Paper - Sun not powered by H fusion

[turbo]

This is a pretty interesting theory on the evolution of stars and planetary systems. If you have the bandwidth, watch the movie linked in the paper. Has anybody seen this movie before, and are there alternate interpretations?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0511/0511379.pdf

 

[Spin_Network]

This is a pretty interesting theory on the evolution of stars and planetary systems. If you have the bandwidth, watch the movie linked in the paper. Has anybody seen this movie before, and are there alternate interpretations?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0511/0511379.pdf

Turbo its much better if you can give abstract links?..I clicked your link above and it does not work?..I find if the poster links directly do a paper that he/she has opened on their computer, then there are always problems, especially if you have since closed the PDF!

 

[nbo10]

The paper link works for me. It doesn't matter if turbo closed the pdf. If you go to lanl and get the paper you will receive the same link.

 

[Spin_Network]

The paper link works for me. It doesn't matter if turbo closed the pdf. If you go to lanl and get the paper you will receive the same link.

Ok thanks, I have done a search, is this the paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0511379

if so then its a problem my end, thanks again.

 

[turbo]

Ok thanks, I have done a search, is this the paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0511379
if so then its a problem my end, thanks again.

Yes, that's the one. I'll try to link to abstracts in the future - at least there are sometimes options for searching citations on the abstract page, and options for the paper's display (HTML, PDF, etc).

 

[Chronos]

Looks like Mozina is still pedaling his 'sun is a supernova remnant' theory. He is clearly thinking outside the box. I lean toward the hydrogen fusion model.

 

[Entropy]

Wow, I was completely was under the impression that the hydrogen fusion model was pretty concrete. Guess there are some alternative theories.

 

[Chronos]

Your impression is shared by many.

 

[franznietzsche]

Wow, I was completely was under the impression that the hydrogen fusion model was pretty concrete. Guess there are some alternative theories.

Just like creationism is an alternative theory to evolution [/sarcasm]
edit: That may be prematurely unfair. I have yet to actually read the article, but I am certainly skeptical. Mostly I was just venting pent-up ridicule potential largely intended for Kansas.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

So, we're allowed to discuss a non-fusion theory of the Sun, but not the Venus/Earth rotation resonance hypothesis, despite the fact that there is more prima facie evidence for rotational resonance.

What's up with that?

 

[Phobos]

So, we're allowed to discuss a non-fusion theory of the Sun, but not the Venus/Earth rotation resonance hypothesis, despite the fact that there is more prima facie evidence for rotational resonance.
What's up with that?

Next time you have a concern like this, please send a PM to the forum mentors rather than hijacking another's topic. If you don't like moderated forums such as PF, there are plenty of unmoderated forums available on the internet. And, as previously mentioned to you, you are allowed to discuss your hypothesis at PF...in the proper forum (Independent Research).

 

[Phobos]

That said, whether this topic stays open depends on whether turbo-1 wants to promote the paper (a task for the Independent Research forum) or have a critical review of it from the viewpoint of mainstream astronomy.

 

[turbo]

I would like to know what others think of this paper, and whether the observation of fixed long-term solar features can be reproduced. I certainly would appreciate some discussion of this (admittedly off-beat) paper. The video is particularly compelling, and I have a hard time reconciling it with our conventional "ball of hydrogen" model of the Sun.

 

[Chronos]

Spectrometric studies suggest the sun, as well as most other stars in the observable universe, is composed largely of hydrogen. And it is fairly well established, both in theory and practice [e.g., the hydrogen bomb], that fusion will occur when hydrogen is sufficiently pressurized - by means such as gravitational collapse. Neutron stars, which are widely believed to be supernova remnants, radiate very strongly at x-ray wavelengths - something not observed in the case of the sun or other 'normal' stars. So far as reproducing 'fixed long-term solar features', that is an open issue. In my mind, this is not far removed from asserting the ocean is not composed of water by pointing out our inability to explain the California coastline.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I would like to know what others think of this paper, and whether the observation of fixed long-term solar features can be reproduced.

Notice:

1) There are no calculations in their paper.
2) None of their papers were in major astronomy journals.
3) Their paper contains statements like:

"Other measurements [7-9] independently confirmed that the Sun selectively moves lighter ions into the photosphere, over the mass range of A = 25-207 amu [8], leaving little doubt that the interior of the Sun is iron-rich..."

This is a pretty clearcut case of crackpottery. The standard solar model has not only succeeded in explaining nearly everything we know about the sun, but also predicting the SOHO results and neutrino flux. In fact, it was these high-precision solar models that led physicists to our current understanding of the neutrino!

 

[turbo]

The standard solar model has not only succeeded in explaining nearly everything we know about the sun, but also predicting the SOHO results and neutrino flux.

Thank you. What I find compelling, however, is that the sequence of images linked to that paper in the form of an animation shows stable features on (or just inside) the Sun rotating as if the Sun were a rigid body, with no sign of latitudinal differential rotation. Regardless of the merits of the remainder of the paper, this observation does not seem to reconcile with the concept that the Sun is a fluid mass of Hydrogen. If the observation is real and repeatable, what does this portend for our model of solar structure?

I understand that your interpretation of the observations may differ widely from those of the authors; however, the observations remain, and if they are real, they must be explained. Can they be explained in a manner consistent with the model in which the Sun is a giant ball of Hydrogen undergoing fusion?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Thank you. What I find compelling, however, is that the sequence of images linked to that paper in the form of an animation shows stable features on (or just inside) the Sun rotating as if the Sun were a rigid body, with no sign of latitudinal differential rotation.

