Recovered: Iron Sun Theories

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

Hello All

Michael thank you for the link

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/

These discharges from opposite points (this is not clearly seen in fig. 250, however) brought to my mind a very strange picture of some enormous eruptions on the Sun (see fig. 251), reproduced from "Marvels of the Universe". On June 26th, 1885, M. TROUVELOT saw two huge prominences, each more than three hundred and fifty thousand miles in height, rising from the sun. Flames of such dimensions are exceedingly rare; it is therefore all the more significant that they rose exactly opposite to each other from the ends of the same diameter.

I think the main driving force is created by the Z-pinch within the core of the sun. Creating a vortex that ejects matter from the core and carries with it matter within the solar envelope explaining the explosive effects on opposite sides of the sun with about equal intensity. The Z- pinching within the solar enevelope is secondary.

==========================================
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/

Fantastic link
_________________
Smile and live another day

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "saul"

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum. Smile
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

Has to be at least as old as the Earth, right?

Theres no evidence the Earth is billions of years old either.
Billions of years is an assumption needed for Mainstream cosmology to be viable.

That is more of a question for geologists than cosmologists, mainstream or not. You have a lot of isotope ratios to explain, all to support the idea of an unstable massive shell inside the sun which only raises more problems than it solves.

Remember that the black "surface" and "mountains" in that picture are really just areas without that much excited Iron 15 (cooler areas) on a scale that boggles the mind. I see no evidence for solid material there. It looks like plasma to me. <shrug>

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

I think the idea of the sun mostly being a Ferrite/Iron Ball which has spawned the metal cores of most planets in the system. Silicates would likely be lifted and removed a long long time ago.

Well, silicates make up a lot of a planets crust. I would expect it would make up part of the solar crust a well. The surface is not likely to be where *all* the iron is concentrated. If there is a neutron core inside that shell, the shell of the neutron core likely contains a great deal of the iron and nickel that makeup the sun. It could be (I think it's likely) that the crust is more the density of something like Olivine, and not necessarily mostly iron, particularly not in every single location.

Given the extensive EDM of the sun, the "landforms" could actually be eroded or move. (Very very slowly, visually)

I see some evidence of surface erosion, volcanic activity, and crust fracture activity as well.

Isn't the Neutron Core model defunct in the EU? The sun is not a leftover NeutronStar Core. That is just part of a normal stars surface. I can't imagine that silicates, even miles thick, staying on the surface for very long. A mountainful of the material would be lifted each second until it was all removed. Iron seems to be more resilient in the face of EDM.

Basically, from reading this thread, and another is density and mass, plasma density and such. I think this work is key. We don't know if plasma density/current will affect apparent mass. Well, we are beginning to know, but it could take a long long time.

If we could get past this conundrum, we may be able make a detailed construction of the sun and it's "children".
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Tzunamii"

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum. Smile
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

Has to be at least as old as the Earth, right?

There's no evidence the Earth is billions of years old either.
Billions of years is an assumption needed for Mainstream cosmology to be viable.

That is more of a question for geologists than cosmologists, mainstream or not. You have a lot of isotope ratios to explain, all to support the idea of an unstable massive shell inside the sun which only raises more problems than it solves.

Remember that the black "surface" and "mountains" in that picture are really just areas without that much excited Iron 15 (cooler areas) on a scale that boggles the mind. I see no evidence for solid material there. It looks like plasma to me. <shrug>

All I was referring to was the assumed time-lines mainstream invokes, burying untestable assumptions, and treating it as fact.

The Thunderbolts team represents the strengths of interdisciplinary science, as disciplines with blinders have historically shown severe lack of perspective concerning the big picture. Specialization breeds in weakness.

As far as Iron Sun, we cant see past the surface of the sun, so any conclusions we draw is just speculation.
The reality of it will come in time.
As of now, both theories (Plasma/solid body) has its merits imo.

Last edited by Tzunamii on Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Isn't the Neutron Core model defunct in the EU?

