Origins of the UNIVERSE

[BMAONE23]

I think Harry is implying (and correct me Harry if I am wrong) that the Fe gets broken down into its separate subatomic particles, (protons, neutrons, and electrons) and these recombine to form fresh hydrogen.

Does that sum it up???

[harry]

Hello BMAONE23

You say

Fe gets broken down into its separate subatomic particles, (protons, neutrons, and electrons) and these recombine to form fresh hydrogen.

http://www.cosmos.swin.edu.au/entries/p ... ation.html

Iron when broken down to neutrons gives off the energy that is required to blast the stars envelope, resulting in a supernova. At the same time these neutrons are pulled into the inner core and rejuvinating it. Giving us the neutron core.

This neutron core release Neutrons
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

The Sun’s radiant energy and protons in the solar wind (SW) come from the collapsed supernova core, a neutron star (NS), on which the Sun formed. The cradle (Figs. 9-12) indicates that the energy of each neutron in the Sun’s central NS exceeds that of a free neutron by @ 10-22 MeV (Figs. 13-15) Solar luminosity and the flux of solar-wind protons are generated by a series of reactions (Fig. 16): a) escape of neutrons from the central NS, decay of free neutrons or their capture by other nuclides, c) fusion and upward migration of H+ through material that accreted on the NS, and d) escape of H+ in the SW. An example might be:

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

Reactions like a) and
produce part of the Sun’s radiant energy and perhaps the luminosity of isolated neutron stars25. Note that reaction a) alone may release more energy per nucleon than is released by the sum of reactions
and c), the decay or capture of neutrons plus H-fusion. The well-established Solar Neutrino Puzzle26 confirms that reaction c) generates only part of the Sun’s total luminosity. Most 1H+ from
is consumed by H-fusion, but the anomalous abundance of H (See Fig.
shows that 1H+ also leaks from the interior, selectively carrying lighter nuclides to the solar surface (See Fig. 6) before departing in the solar wind at an emission rate of about 2.7 x 1043 1H/yr. Homochirality in living creatures26 was likely initiated by circularly polarized light (CPL) from the Sun’s early NS. Their fate and climate changes of planets27 may depend on the half-life of this massive nucleus at the Sun’s core.

Read through these papers, maybe to understand where I'm coming from.
http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html


Some will say this is silly thinking. It is worth investicating.

Most cosmologists today, say that their is no form of degerated matter within the inner core of our sun.


Mr Skeptic will say stop posting silly links.

Mr Skeptic should get an education. He lacks the info on many issues.

==============================================

Hello Martin,,,,,,,,,,,sometimes we have to make assumptions

As for Black Holes,,,,,,,,,,,,,they do not exist in the sense of the word.
MECO object may be a better way of thinking.

Since the word black hole name came into the picture. Many have used it to explain many issues.

A black hole is a ultra dense plasma matter, made from subatomic particals.
We assume this to be so, because of the progressive changes, from Neutron Core, to quarks stars to the so called theoretical preon star and so forth to the ultra dense matter that prevents light from escaping.


The so called black hole that is 10billion times that of our sun, they worked it out on the influence it has on the surrounding star bodies.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 40628.html

[Dr. Skeptic]

If you have ever take a course in helioseimology you would know that the average density of the Sun is 1,400 kg/m3. The density of a neutron star is 10^20 kg/m3, (H2O = 1,000 kg/m3). Acoustic resonance and other mathematical models shows the density of the core of the Sun to be 160,000 kg/m3 or about 1/10^14 times as dense as a neutron star. (Pb≈ 16,00kg/m3)

This would leave the size of a neutron core 10 to 100 meters in diameter with insufficient mass to remain stable. If the amount of Fe you suggest is added, well, it can't fit any workable model.

Sorry, I'm trying to explain this using as little math as possible.

[Qev]

I think Harry is implying (and correct me Harry if I am wrong) that the Fe gets broken down into its separate subatomic particles, (protons, neutrons, and electrons) and these recombine to form fresh hydrogen.

Does that sum it up???

Photodisintegration in the core of a collapsing, high-mass star does indeed destroy the nuclei of iron atoms, rendering them back into protons and neutrons (effectively neutrons and hydrogen). Unfortunately, none of this really gets to escape back out into the universe-at-large, as it promptly collapses (the photodisintegration process gobbles up massive amounts of energy that would otherwise be holding the core up against collapse), forcing protons and electrons to merge... and you end up with a neutron star.

