Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: ImaFungi
The core is very dense, models estimate around 150 x that of water. So the material is really quite squeezed together.

The radiation released is in kenetic energy of the daughter nuclei (Helium-4) and the various gammas, positrons or electrons or neutrinos that are ejected as a result of fusion or subsequent decay. Energy isn't squeezed out as such. Different configurations of the nucleus have different stability and energy levels similar to atomic physics. Systems always want to be in the lowest state and so typically if you fuse two particles like in the sun, the resulting particle is in an excited state, and it will radiate a gamma in order to return to the ground state.

The last statement you make is closest to the model yes.

A helium atom is held together and in that configuration the mass of this system is less than 4 protons alone would be. This energy difference or mass difference is what energy is released during a decay or a fusion process. This is so called Binding energy, and is likely to do with the strong force and the exchange of gluons within the nucleus



While density is high, the material is not still not degenerate, so free flow of material is possible, even at this super high density, it is still considered a gas/fluid due to the high temperatures

Exactly what i would add to this is the pressure allows the temperature to reach 15 million degrees. So all that pressure causes the heat to allow fusion to occur Two protons combine to form a deuterium atom. Then a proton and a deuterium atom combine to form a helium-3 atom and a gamma ray.And finally Two helium-3 atoms combine to form a helium-4 atom and two protons. this accounts for somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the suns energy been a while dont remember exact number . Theirs some other processes which form even heavier elements but fusion only becomes possible with pressure and heat. Well as far as we know there is the illusive cold fusion but i think that thats more a fantasy than reality since the energy to actually do it far exceeds the return. Easy for the sun however because it can use its gravitational energy.

a reply to: dragonridr

We have discovered indeed gravity waves do exist just recently.

could you please give me the source ?

a reply to: ErosA433

Mass and weight are different things.

Yes I know. Unfortunately if I read the physical characteristics of the Sun I read a mass of (1.98855±0.00025)×10^30 kg
So I'm just asking WHERE ??
here on Earth with 9.81 m/s^2 G and 1kg = 1kg
or
on the Sun with 274m/s^2 G and 1kg = 27.93kg

But what you are kind of saying is that, you wouldn't believe measurements in the first place...

I would definitely don't trust the guy who sells me apples on the market without any weighing scale.

Well, we have measured it within a ring traced by the earth around the sun. It doesn't appear to change in that region. We have also pinged spacecraft in orbit around other planets in our solar system, and determined that those measurements are the same. So thats a pretty nice sphere of measurement.

this isn't far away, I mean more like 1000 parsec +

If EM waves do spread out over large distances many theories and models today would need a clean up.

And why would I say that you will ask, because of the EM properties, it does interact with itself under proper circumstances. Best proof of it are the slit experiments.
I am questioning the propagation velocity as well.


Going back to the Sun and the creation of the Solar system
here abundances graph of the elements in it

upload.wikimedia.org...

Those elements are from Super Nova explosion before the solar system, gravity created the Sun and the planets, right?
If gravity force is a property of mass, heavy elements attract stronger, how comes the Sun is mostly hydrogen and helium and not C,N, O, Fe and all in between ?

Looks like gravity was very selective at that time.

If we look at this from the electric side, with ionized molecules, free protons and electric potential difference inside this nebular cloud left from Super Nova may problems with mass and gravity vanish.
And if you combine those two theories....

just saying

originally posted by: KrzYma
Yes I know. Unfortunately if I read the physical characteristics of the Sun I read a mass of (1.98855±0.00025)×10^30 kg
So I'm just asking WHERE ??

Where what? The mass can typically be treated for rough calculations as a point mass at the center of gravity, and the weight is a function of the gravitational law so it varies with distance, meaning things might weigh less on a mountaintop than at sea level.

I would definitely don't trust the guy who sells me apples on the market without any weighing scale.

Gravitational law can also be used to determine mass but it's not very practical for apples, but it is practical to calculate the mass of the sun:

How is the Mass of the Sun Calculated?