Maybe. Maybe not. I personally believe that galaxies are oriented around a heavy object, but I think that heavy object is a neutron core "MECO", not a black hole. There are other ways IMO to explain "pulsars" than suggesting they contain neutron stars howvever.

The sun is not a leftover NeutronStar Core.

If a star has a neutron core, it still would have an outer "crust" or shell at or around .995R, much like our own sun. The core is not something I can see in satellite images however, so I can't say for sure our sun has one. It would however go a long way to explaining the 22 year cycle of the sun, and several timing issues related to heliosiesmology data, particularly if it's rotating every 5 minutes or so.

That is just part of a normal stars surface. I can't imagine that silicates, even miles thick, staying on the surface for very long. A mountainful of the material would be lifted each second until it was all removed. Iron seems to be more resilient in the face of EDM.

IMO, the crust of the sun is much like the crust of any planet, only it's more active and it's more malleable than the crust of a typical planet, mainly due to the surface temperatures.

Basically, from reading this thread, and another is density and mass, plasma density and such. I think this work is key. We don't know if plasma density/current will affect apparent mass. Well, we are beginning to know, but it could take a long long time.

I think it's critical that we recognize that EM fields could have a significant effect on what we think of the density of the sun in *actual* terms. Relative to us, it may have an "apparent/relative" density that seems much lower than it actually is. That is particularly true if the sun and the whole galaxy are being accelerated in the z-axis.

If we could get past this conundrum, we may be able make a detailed construction of the sun and it's "children".

The only thing I can be pretty sure of based on satellite images is that the sun's corona is experiencing an enormous amount of electrical current, and that current terminates at or around .995R, as though it's beginning and ending at a solid surface, much like the loops in Birkeland's early terella experiments. IMO Birkeland pegged the real model of the sun in his lab over 100 years ago. Whether or not it contains a "core" remains to be seen, but coincidently Birkeland's model did have a strong magnetic core, much we might get from a spinning neutron core.

It's also possible that the sun has a spinning core of heavy materials like iron and Nickel that have been stripped of so many electrons that they have a strong positive charge and repulse other charged plasma.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Isn't the Neutron Core model defunct in the EU?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... es/2007/33
You might take a gander at this Hubble news release about dying stars. One thing they seem to have in common is is bright glowing central "leftover" from the explosion. IMO that could be the core itself, while the shell and surrounding material is the part that actually "explodes" out into space.

The other thing to consider is that every solar formation theory seems to have a significant problem as it relates to conservation of energy, particularly as it relates to the spin rate of stars.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... tm#Angular

Stars "seem" to rotate far too leaving us with a significant amount of missing angular momentum that seems to be unaccounted for. Some of that missing momentum might found in a rapidly spinning neutron core, and we have to explain those bright "dots" at the center of supernovas in EU theory as well.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Hello All

Michael thank you for the link

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/

These discharges from opposite points (this is not clearly seen in fig. 250, however) brought to my mind a very strange picture of some enormous eruptions on the Sun (see fig. 251), reproduced from "Marvels of the Universe". On June 26th, 1885, M. TROUVELOT saw two huge prominences, each more than three hundred and fifty thousand miles in height, rising from the sun. Flames of such dimensions are exceedingly rare; it is therefore all the more significant that they rose exactly opposite to each other from the ends of the same diameter.

I think the main driving force is created by the Z-pinch within the core of the sun. Creating a vortex that ejects matter from the core and carries with it matter within the solar envelope explaining the explosive effects on opposite sides of the sun with about equal intensity. The Z- pinching within the solar enevelope is secondary.

==========================================
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mpeg/

Fantastic link

I think you are right in every respect. The core itself becomes a focal point of the "pinch".

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Why not a current going through the centre of the Sun ? And
we could get a pinch in the centre. This could push stuff away
from the centre leaving a hollow Sun and a shell of planet-
forming material at the surface. Other spheres formed
electrically show evidence of current going through the sphere,
so why not the planets and stars.