The process whereby protons are converted to neutrons releases even more energy, in the form of an enormous wave of neutrinos. In fact, this neutrino pulse carries away 99% of the energy of the supernova... the brilliant, outshining-a-whole-galaxy explosion we see is the remaining 1%. The neutrino burst is so intense that, despite being possibly the most tenuous particle known (able to pass through a light-year of lead unhindered), it's what is primarily responsible for blasting the outer layers of the dying star apart.

It always terrifies me to think about that. In a wonderful sort of way.

[Qev]

There. Is. No. Solar. Neutrino. Problem.

The 'neutron star as the core of the Sun' theory relies on the existance of this problem. AAAAAH. *catches fire*

[harry]

Hello Qev

You are getting close.


There are a few energy balances that need to be accounted.

The chain reaction of the iron broken down to Helium,,,,,,,energy release
The Helium broken down to atoms,,,,,,,energy release
The hydrogen atoms broken down to neutrons,,,,,,,,,,,,energy release

This huge amounts of energy feeds the enviroment

1) To allow the neutrons that require extreme high temperatures and electromagnetic forces and gravity to feel at home in the inner core.
2) The energy causes a shock wave that ejects the solar envelope with its layes of elements from Hydrogen to Iron and nickel.

Our sun and the solar system evolved from such a process.

This neutron core eventually gave birth to a new solar envelope as we know it with its varies layers of elements.

==========================================

The process is more complicated than that,,,,,,,,,,,,,but the general idea is there.


If you are still in the thinking mode of the existing solar model, than you will not understand what I'm trying to explain.

Hey! this is why we have these discussions.

All in the fun.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Harry:

Creating a new model of the Sun to fit a (hypothetical based) theory contrary to years of observations and research is once again tabloid science. There are reasons this information is not reported in the standard scientific journals: it is science fiction. I posted an over simplifies set of arguments proving your model of the Sun is incorrect and you, as always, ignored it. I can add additional data to my argument explaining the Sun's magnetic field, fluid dynamics, temperature gradients . . .

You are doing a disservice to the scientific community by the proliferation of BAD SCIENCE!

It is not my education that is in question on this topic.

[Pete]

There are a few energy balances that need to be accounted.

The chain reaction of the iron broken down to Helium,,,,,,,energy release
The Helium broken down to atoms,,,,,,,energy release

These two reactions consume energy, since fusion of light elements up to iron releases energy, as in the sun, or, if you will, in a hydrogen bomb. Iron has one of the most tightly bound nuclei of all elements in terms of binding energy per nucleon, so neither fission nor fusion of iron will generate energy; rather, all nuclear reactions will tend toward producing iron.

This neutron core eventually gave birth to a new solar envelope as we know it with its varies layers of elements.

How does this theory account for conservation of energy? Is this regeneration cycle supposed to continue forever for all stars? What happens to all the energy lost into space during the sun's lifetime(s)? It has to come from somewhere. By extension of the "neutron core sun", do much more massive stars have black holes as their cores?

[harry]

Hello Pete


Pete read these papers and let me know what you think.

http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

Pete Your above logic is wrong.

We may have to look at first the process involved in a supernova.
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ ... th_3a.html

As the mass of the star's iron core approaches 1.4 solar masses (due to continued silicon and sulfur burning in a thin shell adjacent to the iron core), a dramatic sequence of events is being triggered:

Iron Core Collapse

Gravity, which up to now was balanced by the outward force of the pressure, decisively gains the upper hand and the iron core collapses.


In less than a second, the core collapses from a size of about 5,000 miles to one of about a dozen miles, and an enormous amount of energy is released. This collapse happens so fast that the star's outer layers have no time to react and participate in it.


The amount of energy that is released during core collapse is truly gigantic -- it is equivalent to the energy produced by 100 stars like the Sun during their entire lifetimes of more than 10 billion years!


Most of the energy released during the collapse of the iron core is carried off into space by elusive particles called neutrinos. A small fraction of the energy is deposited in the lower layers of the envelope surrounding the core and triggers the supernova explosion.

