|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #405 Atom Totality 4th ed
Subject: Chapt32 planet cores and star core evidence ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS Sometimes you really have to be awfully lucky to find a single piece of evidence that destroys not just one heavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. The evidence I speak of is the cores of the Sun and the planets and their satellites and the cores of stars. The two theories that are destroyed by these cores is the Big Bang and the Nebular Dust Cloud theories. Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge, but not as huge as the cores of Mercury and Earth in terms of relative density. Earth has the most dense mass in our Solar System followed by Mercury. Mercury is essentially one big core with a small mantle and crust. The core of the Sun is very hot and is not a solid. The cores of Jupiter and Saturn satellites such as Io, and Europa and Titan are what this issue is all about for they are anomalous to the cores of their parent Outer Planets. The cores of Io and Europa closely match the core of Earth and Mercury relative to the rest of the body. So one cannot have a Io or Europa develop from a Nebular Dust Cloud. The cores of Jupiter and Saturn are small relative to their own satellites and relative to Earth and Mercury. I dare any physicist to run a computer simulation where you start the Solar System with a Nebular Dust Cloud theory and end up with the cores of the present situation. There is no physics that I know of that can give us a Io and a Europa that is so anomalous. And the cores of the Solar System is a dating or age reckoning measure. Just as stars that are old have a large iron core. So the Sun and Inner- planets because of their large cores are twice as old as the Outer-planets and their satellites. So because our Solar System has two layered ages of 5 billion and 10 billion years old, means that the Big Bang theory cannot be true with its single age but must have different layered ages. So here we have a obvious measurable fact of cores for the Solar System and those data do not support either the Big Bang theory or Nebular Dust Cloud theory. What the core data supports is the Atom Totality theory and the Growing Solar System from Dirac new-radioactivity theory. I think this is a very valuable and precious evidence, for we cannot have a broad and wide and consistent understanding of the Cosmos if we do not understand the most important features of our own Solar System that is directly related to the Cosmos. And the basic feature is the cores of Sun, of planets and of satellites. The issue of cores is so important for Cosmology as it is for geology. For one, it is more believable of an issue than are many astronomical measures and observations because it is our own backyard so to speak. And because of the enormous hidden assumptions that goes into all measuring and observing outside our solar system. Most binary star claims have enormous hidden assumptions that goes into their reckoning of whether two stars are binary or not binary. The Freedman vs. Sandage debate over age of stars and age of Cosmos is a contentious and fudging debate where many "excuses" can enter and so logic and science is debauched. But when we have our own Solar System measurements come into the picture as to whether Big Bang or Atom Totality is true, it is much more difficult to have hidden assumptions and to deny the data and evidence. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #405 Atom Totality 4thed
Le 30/04/11 21:21, Archimedes Plutonium a crit :
Subject: Chapt32 planet cores and star core evidence ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS Sometimes you really have to be awfully lucky to find a single piece of evidence that destroys not just one heavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. The evidence I speak of is the cores of the Sun and the planets and their satellites and the cores of stars. The two theories that are destroyed by these cores is the Big Bang and the Nebular Dust Cloud theories. Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge, Evidence: The sun has no iron core. The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26 percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65 percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core Before you start making theories about the universe please read an elementary text of astronomy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #405 Atom Totality 4th ed
On Apr 30, 5:07*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : Subject: Chapt32 planet cores and star core evidence * ATOM TOTALITY (Atom * Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS Sometimes you really have to be awfully lucky to find a single piece * of evidence that destroys not just one * heavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. The * evidence I speak of is the cores of the * Sun and the planets and their satellites and the cores of stars. The two theories that are * destroyed by these cores is the * Big Bang and the Nebular Dust Cloud theories. Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge, Evidence: The sun has no iron core. The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26 percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65 percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core Before you start making theories about the universe please read an elementary text of astronomy. I suppose schools never teach people how "to think". For example, the above thinks the Sun has no atoms of iron within the Sun. Nor does most texts on astronomy ever consider that the Sun has iron atoms. And the number of those atoms of iron are concentrated in the core of the Sun. And the size of the Sun is so enormous compared to Earth, that how much of the core of the Sun would be iron atoms compared to the iron atoms in the Earth core. So it is sad that schools seem to never teach students-- how to think, rather expects them to be parrots of textbooks. AP |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #405 Atom Totality 4thed