I'm quite certain that there is current flowing through the core of every physical body in space, planets and suns alike. I think your ideas about current flow have merit.

The 22 year cycle looks likely to be due to the double layers of
Saturn and Jupiter increasing the current to the Sun, when
they line up every 22 years.

Mo

That comment got my attention, particularly when I noticed that these two giant planets last aligned themselves in the summer of 2000 when the solar activity was at it's peak.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "iantresman"

I'm quite certain that there is current flowing through the core of every physical body in space, planets and suns alike. I think your ideas about current flow have merit.

A good paper on current pinches and the formation of stars is:

"Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars", Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P., in Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-50 (Abstract and full text)
_________________
Ian Tresman
http://www.plasma-universe.com

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Solar"

The 22 year cycle looks likely to be due to the double layers of
Saturn and Jupiter increasing the current to the Sun, when
they line up every 22 years.

Mo

I had to go back to this also. At first I thought that there may have been some natural increase/decrease to the 'pulse' of Birkeland currents powering the sun and/or some aspect of increase/decrease with the interstellar medium as a possible cause. I couldn't figure out what natural 22yr cycle could be influencing solar activity immediate or delayed. This now goes to the top of the list.

Thank you.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

Mysterious iron factory in the Early Universe
Analyzing the quasar's X-ray light, detected with the European X-ray satellite XMM-Newton, Günther Hasinger, Stefanie Komossa and Norbert Schartel noticed that the material streaming away from the center of the quasar contains huge amounts of iron. http://www.mpe-garching.mpg.de/Highligh ... 20708.html
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "SeaSmith"

````Would this 22 year alignment then also increase the magnetnic envelope of the sun, with its corresponding effects on the [ iron ] crustal [ apparent ] properties,
as alluded to in an earlier post by Plasmatic MnemoHistory ?

Post subject: Mira

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McCanney has posited in the 70s that io is creating jupiters magnetic field like a dynamo as Jupiter spins in relation to IO:

Quote:
VI. STELLAR AND PLANETARY MAGNETIC DYNAMOS
The standard explanation for planetary magnetic fields claims that electrical currents and resulting magnetic fields self generate in the interiors of stellar and planetary cores.(12) These "internal dynamo" theories, however, break down on two theoretical points: 1) they claim that purely mechanical processes produce electromagnetic effects, and 2) that fields can self-generate with no external mechanism to initialize or maintain this speculated process.
This paper proposes that the celestial magnetic dynamos are powered from outside by electrical interactions between charged orbiting bodies and both the stellar (or planetary) interior and upper atmosphere.
The empirical correlation between moons and planetary magnetic fields has been known for some time(13) and is unmistakably accurate, especially in light of recent Voyager I and II data. The original concept of Houben and Dermott provided for a gravitationally induced current flow caused by tidal action of the moon on the planet's fluid core.
With the realization that charged bodies exist in space, and that the Moon, Mercury and other celestial bodies wander from Keplerian orbits, the following generalizations can be stated. The basic assumption is that the magnetic fields are induced by the star or planet spinning inside a slightly charged orbiting body (note: comets generally exhibit side effects which suggest that they are highly charged compared to bodies in circular orbits. Therefore, the effects of a highly charged comet, passing by a star or planet, will be to greatly increase and/or alter the magnetic field of the star or planet. This is discussed also in Parts I and II of the paper).
In support of the externally generated dynamo theory, the Sun's magnetic field is controlled by Mercury and, considering the former's size in comparison to Saturn and Jupiter, is relatively small.(14) Also, the Sun rotates relatively slowly (again compared to Jupiter and Saturn).
Mercury rotates only once per orbital revolution and has no moon, so it has a negligible magnetic field.
Venus similarly has no moon, essentially no rotational spin, and no magnetic field.
Earth, however, has a large magnetic field for its size as it spins on its axis every 24 hours inside a large moon. Furthermore, the Moon's orbit lies outside Earth's protective radiation belts (the Van Allen Belts) and is exposed directly to the solar wind. This implies that it will charge, since its orbit takes it to varying positions within the solar capacitor.