What movie? The only one I see linked in that paper is this one:

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828."

We've known for many years that the sun has differential rotation and have even measured its dependence on height. Whether or not it would appear in that movie depends on the time and length scale.

 

[turbo]

What movie? The only one I see linked in that paper is this one:

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828."

We've known for many years that the sun has differential rotation and have even measured its dependence on height. Whether or not it would appear in that movie depends on the time and length scale.

I'm sorry, ST. I bookmarked a raft of links following up on that paper and forgot that this animation was not linked directly in the paper, but was embedded in a reference. The URL is:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The Surface Of The Sun_0001.wmv

Mozina grabbed these images from the SOHO archive and put them in sequence so they look like an animation like a flip-book. The sequence shows persisitant structures rotating as if the Sun were a rigid body over a period of several weeks.

 

[turbo]

Does anybody have an explanation?

I'm still quite curious about the SOHO image flip-book movie that appears to show the Sun rotating as if it were a rigid body, with no differential rotation. Any comments?

 

[SpaceTiger]

I'm still quite curious about the SOHO image flip-book movie that appears to show the Sun rotating as if it were a rigid body, with no differential rotation. Any comments?

It looks to me like structures are smeared in exactly the sense one would expect from differential rotation. If the data were showing significant deviations from what we expect from current models of the sun, I'm sure the SOHO people would speak up. It's certainly to their benefit to do so.

 

[Chronos]

Surely we are not talking about shear in solar rotation. That is beyond obvious. Solar interferometry clearly shows differential movement.

 

[turbo]

Surely we are not talking about shear in solor rotation. That is beyond obvious. Solar interferometry clearly shows differential movement.

It is beyond obvious, to be sure, in the photosphere. This little animation is another thing entirely, and if it comes from raw SOHO data, our observations of the photosphere are insufficient to explain the nature of the Sun.

 

[SpaceTiger]

It is beyond obvious, to be sure, in the photosphere. This little animation is another thing entirely, and if it comes from raw SOHO data, our observations of the photosphere are insufficient to explain the nature of the Sun.

Sounds like you are promoting the paper. What are basing this claim on? What specific structures appear not to be differentially rotating?

 

[turbo]

Sounds like you are promoting the paper. What are basing this claim on? What specific structures appear not to be differentially rotating?

I have no dog in this hunt. I am intrigued by the flip-book movie of SOHO images, though. Try this: download the movie and watch it at regular speed to identify some features near the poles that you might want to follow later. Then speed up the playback (I used the Windows media player's FF speed of 5X) to see if there are signs of shear or differential rotation. To me the artifacts near the poles seem to rotate with the same period as the artifacts near the equator. I would love to see this done over a period of months to see if major structures persist, change, or disappear, and in what kind of time-frame.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I would love to see this done over a period of months to see if major structures persist, change, or disappear, and in what kind of time-frame.

Yeah, I think you'd need at least that much to clearly see the differential rotation. Remember that the period only changes from about 25 days at the equator to 28 days at the pole. This video only covers about one rotation period, so the large-scale structures on the surface should only be show subtle distortion by the end of the clip. When combined with the other turbulent motions that are clearly present, I don't see how anyone could claim, from this video alone, that the sun wasn't differentially rotating.

 

[Labguy]

The outer layers of the Sun exhibit differential rotation: at the equator the surface rotates once every 25.4 days; near the poles it's as much as 36 days.

http://www.seds.org/billa/tnp/sol.html

 

[SpaceTiger]

After checking several sources, I found a surprising amount of disagreement on this issue. I decided it might be best to get a little bit more precision from a technical source (http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2005-1/title.html"). Here's the relevant figure:

http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/fig01.png"

It gives the angular frequency of the sun's rotation as a function of depth and latitude. For reference, 460 nHz is about 25 days and 350 nHz is about 33 days. As you can see, the answer depends sensitively on what depth you're talking about and what latitude we're calling "near the poles".

For the purposes of the discussion here, I can't really make out structures at latitudes greater than about 60 degrees, so the relevant range at the surface would be 25 to 31 days. Of course, these iron emissions may not all be coming from the surface, so there's still some ambiguity, but I think it's still fair to say that we aren't going to be able to say much from just a casual inspection of the video.

 

[Labguy]

Excellent link (first one). And no, that little video can't tell us much. More along the lines of "public education".

 

[Chronos]

Spectrometric studies [e.g., the one ST gave] clearly refute this nonsense.

 

[Nereid]

Oliver Manuel is 'Mr Iron Sun'; Michael Mozina is 'Mr Sun Has A Solid Surface'.

Both topics were discussed, at great length, in the BAUT Forum (formed by the merger of Phil Plait's BadAstronomy Forum and Fraser Cain's UniverseToday Forum), with both protagonists doing a sterling job of not answering specific, quantitative questions asked of them, about their ideas (they were both banned, in the end).

The captivating videos provide an excellent lesson in the need to go to the source, and work through the details of how they were created. IIRC, they are 'running difference' images; the relevant SOHO instrument website (TRACE, IIRC) lays it all out in great detail.

As SpaceTiger said, and Chronos hinted, this is among the most refined crackpottery (variety astronomy) on the web today.

(If anyone would like more details, send me a PM; I'll be happy to provide links).