Earth's velocity, its orbital radius and the universal constant of gravity are all that a scientist needs to calculate the mass of the sun. Square "v," then multiply it times "r." Divide the resulting product by the universal constant of gravity. The quotient represents the sun's mass.

If EM waves do spread out over large distances many theories and models today would need a clean up.

And why would I say that you will ask, because of the EM properties, it does interact with itself under proper circumstances. Best proof of it are the slit experiments.
I am questioning the propagation velocity as well.

Whether the speed of light is constant is a legitimate question. We think it's constant in a vacuum but obviously the speed is affected by traveling through a non-vacuum like air. Aside from this, attempts to show the speed of light is not constant have not shown this. However there is a paper about the fine structure constant possibly having changed over time:

Another Law of Physics Broken?
That article is dated and we now know that the first 'Law of physics broken" implied by the article upon further study, really wasn't broken, so it's possible that further study of the fine structure constant may similarly yield findings that it could be constant. It doesn't hurt to check, but these measurements can be tricky to make accurately.

Those elements are from Super Nova explosion before the solar system, gravity created the Sun and the planets, right?
If gravity force is a property of mass, heavy elements attract stronger, how comes the Sun is mostly hydrogen and helium and not C,N, O, Fe and all in between ?

So, you show a graph saying that the solar system is mostly H and He and you ask why the sun is mostly H and He?

This is the same question which was rumored to have been answered centuries ago from the leaning tower of Pisa. If you drop a ball bearing and a bowling ball from the leaning tower, do you expect the heavier bowling ball to arrive first? Because that's not what the gravitational model predicts, and this is applicable to your question...heavier things don't fall faster as a general rule, though in the Earth's atmosphere you have to account for atmospheric drag. The astronauts even dropped a feather and a hammer on the moon to show what happens when this drag is eliminated.

Gravity was not selective at all. The pressure and temperature required to fuse helium (Triple Alpha Process) is higher, and requires most of the material at the core to be Helium.

Most of the universe is Hydrogen and helium at this point in time. If you are to condense a nebula into a proto-star, what will happen? will it fuse helium first? something that requires it to burn something that requires high pressure and high temperature, or will it fuse something that requires less pressure and a lower temperature? Elements are produced in a doubling process, your smallest unit that you will have to hand at the core will go up in steps of 4 or greater, everything inbetween is produced during the process of a supernova.

All elements are seeded in the death throws of stars. We see it when we look out at the night sky and see how the giant branch of stars behave. The core of a star is a balance of hydrostatic pressure. All elements in the periodic table are produced during the process of a supernova. Due to collapse and bombardment, the high radiation environment and shock waves created, produce a enormous amount of neutrons and neutrinos. Neutrinos are so high in number they drive a real outward pressure. Simulations of what we might think happens in a supernova, only work if you have neutrinos. Which is interesting since looking at the evidence, this does appear to be the case. All elements in the system are bombarded with neutrons and alphas, creating many highly unstable nuclei, which decay down to stable nuclei.

Look at supernova nucleosynthesis, what you find is that depending on the model, you can predict the constituents of different nebula based on the type of star that exploded and it works fairly well. not exact, but it is better than a stab in the dark.


Your last statement? please explain it, how exactly does looking at from an electric side fix any problems with nebula clouds and mass and gravity? Because there isn't a problem with it i am aware of.

One method of determining the speed of light is looking at the radioactive decay of ejecta from supernova. Why? Well because if we say that E=mc^2 which for all accounts works fine for us here on Earth, and look at the decay of various isotopes taking place at large distances from earth. If those decay products produce photons at the correct energy, and do it in multiple steps (most decays give multiple different energies) then you can test the c^2 part.

Observations of Supernova 1987a from memory gives us Cobalt lines, which decrease in intensity as it decays. We can check the rate of the decay, to make sure that the decay rate is the same (local passage of time measurement) and if the local speed of light is lower / higher which would result in different spectral line splittings.