The Moon rotates on its axis only once every 27 days, and thus it has no magnetic field.
Mars rotates rapidly as does Earth, but only has two insignificant asteroidal moons and therefore has a negligible magnetic field.
There may be certain asteroids which possess strong permanent magnetic fields, as they must have cooled past the curie temperatures of constituent materials while in strong external magnetic fields.
Jupiter has a large magnetic field as it spins once in approximately 10 hours inside the orbit of electrically charged Io.
Saturn's field is not nearly as strong as that of Jupiter even though its spin rate is approximately equal to that of Jupiter. This is because Dione is responsible for Saturn's field. Dione does not exhibit the same level of electrical discharge to Saturn as Io does to Jupiter. Saturn's field is well aligned with its spin axis because Dione's orbit lies exactly in Saturn's equatorial plane.
Using this information, the properties of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune may be anticipated. Uranus, even if it exhibits high levels of fusion in its atmosphere, will have a small field, probably well aligned with its spin axis.(15)
The internal dynamo theories, however, have poor empirical correlation. For example, Venus and Io have very active interiors, yet have no magnetic fields compared to Earth which is relatively cold and inactive, but which has a large magnetic field.
The externally generated dynamo proposal is enhanced when biological fossil records and magnetic reversal data are seen to coincide. The fossil record shows that a significant percentage of plant and animal species have died out concurrently with magnetic reversals, and that this is accompanied by periods of extensive volcanic activity, rapid stratification in lake beds, and crustal fracturing of the Earth's mantle. An excellent compilation of related references is available.(16)


The Nature and Origin of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part III)
J. M. McCanney
Copyright (c) 1981 & 1984

.........Sorry, i know McCanney is not a nice word around here....

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

Sorry, i know McCanney is not a nice word around here....

Well I think most would agree,throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a good idea! Very Happy If something is relevent ,its relevent ,IMO regardless of his other flights of fancey.
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: Magnetic Sun Reply with quote
OP "SeaSmith"

? -----Or latterday paranoia

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Iron Sun Theories Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

Tzunamii wrote:

Oh yeah, and hold the tension for several billion years. For some reason that may be too crazy even for this forum. Smile
Cheers -

What makes you think our Sun is billions of years old? Isn't that just a estimate based on gas stars?

Has to be at least as old as the Earth, right?

There's no evidence the Earth is billions of years old either.
Billions of years is an assumption needed for Mainstream cosmology to be viable.

That is more of a question for geologists than cosmologists, mainstream or not. You have a lot of isotope ratios to explain, all to support the idea of an unstable massive shell inside the sun which only raises more problems than it solves.

Remember that the black "surface" and "mountains" in that picture are really just areas without that much excited Iron 15 (cooler areas) on a scale that boggles the mind. I see no evidence for solid material there. It looks like plasma to me. <shrug>

All I was referring to was the assumed time-lines mainstream invokes, burying untestable assumptions, and treating it as fact.

The Thunderbolts team represents the strengths of interdisciplinary science, as disciplines with blinders have historically shown severe lack of perspective concerning the big picture. Specialization breeds in weakness.

As far as Iron Sun, we cant see past the surface of the sun, so any conclusions we draw is just speculation.
The reality of it will come in time.
As of now, both theories (Plasma/solid body) has its merits imo.[/quote]

As much as I would like to think we will ever know the true age of the earth, with the changes in isotope decay rates it's unlikely that we will ever know beynd "educated guesses".

I find it beneficial to go with releatively accepted timelines so that we all know what we are talking about for now.

Jurrasic , PreCambrian etc all have certain meanings that are useful in historic organization.

All this reminds me of the interesting hypothesis that the Dark Ages and such which we're defined during the 13-14th centuries were in error and 600 years were added (or so) due to errors in judgement of some few historians. Interesting? Yes, True? Who knows.

We can refine geologic time when we have a paradigm to fit it in. (The Paradigm will wash over Geology in due time...)
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn