Oliver Manuel is a distinguished atomic physicist with a lifelong history of work on the chemistry of cosmogenic isotopes.
This thread has been set up for Oliver to discuss his ideas about the origin of the solar system, and the empirical observations which support his hypothesis.
In a nutshell, Oliver’s research into the mass fractionation of elements and isotopes has led him to the conclusion that the solar system was formed from the remnants of a supernova. The sun is accreted around a dense neutron core, and the ejected material from the explosion formed the planets. The heavier elements forming the nearby rocky iron cored inner planets, and the lighter elements forming the Jovian gas giants.
Oliver makes the following observations and offers some links:
1. The only star close enough for detailed study formed on the core of a precursor star that gave birth to the solar system [1,2].
Likely in this manner: http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
In 1983 Nature even acknowledged the demise (death, end) of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System [3].
2. Astronomers assure us that the Sun is a very ordinary star.
3. When stars explode, a neutron star and lots of iron are commonly seen, not Hydrogen like the stellar surface.
My conclusions:
a.) There is a neutron star at the core of the Sun.
b.) There is probably a neutron star at the core of each star.
c.) With greater certainty a neutron star is expected at the core of any star that is orbited by rocky, iron-rich planets.
[1] “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) 208-209 http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
[2] “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277 (1979) 615-620
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277615a0.html
[3] “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System”, Nature 303 (1983) 286
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/swart-1983.pdf
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I’d like to get the ball rolling by asking Oliver whether he has reached any conclusions about the mass of the dense neutron core he thinks lies at the heart of the sun. This is of interest to me because it would give us a purchase on considering the surface flows which would be generated as this core jiggled up and down in rhythm with the motion of the planets north and south of the solar equatorial plane.
Thanks, tallbloke, for continuing the discussion here.
I hope Leif will join us.
Can we let folks know that this a continuation of a discussion that was started on Watts Up With That:
“December sunspots on the rise”
REPLY: No, we do not yet know have good limits on the mass of the Sun’s dense neutron core.
We have information that might be used by a competent theorist to calculate the mass of the neutron star:
a.) The gravitational barrier to neutron emission depends on mass.
b.) Neutrons with E = 12 MeV are penetrating the barrier.
c.) We can calculate the escape rate.
I suspect that the gravitational barrier is about 90 MeV in height, but 12 MeV neutrons are escaping. This would be analogous to 4 MeV alpha particles escaping the 30 MeV Coulomb barrier around the U-238 nucleus.
Theory is not my forte, but I could probably help a good theorist set limits on mass of the Sun’s dense neutron core.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Hi Oliver, and welcome again to this blog. It’s early days yet, but I hope we can find someone who is up to the mark on working with your data.
I found Leif’s comment interesting, and I have posted on WUWT to invite him over.
“The consensus that seemed to emerge from that meeting was that a nearby supernova probably was responsible for the abundances. This is now the new [well-supported] dogma that supernovae may help trigger star formation by compressing the interstellar medium. It seems that you have misunderstood [or over-interpreted] what Swart was trying to say.”
I have linked the Nature piece in question at the bottom of the post.
Click to access swart-1983.pdf
My first impression is that the hydrogen in the interstellar medium would more likely accrete around the supernova remnant than be compressed into a solar system some distance away.
Creation myths are such fun! 🙂
Oliver’s credentials and experience certainly make his work worth serious research and understanding.
[snip] [water under the bridge.]
Thanks Rog for continuing this important discussion….I have a couple of questions for Oliver.
1.Wiki suggests the Sun’s mass at 1.9891×1030 kg, which is close to the figure used in angular momentum calculations performed by myself & Gerry. Do you think this figure is accurate?
2. Your logic of the Sun forming from a 1st stage star supernova is nothing unusual I would have thought. This is how all the extra elements of the periodical table are formed. Why would there be opposition to this part of the theory?
Geoff, thanks for your follow up, and sorry to alter it. I really want to set the tone for a happy blog and rest assured if Leif does come over to visit I will deal with any unprofessional asides made.
That said, I don’t have a team of mods, but I don’t want to restrict the flow of comment while I’m asleep, so play nice, and I’ll be up with the censors pen early, so don’t rise to it. The person with the least [snips] will be declared the winner. 🙂
With regards to your question about solar mass, I’m pondering that too. I believe the other planets can give us clues here. I’ll follow this up tomorrow.
1. Geoff,
There is a personal and well-documented story of deceit and intrigue at the 1976 AGU meeting behind:
“The consensus that . . . a nearby supernova probably was responsible for the” (anomalous) “abundances.”
ALL (yes, all) primordial He accompanied the anomalous supernova r-products (like excess Xe-136) at the birth of the solar system.
If the r-products came from a nearby supernova, so did ALL primordial He in the solar system!
That finding was presented and discussed at the 1976 meeting –
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
The embarrassing association of r-products with ALL primordial He was simply ignored by those who decided to publish the idea of an injection from a nearby supernova explosion.
2. Tallbloke,
I agreed earlier to present empirical evidence of neutron repulsion and its implications for a Yahoo discussion group.
I need to finish that task before devoting much time to this.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the supernova origin of the solar system. When I first presented this idea in public in April 1976 at the National AGU meeting, I was in fact embarrassed to suggest such a scenario. I was forced to do so by the data.
I had no other mechanism to explain why all primordial He and Ne were trapped with “strange” Xe in meteorite inclusions. The inclusion itself is made of “normal” carbon with “normal” solar-system C-12/C-13 = 89.
No He or Ne is in the meteorite inclusions that trapped “normal” Xe, like here on Earth.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
My guess is that Prof.Oliver Manuel theory of an iron cored sun could be complementary with that of the “electric universe”. Birkeland´s “Terrela” lab experiment used an iron globe with a magnet in it.
Iron, Nickel and Cobalt, have valence 2+ and 3+ and iron oxides, when forming magnetite is a dynamic mixture of unstable FeO (which needs to oxide to stable state Fe2O3) and Fe2O3, so there is a potential difference in it. It is a very peculiar element which, among other feats, makes hemoglobin and so life possible for us. BTW, breathing brings electrons to Fe+2 in order to oxidize it to Fe+3, so strictly speaking we breath electrons.
tallbloke, thanks for providing a forum for an open and polite discussion about theories that are off the beaten path, unlike you-know-where.
I have a question for Dr. Manuel. I lack the background to judge the iron sun theory against the standard model. However, it strikes me that if the core is indeed iron, possibly it can be imaged all the way around, thus proving it to be a solid. Is the image which you purport in your paper to be that of an iron core something that can be seen repeatably in a known location?
Hi Daryl, and welcome. Oliver proposes a dense neutron core for the sun, the remnant of a supernova explosion. This would be surrounded with molten iron and other elements found also in the rocky iron cored planets such as Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.
I recommend you go to Oliver’s website and read around.
http://www.omatumr.com/
Unusual orbits of planets in other systems:
http://www.sunorbit.net/latest.html
Such “hot Jupiters” – so named because they resemble the solar system’s largest planet, but would be much hotter because of their proximity to their parent stars – could not have formed in the places they are seen now, according to accepted planet-formation theory.
Could it be that this star has captured another proto-star and the inevitable death spiral will end in an explosive collision which will spread matter out in a disc which will go on to form a new system containing the sorts of isotopes Oliver has found in meteorites?
All,
I am not expert on those topics, my question is simple. Regardless of who is right or wrong, does the “truth” about stars formation or the “real” reason about the dynamic of solar flares, sun spots and flux intensity of our star change anything about the relation of sun-spot numbers, magnetic flux intensity and our climate?
Sorry for the long phrase there…
Thanks for any comments
Simon
Simon, I think there are two principle issues.
1) If it is discovered that climate change is due to solar variation this will make a big difference to the economic policy of the future. You can tax the people for emitting carbon dioxide, but you can’t tax the sun for emitting radiation.
2) If we succeed in discovering the relationship between planetary motion and solar variation, this means we may to at least some extent be able to predict climate change, possibly icluding volcanic activity too, better enabling well planned agricultural policy and improving human welfare worldwide.
To help keep the threads from getting crossed, we could continue that conversation here if you would like to.
TallBloke,
I totally agree with your comment. My goal was to understand if the disagreement with Leif on the Watts blog was contradicting the relationship of the sun-climate connection.
Cheers from Québec, Canada with a nice little snow fall this morning.
Simon
The disgreements you saw on the december sunspots thread linked by Oliver above were between Geoff and Anthony concerning planetary effects on the sun, and Oliver and Leif about the composition of the sun. Both Geoff and Oliver are active on this thread so I will let them speak for themselves if they wish to, although I would ask if we can stick to the science issues and avoid personal stuff as much as possible.
To give you a little more background, I will just say that Dr Leif Svalgaard is well respected for his research and the openness with which he shares his data and results, but less well respected for the lack of respect he shows to those who disagree with him about his belief that the sun has little effect on climate variability.
Cheers from Yorkshire North Britain, where we got a heavy snowfall this morning!
Thanks for all of the feedback.
I promise to respond individually, but right now I must finish the discussion about Neutron Repulsion on a Yahoo Group chaired by my friend Kirt Griffin.
Meanwhile – in science as in life – PAIN is the greatest teacher and ACCEPTANCE of reality is the only relief from this pain.
Many scientists were therefore led down an attractive, PAIN-free path of grant funds and successful careers by staying on the sidelines and cheering on consensus science.
I feel sorry for those folks now that “Climategate” has partially exposed this unholy alliance of scientists with politicians.
Earlier this year I posted a partial list of the unexpected observations that I had to accept after I started a study in 1960 to rewrite the Biblical story of Genesis, i.e., the origin of the Earth, from a scientific prospective:
OBSERVATIONS THAT I HAD TO ACCEPT
1960: Meteorites contain decay products of short-lived I-129, Pd-107 and Pu-244 from a supernova [J. H. Reynolds, Phys. Rev. Letters 4 (1960) 8-10; V. R. Murthy, Phys. Rev. Letters 5 (1960) 539; P. K. Kuroda, Nature 187 (1960) 36-38].
1962: Earth and meteorites formed simultaneously on the I-129 time scale [P. K. Kuroda and O. K. Manuel, Journal of Geophysical Research 67 (1962) 4859-4862].
1964: Some mysterious process severely mass fractionated Ne isotopes in meteorites [O. K. Manuel, Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 31 (1967) 2413-2431].
1967: Iron meteorites are as old and trapped as much short-lived I-129 as “primitive” meteorites [E. C. Alexander, Jr. and O. K. Manuel, Earth & Planetary Science Letters 2 (1967) 220-224].
1970: Ne and Xe isotopes in meteorites, the Earth, Moon and Sun show a common mass fractionation [P. K. Kuroda and O. K. Manuel, Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116].
1971: The Earth’s interior still contains decay products of extinct I-129 and Pu-244 at detectable levels [M. S. Boulos and O. K. Manuel, Science 174 (1971) 1334-1336].
1972: Xe-124 from the p-process and Xe-136 from the r-process of a supernova are enriched by as much as a factor of two in the “strange” xenon observed in some meteorite minerals [O. K. Manuel, E. W. Hennecke and D. D. Sabu, Nature 240 (1972) 99-101].
1973: Meteorites contain mono-isotopic O-16, probably from stellar fusion of helium [R. N. Clayton, L. Grossman, and T. K. Mayeda, Science 182 (1973) 485-488].
1975: “Strange” xenon accompanied primordial helium at the birth of the solar system; “normal” xenon was devoid of helium [R. S. Lewis, B. Srinivasan and E. Anders, Science 190 (1975) 1251-1262; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, Transactions Missouri Academy of Sciences 9, (1975) 104-122].
1976: Different classes of meteorites and planets each have characteristic levels of oxygen-16 [R. N. Clayton, N. Onuma and T. K. Mayeda, Earth & Planetary Science Letters 30 (1976) 10-18].
CONCLUSION: Our elements were produced locally and condensed directly into planetary solids. They neither entered nor traversed interstellar space. The Sun exploded as a supernova (SN) and gave birth to Earth and the solar system [D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, Transactions American Geophysical Union 57 (1976) 278; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, Science 195 (1977) 208-209; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, paper NUCL 52 presented 2 Sept 1976 at the 172nd ACS National Meeting, San Francisco, CA; O. K. Manuel, Proceedings of the Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII: Cosmochemistry (1977) 263-272; R. V. Ballad et al., Nature 277 (1979) 615-620; D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117-138; O. Manuel, Icarus 41 (1980) 312-315].
a.): “Normal” xenon came from the iron-rich deep interior of the supernova.
b.): “Strange” xenon came from the outer, helium-rich layers of the supernova.
c.): The Sun exploded axially; Chemical SN layers remained in the equatorial plane.
d.): Elements and isotopes were not homogenized, nor ejected to interstellar space.
e.): H|He|C|O|Mg|Si|S|Fe regions formed diamonds/graphite, SiC, silicates, sulfides & metals.
f.): Iron-rich SN debris near the Sun formed iron meteorites; cores of rocky planets.
g.): Earth accreted heterogeneously, first forming its core from iron meteorites.
h.): Iron cores of inner planets became accretion sites for silicate meteorites.
i.): Material from outer SN layers formed giant, gaseous planets like Jupiter.
j.): The p- and r-processes made “strange” xenon in outer, helium-rich SN layers
k.): The s-process made mirror-image xenon where SiC carborundum formed.
The above conclusion has been confirmed by many measurements over the past 33 years, many designed and conducted by my students, colleagues, and me. It was also confirmed by measurement made by others, including many who refused to accept the close association of all primordial helium with “strange” xenon at the birth of the solar system.
The above conclusion was the basis for our 1983 prediction that the Galileo probe would find “strange” xenon in the helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter [O. K. Manuel and Golden Hwaung, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222]. The prediction was confirmed when the xenon isotope data from Jupiter were released in 1998 [O. Manuel, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998, extended abstract 5011) A97.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
http://www.omatumr.com
Readers can get direct free access to many of the papers referenced by Oliver at his website http://www.omatumr.com under the two ‘Papers’ and the ‘Publications’ menu items.
All the best with the conclusion of your other online discussions Oliver, and we look forward to you dropping by to see what’s new on this thread.
Thanks, tallbloke.
My research profile:
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
is less attractive, but it contains more links to key papers.
Since I retired in 2000, I do not have a student to maintain the http://www.omatumr.com website, and I do not have the skills to do so myself.
The http://www.omatumr.com website contains a lot of historical information, like pictures of former students, spiritual advisors and scientists who most influenced my career and/or befriended me in times of greatest need (often desperation) http://www.omatumr.com/PhotoGallery.html :
The late Dr. Dwarka D. Sabu, a faculty member at Grambling College, Dr. J. M. Donal MacElroy, who is now a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Dublin University, Dr. Matt Insall, a Professor of Mathemetics, Dr. V. A. Samaranayake, a Professor of Statistics, Dr. Souriraja Ramadurai, an Astrophysicists at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, Dr. William A. Myers, a Professor of Chemical Engineering, Nobel Laureates Francis William Aston, Hannes Alfven and Glenn T. Seaborg.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
This may be of interest..
GREENBELT, Md. – Solar physicists attempting to unlock the mysteries of the solar corona have found another piece of the puzzle by observing the sun’s outer atmosphere during eclipses.
Ground-based observations reveal the first images of the solar corona in the near-infrared emission line of highly ionized iron, or Fe XI 789.2 nm. The observations were taken during total solar eclipses in 2006, 2008, and 2009 by astrophysicist Adrian Daw of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., with an international team of scientists led by Shadia Habbal from the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy (IfA).
“The first image of the corona in Fe XI 789.2 nm was taken during the total solar eclipse of March 29, 2006,” said Daw.
The images revealed some surprises. Most notably, that the emission extends out at least three solar radii—that’s one-and-a-half times the sun’s width at its equator, or middle—above the surface of the sun, and that there are localized regions of enhanced density for these iron ions.
Combined with observations of other iron charge states, the observations yield the two-dimensional distribution of electron temperature and charge-state measurements for the first time, and establish the first direct link between the distribution of charge states in the corona and in interplanetary space. “These are the first such maps of the 2-D distribution of coronal electron temperature and ion charge state,” said Daw.
Mapping the distribution of electron temperature and iron charge states in the corona with total solar eclipse observations represents an important step in understanding the solar corona and how space weather impacts Earth.
The scientists’ results will be presented at the American Astronomical Society meeting on January 4 in Washington and published in the January issue of the Astrophysical Journal.
For more information and related images, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2010/aas-eclipse.html
Thanks Tom, some stunning images at that link.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/415267main_aas-eclipse-01-full.jpg – The bottom right image is a wow!
Now we need some interpretation. Have you posted this link at solarcycle24.com for comment?
That is in interesting news report from NASA, Tom.
I hope NASA’s motives are honorable – this time.
Not intended to undercut evidence of an iron-rich Sun that the TRACE satellite recorded in emissions of iron ions (Fe IX/X) in a solar flare and mass ejection on 28 August 2000:
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gallery/Images/movies/T171_000828.avi
Hi Oliver,I too hope the report isn’t intended to undercut the evidence that has come from the TRACE satellite. Stunning filter video that!
Hi Tallbloke, No, I’m afraid I haven’t posted the report at the web site you mention as I’m not familiar with it. Hope you are baring up in face of the snow up there in Yorkshire.
All the best, Tom
Oliver, I’m confused, do you hypothesize that all planetary system stars began with a supernova core, or all 2nd-Generation stars? If the latter, have there plausibly been that many supernovae?
Hi Brian,
I think Oliver means stars with planetary systems where the planets have rocky cores. Given the difficulty of spotting exoplanets, and the bias towards the spotability of systems with big gas giants close in to he parent stars, it may be too early to draw statistical conclusions about the relative numbers of rocky-cored planet systems and gas giant only systems.
To Oliver K. Manuel The concept that our sun has a neutron star core is of interest to me. Do you think it is possible that all self heated astral bodies might have a neutron core as neutron creation would lead to that conclusion? The density needed for fusion at temperature would create an event horizon due to gravitational packing pressures. Any neutrons bumped above the pressure horizon would tend to decay back into hydrogen. Those below would tend to stay there.
Atoms are put together one hydrogen unit at a time as it collapses into a neutron and falls into the atom, not by smashing two smaller atoms together to get a larger one. As heavier atoms are made they would tend to float lower and sort out into layers. As atom energy increases a neutron can re-expand back into a proton / electron shell inside the atoms’ electron shell. If the packing pressure is too low the re-expanding hydrogen blows the atom apart in fission and high energy neutrons spray out.
It is no doubt that our solar system is reconstituted from a nova that blew off its’ outer layers, maybe due to pressure drops over the neutron pressure horizon.
Now we need to figure out how aether becomes hydrogen in an atomic forge, 😉 P.G.
“Oliver, I’m confused, do you hypothesize that all planetary system stars began with a supernova core, or all 2nd-Generation stars? If the latter, have there plausibly been that many supernovae? Brian H”
January 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm
– – – – – – – –
Brian,
Measurements on material in the solar system convince me that the Sun formed on the collapsed core of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system.
We do not have data for other stars. My best guess is that:
a.) A neutron star is at the core of most stars. The neutrons are each energized by ~10-22 MeV from neutron repulsive. The H that pours from the stellar surface is a neutron-decay product;
b.) Most galaxies contain massive neutron stars at their centers that fission (fragment) to produce the cores of each star in the galaxy.
c.) Nuclear evolution is predominantly dissociation,
=(neutron-emission)=> n =(neutron-decay)=> H,
Rather than fusion:
H =(fusion)=> He => C => . . . Fe =(implosion)=>
d.) Dynamic competition between gravitational forces of attraction and repulsive forces between neutrons powers the cosmos and fills interstellar space with H, a neutron-decay product.
This is discussed in more detail in Kirt Griffin’s Yahoo Group, “Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy.”
To subscribe, go to:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/neutron_repulsion/join
Or send e-mail to:
neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
With kind regards,
Oliver
Correction:
c.) Nuclear evolution is predominantly dissociation,
neutron star =(neutron-emission)=> n =(neutron-decay)=> H,
Rather than fusion:
H =(fusion)=> He => C => . . . Fe =(implosion)=> neutron star
Thanks! Have you read Lerner’s “The Big Bang Never Happened”? I’d be curious about how, if at all, your ideas fit or contrast with his.
I’ve been following his FocusFusion.org effort for some years, and it’s hotting up now. I have hopes that it’s success will/would render the entire AGW dispute moot, irrelevant, and boring.
Arg. “… its success”, of course. Very embarrassing mistake for a grammarnazi to make!
They hope to achieve unity with p-B11 fusion within 2 yrs, and license out 5MW generator prefab designs within 5. No loose neutrons involved!
Okay. I represent the ‘layman’ here. No, i’m not talking about Patchy ‘The Layman’ Morals. Let me ask: What is in it for NASA to favor what they say now vs. Oliver’s idea about a Neutron Star theory? For the AGW Industry, the reasons are obvious to side on AGW: Cash, Power, relevance, etc. But, is the conspiratorial angle Oliver has alluded to simply from the ‘concensus’ not willing to acknowledge they are wrong. It would seem to me, the layman that I am, that a Neutron core might be more unstable and so the theory possits a more tennable sun. BTW-its a treat for someone like myself to peer in on these deliberations.
Johnny, welcome. I hope Oliver comes to respond. I could go into a diatribe on the current state of astrophysics, but I have to go to work, so I won’t just now.
Welcome, Johnny!
I have shared many of your questions myself.
_a.) What is in it for NASA to favor what they say now?
The Sun is the model for all other stars in the cosmos. The Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun [SSM] is basic to modern astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, planetology, space sciences and solar physics.
All that NASA has reported over the years about distant cosmic objects would be like the writings of a ship of fools if NASA had to admit that although Hydrogen covers the surface of the Sun and most other stars, the SSM is wrong; Neutron-repulsion powers the Sun and other stars – not Hydrogen-fusion.
_b.) Is the ‘consensus’ simply not willing to acknowledge they are wrong?
In 1976 the ‘consensus’ group that shared NASA’s samples and funds among themselves were not willing to acknowledge that they might be wrong.
I share much of the responsibility for the conflict. I was then a pugnacious high-school dropout who grew up like a weed or an alley cat ‘on the wrong side of the tracks.’
My response was less than diplomatic when ambushed at the 1976 AGU Meeting by geologists, physicists, chemists, and astrophysicists from the Geophysics Section of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). [At least a decade lapsed before I discovered their common GS-NAS connection].
The ‘consensus’ group tied themselves, NASA, DOE and NAS as a whole to the SSM in 2001 after convincing 178 physicists to co-author a paper that claimed the Solar Neutrino Puzzle was solved! Solar neutrinos from H-fusion oscillate away before they can travel from the Sun to neutrino detectors on Earth.
_c.) A Neutron core might be more unstable?
Yes. A neutron core is poorly understood and definitely more unstable than the imaginary H-fusion reactor in the sky.
Recent global cooling showed that politicians couldn’t control Earth’s climate. Earthquakes have further demonstrated that the forces of Nature far exceed those of politicians; even the combined forces of politicians, the news media and scientific journals that seek to use science as a tool of propaganda.
Forecast: The Sun is not going to change; NAS, NASA, and DOE are tightly tied to the SSM. We will “live in interesting times.”
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!
-Sir Walter Scott
Oliver, I read something about how the Sun was thought to be 65% Fe 35% He a long time ago. Then some bright spark worked out you could get the same spectrographic signature from a 98% He Sun. Any comment on that?
Yes, Tallbloke, in his autobiography, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows” Sir Fred Hoyle admits that he and all of his astronomy friends believed the Sun was mostly iron (Fe) during World War II.
The Hydrogen bomb seems to have convinced most astronomers that the interior of the Sun must be mostly hydrogen (H), like its surface.
Thanks for your response Oliver. It’s fascinating and intriguing and I don’t envy your position. It sounds unbearable having to knock heads with such entrenched thinking. I will watch this space closely and wish you all the best. I’m interested in this so may pop up with some more stupid questions. But for now, what do you see for the future for your theory? Is the LHC going to help? Is the SDO going to help? Do you have any supporters? Given your theory: what is the future for our sun? Where are you on your quest to be heard on this?
Thanks, Johnny.
As noted above, I met arrogance with arrogance in 1976 and share much of the blame for continuing a conflict that probably grew out of WWII.
See my research advisor’s autobiography:
Click to access PKKAutobiography.pdf
and the “Summary-Part 1” posted in the discussion group on Neutron Repulsion. To subscribe, go to:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/neutron_repulsion/join
1. “What is the future of my theory?” It is based on literally hundreds of measurements since 1960. It may be modified, but I expect that the “Iron Sun heated by Neutron Repulsion” will be accepted – long after my demise (See item #6 below).
2. “Will the LHC help?” I don’t think so, but physics will lose a lot of credibility if the LHC experiment is actually run.
3. “Will NASA’s SDO help?” It might if NASA were honest. NASA’s mission to Jupiter would have helped if NASA had been honest and not hidden the data:
See: “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”,
[Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, paper 5011 (1998)].
Click to access 5011.pdf
Those that control NASA’s funds control NASA. NAS, NASA, and DOE now face a dilemma of their own making: Should they finally admit that they have misrepresented data for decades?
4. “Do you have supporters?” Yes. Those who still seek funds cannot be identified as supporters.
5. “The Sun’s future?” The core of the Sun seems to be most like a giant nucleus that is decaying away by neutron emission. That may continue, or neutron repulsion may cause the solar core to violently explode again, as it did ~5 Gyr ago.
6. “Where are you on your quest to be heard?” The climate scandal may help. The poor climatologists were trained like space scientists and Pavlov’s dogs to give the answers that NAS and funding agency wanted.
Am I concerned? No, not really. I will be 74 years old this fall, and I am absolutely convinced that the universe is unfolding exactly as it should.
As noted in the first paragraph of the Summary-Part 1:
“Events guided me like a twig in the stream of life to the discovery of neutron repulsion.”
As Shakespeare observed, “All the world’s a stage, and all the
men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.”
Oliver Manuel: The examination of your solar construct proposition has been a delight. While I do agree that our solar system is reconstituted from a, nova debris, nebula, I don’t see the need that this would be necessary to create a stellar forge. The observation that the forge would be a “neutron star”heart made up primary of ferrous material, fits well with my view of true element creation by fusion. Ferrous metals love to suck up and hold hydrogen in very large amounts.
When a stellar body accumulates enough material and energy to cause collapse of the proton/electron shell to a neutron, fusion has begun. Every creation and decay of a neutron causes an energy event due to the shock of volume change. As energy accumulates the event horizon of density and energy moves out to a point of equalization. A neutron formed will fall into the nearest atom to be next to a proton and inside of an electron shell. If the neutron decays inside the shell it may stay there as a proton/electron shell or escape as a hydrogen atom and cause a fission event. Below the event horizon neutrons tend to accumulate, above they tend to be lost as hydrogen. Any superheated neutrons knocked out of the atomic shell in a fission event may also be lost to decay into hydrogen. This will result in an accumulation of a neutron “star” core and also a “heart beat” pulse due to pressure changes increasing and decreasing fusion and fission events in the event horizon layer.
This LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) solid state fusion is the only way god powers the universe.
In the late 1950s my study of plasma fusion proved to me that plasma fusion could not result in practical energy production, and I abandoned the field. When I first heard of the Fleishmen-Pons experiments, I went back to the material/energy density needs of fusion and realized that it might really work. Your work adds another clue towards real nuclear energy production. It’s too bad the “standard model” people are stuck on plasma fusion, So old fashion. 🙂
The above is the short version, maybe some day I will expand on each of the points. Looking forward to your comments. Respectfully PG
Many thanks again. Very interesting. I will follow the links you’ve posted and go over this insight you have outlined. Just out of interest, couple more questions of a personal interest nature:
1. Do you have any reservations about the scale of the LHC? I’ve heard of blocking suits filed at the UN, that the LHC represents a threat. If, given ‘them’ being wide of the mark in their SSM model, perhaps the LHC, when they power up next year to max power, is in fact a potential risk. I know they say it’s fine, but ‘they’, and ‘concensus’, isn’t quite as consoling as it used to be?
2. Garrett’s E8 or Green’s Super String?
Oliver: This is your blog and you are in charge of the thread. I am not a scientist and have nothing to do with science or any part of it’s associated industries. I’m intrigued by your statements. But here is one (i’m limited for time today):
‘……2. “Will the LHC help?” I don’t think so, but physics will lose a lot of credibility if the LHC experiment is actually run……..’
Thanks… Johnny
Oliver: You said above
‘……….The ‘consensus’ group tied themselves, NASA, DOE and NAS as a whole to the SSM in 2001 after convincing 178 physicists to co-author a paper that claimed the Solar Neutrino Puzzle was solved! Solar neutrinos from H-fusion oscillate away before they can travel from the Sun to neutrino detectors on Earth…..’
Okay. Layman questions:
a) what was the Solar Neutrino Puzzle?
b) what was their declaration in solving it?
c) And if Solar neutrinos from H-fusion oscillate away before they can travel from the sun to neutrino detectors on earth(assuming that is the SSM model view)….are the Neutrinos from a Neutron Core sun
different?
d) or is a neutrino a neutrino?
e) does you theory have a name?
No rush by the way. And Thanks.. JOhnnnny
High Oliver, and thank you for giving such a good outline of how the sun operates by the process of neutron repulsion.