As far as i have read (in the past, and just now over the last hour to refresh) all appears to work fine and point at a speed of light that is the same as we observe here.... soooo that is at least a blob about 168,000 light years away where the speed of light is the same

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, you show a graph saying that the solar system is mostly H and He and you ask why the sun is mostly H and He? This is the same question which was rumored to have been answered centuries ago from the leaning tower of Pisa. If you drop a ball bearing and a bowling ball from the leaning tower, do you expect the heavier bowling ball to arrive first? Because that's not what the gravitational model predicts, and this is applicable to your question...heavier things don't fall faster as a general rule,

I see you don't get it.
Hydrogen is the most, 10^10 and carbon for example is 10^7 so for every 1000 H atoms (1 proton each) in the Sun there should be 1 atom of C ( 6 protons) and N ( 7 protons) and O (8 protons ) and other elements proportional to it's abundance.
but yeah, ignore this...

what is your problem with gravity ? sure a fader or whatever will accelerate with the same force, they masses are negligible comparing to mass of Earth or Moon, but it is still m1*m2.

Bigger mass = stronger acceleration or are you denying this fact !

originally posted by: ErosA433
One method of determining the speed of light is looking at the radioactive decay of ejecta from supernova. Why? Well because if we say that E=mc^2 which for all accounts works fine for us here on Earth, and look at the decay of various isotopes taking place at large distances from earth. If those decay products produce photons at the correct energy, and do it in multiple steps (most decays give multiple different energies) then you can test the c^2 part.

Observations of Supernova 1987a from memory gives us Cobalt lines, which decrease in intensity as it decays. We can check the rate of the decay, to make sure that the decay rate is the same (local passage of time measurement) and if the local speed of light is lower / higher which would result in different spectral line splittings.

As far as i have read (in the past, and just now over the last hour to refresh) all appears to work fine and point at a speed of light that is the same as we observe here.... soooo that is at least a blob about 168,000 light years away where the speed of light is the same

hmm... but the radioactive decay vary as Earth moves around the Sun so how is it any scale for anything ?
Till we know exactly why this happens, how can we know what rate of decay we have to expect 170K light years away.

Now I have a question about speed of light as reality sees it.

nothing can move faster than light, right ? but to what reference point, another observer seems to be incorrect, then that Big Bang and expanding Universe theory allows 2 galaxies on opposite side of the Universe to move faster than speed of light.
I heard as explanation, that they do not move faster than light just faster than light relative to each other.
But this is the point in relativity, not allowed... or what reference point is this speed referring to ?

This is just so stupid !

if A moves relative to B 3/4 the speed of light, and C moves 3/4 speed of light relative to B what speed measures A on B ?
I know you will come with time dilatation and length contraction as explanation but this is not true.
Expanding Universe tells us that in few Billion years most of the galaxies will not be visible as they accelerate, how is this to explain if no matter can ever even reach the speed of light.

This is just so stupid !

originally posted by: KrzYma
I see you don't get it.
Hydrogen is the most, 10^10 and carbon for example is 10^7 so for every 1000 H atoms (1 proton each) in the Sun there should be 1 atom of C ( 6 protons) and N ( 7 protons) and O (8 protons ) and other elements proportional to it's abundance.
but yeah, ignore this...

Are you confused between the composition of the sun's photosphere and the sun's interior? Is that the problem? Which are you referring to and what sources are you getting your information from? If your brain is filled with a lot of EU nonsense that could be why you're confused.

what is your problem with gravity ? sure a fader or whatever will accelerate with the same force, they masses are negligible comparing to mass of Earth or Moon, but it is still m1*m2.

Bigger mass = stronger acceleration or are you denying this fact !

In the case where the mass is negligible compared to a larger mass, I'm saying you don't understand the formula. It's not acceleration that's proportional to m1m2, it's force.

Sure 56x bigger mass of Iron compared to Hydrogen means 56x more force, but since that 56x bigger force is applied to a 56x more massive object, they end up with the same centripetal acceleration, meaning the same orbit at the same distance from the sun or when the solar system formed, the center of the protoplanetary disk.

In other words, in the protoplanetary disk, the iron atom in orbit doesn't accelerate faster to the center in a significant way just as the bowling ball doesn't fall faster toward the Earth than a much lighter ball bearing from the leaning tower of Pisa, which was known hundreds of years ago, yet this still seems to elude you. Now once the atoms coalesce into a star or planet, the heavier and/or more dense materials sink and the lighter or less dense materials "float" so this happens in planets and stars, but in orbits, not really. You actually get the opposite effect in low earth orbit due to atmospheric drag, where less dense materials fall to Earth faster than more dense materials, which is kind of the opposite of what you seem to be thinking should happen.

a reply to: KrzYma
Relativity has no problem with recessional velocities of distant galaxies greater than the speed of light. Faster than light is only forbidden through local space. It gets a little complicated but this paper explains it pretty well:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe. To show the abundance of these misconceptions we cite numerous misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements in the literature. In the context of the new standard Lambda-CDM cosmology we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon, the ``observable universe'' and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.

a reply to: KrzYma

The evidence for seasonal variation of radioactivity on Earth is weak at best, and most likely due to uncontrolled systematics. Other studies attempting to verify the effect have been unsuccessful and show that the radioactive decay rate is constant and stable as we expect. So the answer is that the effect you talk about does not happen.

Once again, Science... posed with a question of variation of a decay rate from an experiment, went out and repeated measurements controlling systematics better to be sure we understand what we are looking at, does multiple more experiments and shows that there is no variation... but, you know, you ignore that right? anything which sounds like a theory might be wrong and you ignore everything else.

There is no reason why the abundance of chemicals in the sun should follow the pattern you set out in your post. It is also not what we see from the photosphere of the sun.

a reply to: ErosA433

There is no reason why the abundance of chemicals in the sun should follow the pattern you set out in your post.

really ?
so if there is a stellar cloud full of different elements and gravity pulls those together to form a Star, only hydrogen and helium migrates to the centre of mass and create the Star and the rest of the elements are not affected by gravity ?

this is a whole new theory on gravity you propose !

a reply to: ErosA433

The evidence for seasonal variation of radioactivity on Earth is weak at best,

please post the source if true

www.astronomynow.com...
io9.com...
phys.org...
arxiv.org...
cuthelain.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433

The evidence for seasonal variation of radioactivity on Earth is weak at best,

please post the source if true

www.astronomynow.com...
io9.com...
phys.org...
arxiv.org...
cuthelain.wordpress.com...

Your own sources tell you that if you read them carefully.

phys.org...
"If the relationship between solar activity and decay rates proves to be true,..."
meaning, it's still pretty much a hypothesis with only sketchy evidence.

If you know how to read graphs, read the graphs in the arXiv link you posted, the evidence is not very strong.

Here's another source:

astroengine.com...

So is there any relationship between plutonium decay rate and heliocentric distance?

In short: No.

It would appear from 0.6 AU to 1.7 AU, there is no variation in power output (and therefore decay rate) of plutonium with distance from the Sun.

How can the terrestrial decay rate variation (as reported by Jenkins et al.) be explained if the radioactive sample on board Cassini experienced no such variation (as reported by Cooper)?

Good question. Maybe the data has experimental error not yet discovered?

What happened between 2010 and 2014? All the research you cited is 2010 or older, right? I think Eros explained that. More research was probably done though they haven't bothered to publish null findings I suppose?

The important part of it is that the effect is small and any variance is smaller than the error bounds than the measurement.... so evidence is not what i would describe as strong.

Anyway, some evidence just from the wiki page on it. which discusses both for and against.

donuts.berkeley.edu...