Le 01/05/11 05:10, Archimedes Plutonium a crit :
On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob wrote: Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge, Evidence: The sun has no iron core. The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26 percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65 percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core Before you start making theories about the universe please read an elementary text of astronomy. I suppose schools never teach people how "to think". For example, the above thinks the Sun has no atoms of iron within the Sun. Of course there are atoms of iron in the Sun. There is a difference between having "some atoms of iron" and having "an iron core". But you do not see the difference because you know how to think :-) The Sun is mostly made up of hydrogen (about 92.1% of the number of atoms, 75% of the mass). Helium can also be found in the Sun (7.8% of the number of atoms and 25% of the mass). The other 0.1% is made up of heavier elements, mainly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon and iron. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/sun101.html Nor does most texts on astronomy ever consider that the Sun has iron atoms. Fact: Most texts of astronomy will tell that the composition of the sun has some iron in small quantities since it was present in the gas and dust cloud from which the solar system evolved. And the number of those atoms of iron are concentrated in the core of the Sun. No. You see them also in the surface. Go to the SOHO site and see the magnetographs of the Sun in the light of iron. And the size of the Sun is so enormous compared to Earth, that how much of the core of the Sun would be iron atoms compared to the iron atoms in the Earth core. Now you are saying "The sun has more iron than the earth", what is completely different to saying: "The sun has an iron core". Now, the mass of the sun is 1.98892 10^30 kg The mass of the earth is 5.9742 10^24 Kg If 0.1% of the mass of the sun is in heavy elements (The seven elements mentioned above) we have a mass of 1.98892 x 10 ^ 27Kg in heavy elements. We divide by 7 assuming all heavy elements are in equal quantities: 2.84 x 10 ^ 26 Kg of iron, i.e. 0.0142% of the mass of the sun. This is surely not an iron CORE. What experimental or observational evidence you have to support your claim? Has any researcher detected this iron core in the seismic waves that go periodically through all the sun? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #406 Atom Totality 4th ed
On May 1, 1:11*am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob *wrote: Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge, Evidence: The sun has no iron core. The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26 percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that Alright, Schools still do not teach students "how to think" but mostly how to be a parrot of the text and lecturer. Now think for a moment as to how much iron is in the Sun if it were 0.01% of the total Sun's composition? Would that iron be greater than the iron found in Earth or in Jupiter? Would that iron be anomalous to what the Nebular Dust Cloud would predict? If the Nebular Dust Cloud theory was correct, then the amount of overall iron found in Jupiter should be far greater than any of its satellites and the iron found in Jupiter should be on par in overall amount to that found in the Sun. But the iron overall amount is far different between Sun and Jupiter. occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65 percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core Do you honestly think those numbers have any accuracy? Do you think those numbers are only someone's best wild guess, with an accuracy of error of 5% for hydrogen, helium and all the other elements? And with that error of 5%, do you not think it ridiculous to use Sun's composition to uphold any theory? Before you start making theories about the universe please read an elementary text of astronomy. I have read plenty of them, but I never want to be a parrot to any book. I suppose schools never teach people how "to think". For example, the above thinks the Sun has no atoms of iron within the Sun. Of course there are atoms of iron in the Sun. There is a difference between having "some atoms of iron" and having "an iron core". But you do not see the difference because you know how to think :-) Granted, I probably overstated that by saying iron core. I should have said something to the effect of a overall-iron composition is larger than the total mass of Earth. The Sun is mostly made up of hydrogen (about 92.1% of the number of atoms, 75% of the mass). Helium can also be found in the Sun (7.8% of the number of atoms and 25% of the mass). The other 0.1% is made up of heavier elements, mainly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon and iron.http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/sun101.html Nor does most texts on astronomy ever consider that the Sun has iron atoms. Fact: Most texts of astronomy will tell that the composition of the sun has some iron in small quantities since it was present in the gas and dust cloud from which the solar system evolved. Well, when you start with a fake theory-- Nebular Dust Cloud, you would want to reconcile why Jupiter satellites are so iron rich, and which would trashcan the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. And the number of those atoms of iron are concentrated in the core of the Sun. No. You see them also in the surface. Go to the SOHO site and see the magnetographs of the Sun in the light of iron. For once, instead of going to thousands of sites; stop and think for yourself, and rely on commonsense and logic, not on what so and so says. And the size of the Sun is so enormous compared to Earth, that how much of the core of the Sun would be iron atoms compared to the iron atoms in the Earth core. Now you are saying "The sun has more iron than the earth", what is completely different to saying: "The sun has an iron core". Now, the mass of the sun is 1.98892 10^30 kg The mass of the earth is 5.9742 10^24 Kg If 0.1% of the mass of the sun is in heavy elements (The seven elements mentioned above) we have a mass of 1.98892 x 10 ^ 27Kg in heavy elements. We divide by 7 assuming all heavy elements are in equal quantities: 2.84 x 10 ^ 26 Kg of iron, i.e. 0.0142% of the mass of the sun. This is surely not an iron CORE. Alright, I agree I misused "core concept". I should have used "overall iron composition" So the Nebular Dust Cloud theory fails in overall iron composition data of the solar system bodies. Fails because the satellites of Jupiter should not have that much iron and that Jupiter should have gravitationally scavenged that iron in the Dust Cloud of the proto- Jupiter. What experimental or observational evidence *you have to support your claim? Has any researcher detected this iron core in the seismic waves that go periodically through all the sun? There maybe a iron layer in the Sun and the Sun maybe a core of dense heavy elements. Maybe our detection instruments have not yet evolved to such a delicate measuring of the Sun center. Anyway, in overall summary, the Solar System simply does not agree of its chemistry composition of the interiors of the bodies as per iron with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Why the inner planets are so dense of cores is contradictory to a Solar System built by a Nebular Dust Cloud. And it is high time for people to stop being parrots of astronomy texts and lectures, and use their own commonsense and logic. Now I thank the above poster for forcing me to clarify about cores because I have used that term too loosely. I meant something more to the effect of "overall iron composition" within the entire body. So that concept of Overall Iron Composition is anomalous with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory, but not anomalous with Dirac's new-radioactivities. In Dirac's new radioactivities, we multiply the atoms upward with age of the body. So that Earth is twice the overall-iron-composition than Jupiter because it is twice as old. Now I am not saying that Europa is older than Jupiter because of overall iron composition, but that Jupiter has the same overall-iron-composition as does Europa, and the problem is that the astronomers have never measured or able to accurately measure the iron within Jupiter to verify. And the overall-iron-composition of the Sun is on par with the Earth's overall iron composition, indicating that Earth and Sun are of the same age-- 8 to 10 billion years old. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #407 Atom Totality 4th ed
On May 1, 2:46*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: On May 1, 1:11*am, jacob navia wrote: Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob *wrote: Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : Well, now, here is something worthwhile for Jacob to look into and investigate in a manner of science. To look into how astronomers "think they know" whether the Sun has a iron core or does not have an iron core. For Earth, this question is simply answered because we send and probe with radio waves into the interior of Earth. But as for the chemical composition of the Sun and whether it has a iron core or not, is perhaps only someone's best wild guess as to whether the Sun has or has not an iron core. So Jacob, instead of reading another book or website that only reinforces a poor and false notion of the Sun's interior and chemical composition, why not track down how those books end up with their likely false conclusions of a Sun iron core. Find out the techniques involved when an astronomer claims the Sun has no iron core. Find out how astronomers claim that only 0.1% of the Sun is iron or heavier elements? Could it be also, that the claim of 0.1% is mostly begot from Cosmic abundance and then that general abundance is spuriously assigned to the Sun's interior chemical element abundance? So you see Jacob, being a scientist means more about checking into and judging the means of testing, rather than science being that of reading a textbook or how many websites all agree of no Sun iron core. Use and rely more on commonsense and logic, Jacob, then relying on what ten textbooks and websites agree upon. So, commonsense, Jacob, tells us that their is more iron in the Sun than there is the entire Earth mass. So, now, if we took all that iron in the Sun, where would it likely be situated? Would that iron be diffuse throughout the Sun, or would it form a core in the Sun? If a core, it would be like a iron ball the size of Earth at the center of the Sun. Or would it take on a hollow sphere like iron hollow sphere? So, being a Scientist, Jacob, means reading the texts, and even though all agree no Sun iron core, being a true scientist means that you use commonsense and logic rather than consensus agreement as the search for truth. And in this search for the truth, means then, to check into how those consensus scientist arrived at their pitiful consensus conclusion. Pitiful because they lacked using commonsense and logic. So, Jacob, do not shovel people more websites and more texts, but begin to use the most valuable science tool possible, commonsense, logic and a desire to dive deeper into the unknown. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #407 Atom Totality 4thed
Le 01/05/11 22:33, Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :
On May 1, 2:46 am, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: On May 1, 1:11 am, jacob wrote: Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob wrote: Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : Well, now, here is something worthwhile for Jacob to look into and investigate in a manner of science. To look into how astronomers "think they know" whether the Sun has a iron core or does not have an iron core. For Earth, this question is simply answered because we send and probe with radio waves into the interior of Earth. No. Radio waves do not go through the whole planet... As you may know, radio waves need a transparent medium (like all electromagnetic waves). That is why doesn't go through walls, for instance. To believe that radio waves go through the whole planet to "probe the interior of the earth" is to make such an absurd claim that there is no point in discussing further your "theories". So, commonsense, Jacob, tells us that their is more iron in the Sun than there is the entire Earth mass. So, now, if we took all that iron in the Sun, where would it likely be situated? Would that iron be diffuse throughout the Sun, or would it form a core in the Sun? If a core, it would be like a iron ball the size of Earth at the center of the Sun. Or would it take on a hollow sphere like iron hollow sphere? The sun has no solid core, and it is a gas all the way to the center. This gas has at the core a density of 160 times that of water. Very dense and well mixed. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #408 Atom Totality 4th ed
On May 2, 1:46 am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 01/05/11 22:33, Archimedes Plutonium a crit : On May 1, 2:46 am, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: On May 1, 1:11 am, jacob wrote: Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob wrote: Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : Well, now, here is something worthwhile for Jacob to look into and investigate in a manner of science. To look into how astronomers "think they know" whether the Sun has a iron core or does not have an iron core. For Earth, this question is simply answered because we send and probe with radio waves into the interior of Earth. No. Radio waves do not go through the whole planet... Are you sure about that? Of course seismic waves have elucidated the Earth iron core. But how can we ever get seismic Sun data? So we need some sort of EM wave, like radio waves to start to make a science of the Sun interior rather than these panderings in books. As you may know, radio waves need a transparent medium (like all electromagnetic waves). That is why doesn't go through walls, for instance. You need some EM wave to penetrate the Sun's interior. To believe that radio waves go through the whole planet to "probe the interior of the earth" is to make such an absurd claim that there is no point in discussing further your "theories". So, then, run away and flog another scientist who wants to understand the sun interior, not like you who takes a book's word for it. So, commonsense, Jacob, tells us that their is more iron in the Sun than there is the entire Earth mass. So, now, if we took all that iron in the Sun, where would it likely be situated? Would that iron be diffuse throughout the Sun, or would it form a core in the Sun? If a core, it would be like a iron ball the size of Earth at the center of the Sun. Or would it take on a hollow sphere like iron hollow sphere? The sun has no solid core, and it is a gas all the way to the center. This gas has at the core a density of 160 times that of water. Very dense and well mixed. So how do you know the Sun has no solid core? Because ten books and websites say so, and you fail to investigate how they came to such a conclusion? Did they run sound waves through the Sun, like Earth? Did they just make a wild guess and printed it in a book and then everyone else parrots the same "wild guess"? So you keep harping that the Sun has no solid core and is a gas through and through, but you never tell any detail as to how any scientist came to such a conclusion via hard core experimental results and observations. And how was that data arrived at, of 160 times water? Was it another wild guess on the part of a book writer and then thousands of readers parrot that number of 160. How do you know it is dense and well mixed? It could be hard layers of metal, or could be like the Moho-layer in Earth of a hard layer. Have you made the calculations of whether atoms of heavy elements would tend to sink towards the center of the Sun and form a fluid metal core? You have a problem, Jacob, of reading books and websites and basing your science knowledge on how many times people say the same thing, when instead, to be a scientist, you should base your science knowledge not on the publicity of a science subject, but on logic and commonsense and rational reasoning. Peel away the layers of opinion and wild guesses and go for the data that is supported by solid experiment and observational data. There is no data that confirms the Sun has no iron liquid core. There is no data that the Sun interior is all gaseous state. The amount of iron in the Sun is so much that it could make a solid iron Earth and place that iron Earth as the center of the Sun. And to date, there has been no astronomical search to see if the Sun has a Earth like iron liquid center. Since we cannot use seismic waves that is why I say EM radio waves. Perhaps there is a EM wave that can penetrate and reflect back as to whether the Sun has this iron ball for its center. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #408 Atom Totality 4thed
Le 03/05/11 08:31, Archimedes Plutonium a crit :