I’d be grateful if you can please spare the time to let me know how your model can answer some of the problems found with current mainstream thinking:-
(1) Lack of solar neutrinos,
(2) Structure of the sun’s interior (helioseismoloy),
(3) The solar magnetic field (dynamo, solar cycle, corona – unpredictability),
(4) Coronal loop dynamics, –
(5) The coronal ‘over-heating’ problem,
(6) Self-organized criticality (from nanoflares to giant flares to CME’s),
(7) Magneto-electrical reconnection processes,
(8) Particle acceleration processes,
(9) Coronal dimming.
I realise that this is quite a long list, so I’m most interested in the top ones.
P.G. Sharrow
Thanks for your comments,
“The Birth of the Solar System” from an explosion of the Sun – as shown in the sketch at the top of this page – was proposed in 1976 to explain only observations that had been made on meteorites and planets of
a.) Decay products of these short-lived radioactive isotopes:
Pu-244, I-129, Pd-107 and Al-26 with these half-lives
80 Myr, 16 Myr, 6.5 Myr, and 0.7 Myr, where 1 Myr = 10^6 yr
b.) Variations in the abundances of isotopes and elements that matched those expected in material from different stellar layers of fresh, poorly mixed supernova.
Many other observations since 1976 have confirmed the basic validity of that sketch, e.g., data from the 1996 probe into Jupiter.
P.G. Sharrow
The conclusions of an Iron Sun and solar mass fractionation – based on the observation of a common mass fraction process across the twenty-two (22) isotopes of He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Ar & Xe implanted in lunar soil samples by the solar wind – were published seven years later [“Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].
Click to access SolarAbundances.pdf
The discovery of neutron repulsion finally came 17 years later in 2000 when five students and I made three dimension (3-D) plots of all available nuclear rest mass data plotted against a reduced variable (Z/A = charge density) and sorted by mass number (A):
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm
Neutron repulsion in the remnant SN core is the energy source that triggers the reactions that generate solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface – in exactly the proportions observed!
“Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source” [Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201]:
Click to access jfe-neutronrep.pdf
P.G. Sharrow
I failed to mention events of 1996 in the chronological of events:
DATE – DISCOVERY
1976 – Debris of one supernova formed the Solar System.
1983 – Iron Sun sorts atoms by mass fractionation.
1996 – Galileo Mission to Jupiter confirmed 1983 conclusions.*
2000 – Neutron repulsion in solar core powers the Sun.
These undergraduate students identified “strange” Xe in Jupiter
http://www.omatumr.com/picpages/jupiterteam.html
when NASA finally released the data in 1998 [“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97 (1998) paper 5011].
Click to access 5011.pdf
Oliver; thank you for the connections above, specially the last for a better insight into the neutron mass and energy changes within larger atomic structures. I was unaware that not all neutrons weigh the same.;-) In my hunt for the cause of mass/inertia, any clue may be important.
The simple hydrogen atom comes in several sizes and wears different weight suits, most interesting. }-[
the bottom line in this is; gravity vers inertia = mass
………………………… energy to energy
I will attempt to answer briefly the questions raised by Brian H, Johnnythelowery and Boris to complete this section.
1. Brian H: Yes, I read Eric Lerner’s book, “The Big Bang Never Happened.” He may be right; My best guess is below.
The Sun and cosmos are now powered by dynamic competition between:
a.) Gravitational forces of attraction, and
b.) Repulsive forces between neutrons.
If the Big Bang happened, it made massive neutron star(s) that fragmented away to produce galaxies and evaporate away by neutron emission to fill the cosmos with the neutron-decay product, Hydrogen.
As noted above, nuclear matter is mostly dissociating now:
Neutron star =(neutron-emission)=> n =(neutron-decay)=> H
When neutron stars are gone, there will no repulsive force to counter the attractive forces of gravity, and the cosmos may collapse:
H => He => C => . . . Fe =(implosion)=> neutron star
2. Johnnythelowery and Boris: The solar neutrino puzzle was about ‘missing’ solar neutrinos. Measurements by the late Dr. Raymond Davis revealed too few neutrinos coming from the Sun for it to be heated by Hydrogen-fusion.
Dr. Ray Davis was a great scientist – an intellectually honest experimentalist that remained true to basic scientific principles even when his data undercut the very hypothesis that he had intended to prove – the hypothesis that Hydrogen-fusion powers the Sun. See this 1967 BNL news release:
Click to access 1967PR.pdf
Ray worked in the Chemistry Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory when he started the experiment to detect solar neutrinos (v) by their interaction with the heaviest stable isotope of chlorine in the Homestake Mine in South Dakota:
Cl-37 + v => Ar-37 (t1/2 = 35 days)
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/raydavis/research.htm
His first report showed orders-of-magnitude less solar neutrinos than expected if solar fusion occurred by way of the Hans Bethe’s CNO cycle [R. Davis Jr. et al, “Report on the Brookhaven solar neutrino experiment” in Neutrino ‘72, Europhysics Conference Proceedings, eds., Frenkel, A. and Marx, G., Balatonfiired, Hungary, June 11-17, 1972. Organized by the Hungarian Physical Society, vol. 1, pp. 5-15].
