as a backreflector
(the only power actually hitting the Earth is about 8 * 10^17 W)
but that's inconsistent with other astronomical observations.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.


Hi Ghost,

How long would it take the Sun to cool off if it no longer had any
source of energy, only radiating away the heat reserves at its core?

White Dwarfs have no source of energy other than their own
gravitational compression, and it is said that the 14.7 billion years
of our universe has yet not been long enough for them to cool off!

Double-A

In sci.physics, Double-A

wrote
on 12 Jul 2005 17:14:17 -0700
. com:


The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Orion

wrote
on 11 Jul 2005 20:44:44 -0700
.com:
The sun is a plasma heated by nuclear fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_physics


I for one certainly hope so; were it a carbon-oxygen mixture generating
light by oxidation it would have gone out long ago. :-)

In fact, one can make a rough calculation.

Sun mass: 1.9862*10^30 kg
Sun power output: 3.94*10^26 W

C-C bond enthalpy: 347 kJ/mol
C=O bond enthalpy: 805 kJ/mol
O=O bond enthalpy: 498 kJ/mol

1 C-C broken, 1 O=O broken, 2 C=O formed = 765 kJ/mol

Optimum ratio (by mass): 8/11 oxygen, 3/11 carbon

Moles carbon available: 4.514 * 10^31 moles
Moles consumed per second: 5.150 * 10^20
Expected lifetime: 8.765 * 10^10 seconds, or about 2800 years.

One could postulate various silly things such as a backreflector
(the only power actually hitting the Earth is about 8 * 10^17 W)
but that's inconsistent with other astronomical observations.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.


Hi Ghost,

How long would it take the Sun to cool off if it no longer had any
source of energy, only radiating away the heat reserves at its core?

White Dwarfs have no source of energy other than their own
gravitational compression, and it is said that the 14.7 billion years
of our universe has yet not been long enough for them to cool off!

Double-A


White Dwarfs also don't generate nearly as much power (read
absolute magnitude if you prefer) as our Sun, which itself
isn't all that powerful a star -- and good thing, too. :-)

It's like Goldilocks; not too hot, not too dim, but just right...

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Hi Doubl-A Glad you mentioned the residual heat given off by white
dwarfs. Many Moons ago I tried to create heat by continual pressuse on
an steel ball using vise grip. Measuring room temp. glasses of water one
with the ball the other without. The difference was very small so I was
never sure,but I thought the glass with the ball an vise grips was a
tiny bit higher. If I was sure I could claim "compressed molecules give
off photons"(heat) continualy Would like to see this performed on a
massive scale. Best to keep in mind compression of all types create
heat. In reality Doubole-A I was tryijng to create perpetual
motion(free energy) Here in Florida there are 50 michines compressing
carbon into very pure diamonds by creating great pressures Bert.

Bert wrote:

Hi Doubl-A Glad you mentioned the residual heat given off by white
dwarfs. Many Moons ago I tried to create heat by continual pressuse on
an steel ball using vise grip. Measuring room temp. glasses of water
one
with the ball the other without. The difference was very small so I was
never sure,but I thought the glass with the ball an vise grips was a
tiny bit higher. If I was sure I could claim "compressed molecules give
off photons"(heat) continualy Would like to see this performed on a
massive scale. Best to keep in mind compression of all types create
heat. In reality Doubole-A I was tryijng to create perpetual
motion(free energy) Here in Florida there are 50 michines compressing
carbon into very pure diamonds by creating great pressures Bert.



Double-A writes:

Things only heat up while they are being compressed. So you are
putting energy in and getting heat out. No free lunch. Once
compressed, things can cool off again. When they uncompress, they
absorb heat and have a cooling effect. That's how your refrigerator
works.

Double-A

Hi Double-A what you say is right,but my thought was the vice grip give
a continuous force that keep the steel molecules to stay closer to
getter as long as the squeeze force was there,and that would create
friction. Much like its hotter under a 20 thousand ton block of iron
than on its top. Bert