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ ... acont.html

The energy deposited in the lower layers of the envelope creates a superstrong shock wave that runs outward through the envelope toward the star's surface.


As the shock wave runs outward, it heats the envelope, induces explosive nuclear burning, and ejects the envelope at speeds of thousands of miles per second (i.e., in excess of 10 million miles/hour).

It is during this phase that elements heavier than iron are being manufactured.


When the shock wave reaches the star's surface, it very quickly heats the surface layers and brightens them. Within a day or two the exploding star becomes brighter than a billion Suns.

The result of these events is a compact stellar remnant and a rapidly expanding gaseous shell.

The stellar remnant is a neutron star or a black hole.

The expanding gaseous shell plows into the surrounding interstellar medium, and pushes, compresses, and intermingles with it. Such regions of the interstellar medium are known as supernova remnants.

Lets look at our sun as an example.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

The Sun and its planetary system formed from heterogeneous debris1-11 of a supernova (SN) that exploded 5 billion years ago12,13. Meteorites and planets recorded this as decay products of short-lived nuclides and linked variations in elemental and isotopic abundances. Cores of the inner planets grew in the central iron-rich region of the SN debris, and the Sun formed on the collapsed SN core. See Figs. 1-5.

The Sun’s radiant energy and protons in the solar wind (SW) come from the collapsed supernova core, a neutron star (NS), on which the Sun formed. The cradle (Figs. 9-12) indicates that the energy of each neutron in the Sun’s central NS exceeds that of a free neutron by @ 10-22 MeV (Figs. 13-15) Solar luminosity and the flux of solar-wind protons are generated by a series of reactions (Fig. 16): a) escape of neutrons from the central NS, b) decay of free neutrons or their capture by other nuclides, c) fusion and upward migration of H+ through material that accreted on the NS, and d) escape of H+ in the SW. An example might be:

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

b) The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

Reactions like a) and b) produce part of the Sun’s radiant energy and perhaps the luminosity of isolated neutron stars25. Note that reaction a) alone may release more energy per nucleon than is released by the sum of reactions b) and c), the decay or capture of neutrons plus H-fusion. The well-established Solar Neutrino Puzzle26 confirms that reaction c) generates only part of the Sun’s total luminosity. Most 1H+ from b) is consumed by H-fusion, but the anomalous abundance of H (See Fig. 8) shows that 1H+ also leaks from the interior, selectively carrying lighter nuclides to the solar surface (See Fig. 6) before departing in the solar wind at an emission rate of about 2.7 x 1043 1H/yr. Homochirality in living creatures26 was likely initiated by circularly polarized light (CPL) from the Sun’s early NS. Their fate and climate changes of planets27 may depend on the half-life of this massive nucleus at the Sun’s core.

====================================

Mr Skeptic making statements like that is not very scientific. I have come across people like you and their effect is to slow down progress.

But! go ahead and think what you want. You maybe right.

So you think that these papers are rubbish
http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

[Dr. Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic making statements like that is not very scientific. I have come across people like you and their effect is to slow down progress.

Slow down progress??????

Your model CANNOT work, in your own words "it does match observations" You have already state math does not validate scientific theory, now are you saying that observations do not validate science? What's left, your unsubstantiated pontifications? Because you assert my point are not science is only reveling another degree of your inability to analyze data scientifically.

Are you familiar with the anecdote of the Blue Fairies that make a clock work? Your arguments are paralleling it perfectly.

[harry]

Dr Skeptic

Its only a matter of time that your false statement will be revealed.

Its not my opinion that you are attacking. Its the opinion of many cosmologists.

[Pete]

Hello Pete


Pete read these papers and let me know what you think.

I skimmed over a few of them *shudder*...looks like speculative fiction. I almost laughed out loud at the discordant conclusions. For example, how does this make sense:

Thus, the occurrence of a neutron star in the core of the Sun, in its precursor, and in other ordinary stars [3-9] implies that:
a.) Stellar explosions may expose, but do not necessarily produce, the neutron stars that are seen in stellar debris; and
b.) Neutron stars at the centers of ordinary stars were not produced one-at-a-time in SN explosions but were more abundantly made in higher energy events, such as galactic collisions that likely altered or produced the current Milky Way.