His later measurements also revealed too few solar neutrinos for the Sun to be heated by the proton-proton chain reaction in the Sun.
This was the solar neutrino puzzle that was supposedly ‘solved’ by 178 co-authors who reported in 2002 that solar neutrinos oscillate away on their journey from the Sun to our detectors here on Earth [Q. R. Ahmad, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011301]. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i1/e011301
I doubt that solar neutrinos oscillate away so readily. Measurements indicate that the basic conservation laws of nature are conserved for neutrino-producing double beta-decay reactions over time scales up to 10^24 years [J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 17 (1991) S221-S229].
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/17/S/024/
Finally, it should be mentioned that the Homestake Mine was intentionally flooded despite pleas to use Cl-35 in that same detector to measure the low-energy anti-neutrinos from neutron decay to Hydrogen in the Sun:
Cl-35 + anti-v => S-35 (t1/2 = 87 days)
See: “The Need to Measure Low Energy Anti-Neutrinos (E < 0.782MeV) from the Sun" [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67 (2004) 1959-1962; Yadernaya Fizika (Russian) 67 (2004) 1983-1986].
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410168
We live in interesting times – in a strange world of consensus science.
Hi Oliver: Just following up on a point you made earlier.
2. “Will the LHC help?” I don’t think so, but physics will lose a lot of credibility if the LHC experiment is actually run.
In a nut-shell version, what do you mean?
Thanks…
johnnythelowery:
In a nutshell, LHC scientists will have to either:
a.) Admit that the theoretical nuclear framework for the existence of a Higgs boson is seriously flawed . . .
[We already know that it is because it ignores neutron repulsion – the primary source of energy for the Sun and the cosmos], or
b.) Manipulate the data or creatively interpret the data in a way that will deceive the public.
LHC scientists have the same advantage that SNO scientists enjoyed a few years ago. Nobody else has the equipment, the expertise, and the funds to verify anything that the scientists report.
Hello Oliver,
I previously had not the conceptualization of an ‘electrostatic shell boundary’ of sorts, surrounding the neutron core of a star, and that keeping by its 22 MeV ‘barrier’ the inside neutrons from escaping due to their lower 12 MeV potentials.
In terms of Electric Theory, why would a star be a 10 Billion Volt positive anode ? , and attract a 10^14 Amp current ? Does the neutron core’s electrostatic (hope I’m using that word correctly) perimeter barrier play into the star becoming a highly positive anode ?
I’m trying to visualize the mechanism of how stars become positively charged and attract free electrons from the interstellar medium.
Your concept of the dense stellar core being exclusively Energy in the form of neutrons, and the resultant electric repulsive component balancing gravitational force is posing the questions of how does this relate to the exterior activity surrounding stars. Specifically the way Electric Theory successfully explains the solar corona and 17 other SSM nuclear fusion model killer phenomena.
I think you are correct, and Electric Theory is basically correct, and I’m trying to connect the two, and show how your interior model will cause a star to become a highly charged positive anode and attract a flow of electrons from its heliopause !
When we can do that, yours and Electric Theory will flourish together !!!
The corollary to that is: How does the star use that electrical inflow, what are those electrons fulfilling, are they somehow converting into something different that is supplying a core need ???
Is there a connection between intense gravity and electricity ?
The gravity/energy paradigm of unified field theory.
Lars,
I am an experimentalist, not a theorist and not an authority on electricity and magnetism. But it is obvious that the Standard Solar Model (SSM) of a Hydrogen-filled Sun largely ignores electricity.
We have published empirical evidence that electrical discharges on the solar surface induce nuclear reactions, e.g., the CNO cycle proposed by Hans Bethe [“Observational confirmation of the Sun’s CNO cycle,” Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (October 20, 2006) pages 141-144].
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0512633v2
Eventually all experimental observations will have to be integrated together if we are to understand the Sun and the cosmos. That includes observations stressed in the Electric Theory as well as such basic nuclear properties as neutron repulsion.
There is a lot of work ahead. NAS, NASA and DOE have been manipulating and hiding data and observations for decades to promote the Standard Solar Model (SSM) of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
Oliver: I retract this question.
2. Garrett’s E8 or Green’s Super String?
I’m sorry about that. I had no idea the ramifactions All i know is if they don’t find the Higgs…..they’re ___{SNIP-Note from the editor: Please. No ___ Swearing {SNIP-Note from the Editor: No ___ Swearing {Snip (add infinity!))!
(‘scuse my humour!)
This is an incredible situation you find yourself in. The stakes for your theory couldn’t be higher and talk about picking fights! Good-night. Good for you for sticking by your convictions! This is absolutely the most exciting thing i’ve heard in years. Thx very much indeed. Johnnny
Thank you for your kindness, Johnny.
I will be 74 years old in the fall, if I live that long. I did not choose to be here in the first place. In my old age, I finally grasp the wisdom of William Shakespeare’s words:
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
Lars; check comments Oliver Manual and P.G.Sharrow on https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/what-is-the-solar-planetary-theory/ thread. P.G.