The largest variation that has been observed is in radon. the rest have been found to be at the 0.1% level. Which for the measurements we are talking about, are NOT at the accuracy limit of 0.1%, Radon is an difficult measurement because it is a gas. measuring the decay rate of radon is not trivial, How do i know this? Well 3 years of my Post-Doc has been dedicated to a side project screening materials to go into a dark matter detector.

The issue with a measurement of radon is that it is a gas, gaining large quantities of it can be tricky, and the process of producing a highly calibrated source, is not trivial. Furthermore the half life of radon is about 3 days, it means each sample needs to be made from scratch each time you do the test. There are so many areas where systematics can come into play. Even something as stupid as in the summer, the air being more humid, would tend to make radon stick on surfaces than move freely.

While i am sure htey took care of that, typically these experiments as shown are not as controlled as a sceptic of it such as myself would like them to be.

the other examples for this purpose of Chlorine-36, which is none natural and is generated via cosmic ray spalation or neutron activation. Now, chlorine gas is easy to come by, and you can also activate it with a neutron beam, no problem.

The issue is here is the accuracy to which you activate it, and given the rate of decay is on the order t1/2 = 300,000 years, you need quite a lot of it to plot out a good decay curve. So there are lots of systematics that can come into play. Neutron beams give you a lot of activation of other isotopes, also typically if you are looking at the rate of decay, you expect it to follow a trend, to accurately map it you should take data for a good fraction of a half life if you want to be super accurate. I am not telling them how to do their job so much, because their job is a good fraction of my job also. If you read the actual publications, they do point out that the accuracy is at question

Last one for now is Silicon, 32, which is cosmogenic, again this is already a trace element that is constantly being replenished depending upon cosmogenic activity. Observed decay rates for this could easily change because of disruptions of the electro-magnetic field of the Earth causing more/less cosmic rays to enter/be deflected. What actually would cause a change in observed rate is the change of the amount of silicon 32 being introduced in the system. A systematic that is none trivial

originally posted by: KrzYma

really ?
so if there is a stellar cloud full of different elements and gravity pulls those together to form a Star, only hydrogen and helium migrates to the centre of mass and create the Star and the rest of the elements are not affected by gravity ?

this is a whole new theory on gravity you propose !

I partially misread your post on re-view, so yes the abundance of elements goes something like as follows

75% Hydrogen
23% Helium
0.9% Oxygen
0.3% Carbon

Quite similar to not exactly how you put it, but ok. I would expect that at formation of the sun, from fresh material, that the distribution of of the above, would be roughly the same throughout the whole sun. Now, speaking of transport of material around the sun once it has formed is dependant upon mass transport in convection cells. Now convection cells require a specific set of circumstances and temperature/pressure gradients in order to actually work. This is key to stellar evolution.

What would happen is that convection cells once set up (the star would by that point already be burning, would make the whole region above within and below the convection cells isotropic. It would mix it all up. The core of the sun according to the solar models that fit observations the best, say the core cannot be convective. So the motion of heavy elements other than hydrogen and helium into the core would be reduced or halted by hydrostatic pressure. Remember the sun's core is holding hydrostatic equlibrium, that is the pressure generated by the gravity pushing all the gas above into the core, is ballanced by the outward pressure from the heating generated by fusion at the core. While energy is transported net outwards, matter is very nearly static, generally just jiggling about held up by the immense heat. We would expect a slight transport of heavies to the core, but since the abundance is very low, it would NOT take up a significantly larger percentage than the figures above.

The only thing that changes a lot is the transfer of hydrogen into helium. until the core fusion rate reduces because there is too much helium. THAT is the point where the sun turns into a red giant.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wouldn't write off the variation of radioactive decay measurements so quickly.

If there is some unknown physics there's no reason to suppose it would couple to all forms of radioactive decay the same. Spontaneous fission of plutonium is a very different animal from weak-mediated decays and influences by potential solar neutrino (or other) effects not presently understood. Nuclear reactions are almost as diverse as chemical reactions.

a reply to: mbkennel
I wouldn't say I've written it off, but I did look for confirmation and didn't have much luck finding it. I found the same thing Eros mentioned, like an effect size about 0.1%, which even if it's real is pretty miniscule, and if you look at those graphs in the arxiv link posted, they aren't very convincing to me. But you have a valid point, the articles said they needed to do more research, and to that I have no disagreement, but just a question...where is it? The research mentioned in the links is over 4 years old.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It is an interesting affect, though a tiny one that begs a question? Is it a real affect or not? Can it be repeated? Can other things be monitored to be sure it isn't related to something in the lab or unaccounted for by the experimenters.

It is not to accuse of malice it is just not 100% convincing when the biggest 'variations' are those observed in gaseous elements and cosmogenic or neutron activated isotopes.

Example is as follows.

One way you can get alot of radon is with a Radium source. You simply let the Radium decay a bit and you use a cold trap to collect the radon. You freeze it out with liquid nitrogen and activated charcoal. Now knowing the mass of the Radium and the age of the sample you can predict exactly how many radon atoms should be produced per unit time.

You do the calculation, you need to freeze out for 30 minutes to get say... a predicted rate of 500 Bq

you do your experiment and you transfer your radon into an alpha counter... your rate is 10 Bq. Ok you scratch your head a bit and you re do the experiement exactly the same. This time you get 30 Bq.

You look at your set-up and you do a leak check, you find that there is one small leak. You fix that and do the experiment again this time more success... but you only get 100 Bq

You think maybe I am pushing the radon through the trap by flowing gas through the source too quickly. You dial down the control valves to give you a smaller flow.

You get 80 Bq

You do the experiment once more out of exasperation and you get 250 Bq. Despite not changing anything.

So what happened? Well what happened was a number of things, but a large proportion of the problem was that the radium source had been exposed to moisture in the past, something we was not aware of. It is thus likely that the rate that radon gets into the free space of the source that can be 'sucked out' of it, is limited somewhat by diffusion. So if you start from zero, you do not expect the 'grow back' of the source to be the same as it once was.

The point of the experiment was to collect lead 210 as a spike test to figure out the sensitivity limit of a lead 210 assay technique. Put a known amount of lead into a sample and see how efficiently you detect it.

So this is one example, experimentation is very complicated and sometimes, just the change in general humidity in the air can have an important impact. There was a great story of a chemist who couldn't get a certain reaction to work, she spent a long time trying to do it and nothing she tried worked. One friday after a very unsuccessful week it works! She isn;t sure why but it works, she spends the evening celebrating it with her new boyfriend. The week after she goes back, it still works, wonderful, she calls in the heads of the department to show them the breakthrough. That morning she was late and in a rush. The experiment didn't work much to her horror.

After long periods of back tracking her steps and trying to recreate the conditions exactly, she remembered something her boyfriend said. "You smell nice"
It was her perfume. The trace amounts of aromatics from her perfume was the key step to get the reaction to work.

Point is, unless you have actually done any experimentation like this where you need to be absolutely sure everything is under control, it is difficult to make lots of comments to if an experimental result has problems from this kind of place.

People might say, Oh phhhh Cosmogenics! Ha making it up. Well it is a very complicated process, and to prove things absolutely, what should be done is the rate of cosmic rays passing through the lab should be measured along with the radiation from the source sample. The best place would be to take the samples to a deep underground site in a controlled environment. That would be totally solid, but not something that was done from my reading of the papers... that is unless i went text blind.

a reply to: KrzYma


This isnt complicated no there not moving faster than light. Say we have two cars going in opisit directions at 60 MPH. To passengers in either car thay see the car as moving away from them at 120 MPH. An outside observer see two cars traveling at 60 MPH. Add in the expansion of space itself and we easily have distant galaxies straking away faster than light.