On May 2, 1:46 am, jacob wrote: Le 01/05/11 22:33, Archimedes Plutonium a crit : On May 1, 2:46 am, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: On May 1, 1:11 am, jacob wrote: Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob wrote: Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma crit : Well, now, here is something worthwhile for Jacob to look into and investigate in a manner of science. To look into how astronomers "think they know" whether the Sun has a iron core or does not have an iron core. For Earth, this question is simply answered because we send and probe with radio waves into the interior of Earth. No. Radio waves do not go through the whole planet... Are you sure about that? Of course seismic waves have elucidated the Earth iron core. But how can we ever get seismic Sun data? So we need some sort of EM wave, like radio waves to start to make a science of the Sun interior rather than these panderings in books. As you may know, radio waves need a transparent medium (like all electromagnetic waves). That is why doesn't go through walls, for instance. You need some EM wave to penetrate the Sun's interior. NO. To believe that radio waves go through the whole planet to "probe the interior of the earth" is to make such an absurd claim that there is no point in discussing further your "theories". So, then, run away and flog another scientist who wants to understand the sun interior, not like you who takes a book's word for it. So, commonsense, Jacob, tells us that their is more iron in the Sun than there is the entire Earth mass. So, now, if we took all that iron in the Sun, where would it likely be situated? Would that iron be diffuse throughout the Sun, or would it form a core in the Sun? If a core, it would be like a iron ball the size of Earth at the center of the Sun. Or would it take on a hollow sphere like iron hollow sphere? The sun has no solid core, and it is a gas all the way to the center. This gas has at the core a density of 160 times that of water. Very dense and well mixed. So how do you know the Sun has no solid core? Because ten books and websites say so, and you fail to investigate how they came to such a conclusion? Did they run sound waves through the Sun, like Earth? Did they just make a wild guess and printed it in a book and then everyone else parrots the same "wild guess"? So you keep harping that the Sun has no solid core and is a gas through and through, but you never tell any detail as to how any scientist came to such a conclusion via hard core experimental results and observations. And how was that data arrived at, of 160 times water? Was it another wild guess on the part of a book writer and then thousands of readers parrot that number of 160. How do you know it is dense and well mixed? It could be hard layers of metal, or could be like the Moho-layer in Earth of a hard layer. Have you made the calculations of whether atoms of heavy elements would tend to sink towards the center of the Sun and form a fluid metal core? You have a problem, Jacob, of reading books and websites and basing your science knowledge on how many times people say the same thing, when instead, to be a scientist, you should base your science knowledge not on the publicity of a science subject, but on logic and commonsense and rational reasoning. Peel away the layers of opinion and wild guesses and go for the data that is supported by solid experiment and observational data. There is no data that confirms the Sun has no iron liquid core. There is no data that the Sun interior is all gaseous state. The amount of iron in the Sun is so much that it could make a solid iron Earth and place that iron Earth as the center of the Sun. And to date, there has been no astronomical search to see if the Sun has a Earth like iron liquid center. Since we cannot use seismic waves that is why I say EM radio waves. Perhaps there is a EM wave that can penetrate and reflect back as to whether the Sun has this iron ball for its center. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies If you would stop ranting about books and READ SOMETHING you would know that there is a whole field of science that is the study of seismic waves in stars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroseismology Using those waves we can probe into the center of the stars and study their structure like here in earth we use seismic waves to study the structure of the earth. Using seismic waves (NOT EM waves) we can deduce the structure of the core of the earth, the mantle etc. The same can be done with the stars. Of course that is only for people that want to LEARN something. You know nothing since you do not read any books nor websites nor nothing. You think you know everything and you say "There is no data". Of course, if you refuse to read any data then you can go on thinking there is "NO DATA" but the only thing that you actually do is to make a fool of yourself. But if you do not like books do a simple experiment with your cell phone. Star talking to somebody in your phone. Then go down the stairs of the subway and descend as much as you can... You will notice that reception quality goes down very quickly, specially in the middle of the tunnel. There are some repeaters probably, that retransmit the phone radio waves but not that much. That will be a PROOF that radio waves do not go very far down the earth, a few meters of walls or earth suffices to stop them completely. Now, your theory of a liquid iron core at the center of the sun is nonsense. The pressures and temperatures are completely different than in earth: the sun is a star and the earth is a minuscule planet. There is NO WAY the cores of such a different objects would be the same! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Asteroseismology Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #409 AtomTotality 4th ed
On May 3, 2:17*am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 03/05/11 08:31,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : On May 2, 1:46 am, jacob *wrote: Le 01/05/11 22:33,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : On May 1, 2:46 am,ArchimedesPlutonium * wrote: On May 1, 1:11 am, jacob * wrote: Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob * * wrote: Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit : Well, now, here is something worthwhile for Jacob to look into and investigate in a manner of science. To look into how astronomers "think they know" whether the Sun has a iron core or does not have an iron core. For Earth, this question is simply answered because we send and probe with radio waves into the interior of Earth. No. Radio waves do not go through the whole planet... Are you sure about that? Of course seismic waves have elucidated the Earth iron core. But how can we ever get seismic Sun data? So we need some sort of EM wave, like radio waves to start to make a science of the Sun interior rather than these panderings in books. As you may know, radio waves need a transparent medium (like all electromagnetic waves). That is why doesn't go through walls, for instance. You need some EM wave to penetrate the Sun's interior. NO. To believe that radio waves go through the whole planet to "probe the interior of the earth" is to make such an absurd claim that there is no point in discussing further your "theories". So, then, run away and flog another scientist who wants to understand the sun interior, not like you who takes a book's word for it. So, commonsense, Jacob, tells us that their is more iron in the Sun than there is the entire Earth mass. So, now, if we took all that iron in the Sun, where would it likely be situated? Would that iron be diffuse throughout the Sun, or would it form a core in the Sun? If a core, it would be like a iron ball the size of Earth at the center of the Sun. Or would it take on a hollow sphere like iron hollow sphere? The sun has no solid core, and it is a gas all the way to the center. This gas has at the core a density of 160 times that of water. Very dense and well mixed. So how do you know the Sun has no solid core? Because ten books and websites say so, and you fail to investigate how they came to such a conclusion? Did they run sound waves through the Sun, like Earth? Did they just make a wild guess and printed it in a book and then everyone else parrots the same "wild guess"? So you keep harping that the Sun has no solid core and is a gas through and through, but you never tell any detail as to how any scientist came to such a conclusion via hard core experimental results and observations. And how was that data arrived at, of 160 times water? Was it another wild guess on the part of a book writer and then thousands of readers parrot that number of 160. How do you know it is dense and well mixed? It could be hard layers of metal, or could be like the Moho-layer in Earth of a hard layer. Have you made the calculations of whether atoms of heavy elements would tend to sink towards the center of the Sun and form a fluid metal core? You have a problem, Jacob, of reading books and websites and basing your science knowledge on how many times people say the same thing, when instead, to be a scientist, you should base your science knowledge not on the publicity of a science subject, but on logic and commonsense and rational reasoning. Peel away the layers of opinion and wild guesses and go for the data that is supported by solid experiment and observational data. There is no data that confirms the Sun has no iron liquid core. There is no data that the Sun interior is all gaseous state. The amount of iron in the Sun is so much that it could make a solid iron Earth and place that iron Earth as the center of the Sun. And to date, there has been no astronomical search to see if the Sun has a Earth like iron liquid center. Since we cannot use seismic waves that is why I say EM radio waves. Perhaps there is a EM wave that can penetrate and reflect back as to whether the Sun has this iron ball for its center. ArchimedesPlutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies If you would stop ranting about books and READ SOMETHING you would know that there is a whole field of science that is the study of seismic waves in *stars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroseismology --- quoting from that site --- Asteroseismology (from Greek ἀστήρ, astēr, "star"; σεισμός, seismos, "earthquake"; and -λογία, -logia) also known as stellar seismology[1] [2] is the science that studies the internal structure of pulsating stars by the interpretation of their frequency spectra. --- end quoting --- Using those waves we can probe into the center of the stars and study their structure like here in earth we use seismic waves to study the structure of the earth. The Sun is not a pulsating star, so what frequency spectra of the Sun can be interpreted? And notice the use of the word "interpretation" in that definition of Asteroseismology, because much of astronomy is half truths since so many assumptions (interpretations) goes into every report. Apparently Jacob thinks that some of the knowledge of our Sun was gained via this Asteroseismology. So Jacob, what do we know of the Sun that was gained by Asteroseismology? Jacob, you and your phone are only digging yourself deeper into a hole. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt32 Planet Core Evidence #404 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 29th 11 07:34 AM |
Chapt35 Binary Star Age evidence #401 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 26th 11 05:26 AM |
Chapt35 Binary Star evidence #400 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 25th 11 06:00 AM |
Chapt35 Binary Star evidence #399 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 23rd 11 08:12 PM |
Chapt35 binary star evidence #382 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 14 | April 3rd 11 09:44 PM |