Collisions are highly disruptive to all components of the galaxies, including the nucleus, and astronomers observe the collisional energy in many puzzling forms - quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers (AGN). The extreme turbulence of active galactic nuclei (AGN) suggests the interactive presence of massive gravitational concentrations, possibly black holes [23] or super-massive neutron stars that fragment explosively [24] into the multiple neutron stars that then serve as formation sites of new stars. Struck notes in the abstract of his review paper that “Galactic collisions may trigger the formation of a large fraction of all the stars ever
formed, and play a key role in fueling active galactic nuclei” [ref. 22, p. 1].

Pete Your above logic is wrong.

We may have to look at first the process involved in a supernova.
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ ... th_3a.html

As the mass of the star's iron core approaches 1.4 solar masses (due to continued silicon and sulfur burning in a thin shell adjacent to the iron core), a dramatic sequence of events is being triggered:

Iron Core Collapse

Gravity, which up to now was balanced by the outward force of the pressure, decisively gains the upper hand and the iron core collapses.


In less than a second, the core collapses from a size of about 5,000 miles to one of about a dozen miles, and an enormous amount of energy is released. This collapse happens so fast that the star's outer layers have no time to react and participate in it.


The amount of energy that is released during core collapse is truly gigantic -- it is equivalent to the energy produced by 100 stars like the Sun during their entire lifetimes of more than 10 billion years!


Most of the energy released during the collapse of the iron core is carried off into space by elusive particles called neutrinos. A small fraction of the energy is deposited in the lower layers of the envelope surrounding the core and triggers the supernova explosion.

What's up with the iron core? I thought you were trying to support the theory that neutron star cores are the main energy source of stars...

Lets look at our sun as an example.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

The Sun and its planetary system formed from heterogeneous debris1-11 of a supernova (SN) that exploded 5 billion years ago12,13. Meteorites and planets recorded this as decay products of short-lived nuclides and linked variations in elemental and isotopic abundances. Cores of the inner planets grew in the central iron-rich region of the SN debris, and the Sun formed on the collapsed SN core. See Figs. 1-5.

Material falling onto a mere white dwarf explosively fuses well before a full star accretes, and WD's are much, much less dense and less massive than the lightest neutron stars. "Neutron star novas" are similar to, but more violent than, regular (white dwarf) novas: infalling matter from a binary companion explosively fuses. There's no way for star matter to even exist on a neutron star, let alone accrete to the size of, say, the sun. Of course, there's also the little problem (pointed out a while ago on these forums) that the theoretical lower limit of the mass of a neutron star is greater than one solar mass.

Reactions like a) and b) produce part of the Sun’s radiant energy and perhaps the luminosity of isolated neutron stars25. Note that reaction a) alone may release more energy per nucleon than is released by the sum of reactions b) and c), the decay or capture of neutrons plus H-fusion. The well-established Solar Neutrino Puzzle26 confirms that reaction c) generates only part of the Sun’s total luminosity. Most 1H+ from b) is consumed by H-fusion, but the anomalous abundance of H (See Fig. 8) shows that 1H+ also leaks from the interior, selectively carrying lighter nuclides to the solar surface (See Fig. 6) before departing in the solar wind at an emission rate of about 2.7 x 1043 1H/yr. Homochirality in living creatures26 was likely initiated by circularly polarized light (CPL) from the Sun’s early NS. Their fate and climate changes of planets27 may depend on the half-life of this massive nucleus at the Sun’s core.

In case Qev is still temporarily out of commission from hammering this point home , I'll restate it: there is no solar neutrino problem. Please look it up: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030117.htm for starters.

[harry]

Hello All

You can avoid the issue.

Professor Oliver Manuel is onto something here and I think in the near future we shall see the outcome.

Hydrogen core in my opinion canot reach a density to control the expansion of the solar envelope and aslo keep the heat from over heating the core. This point is critcally important for the surviaval of our sun.

I have read the link
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030117.htm
It refers to the fusion reactions. date 2002

More reasearch is required.

[harry]

Hello All


http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2006/Nu ... serted.pdf

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars O. Manuel1, Michael Mozina2, and Hilton Ratcliffe3 _________________________________

Repulsive interactions between neutrons in compact stellar cores cause luminosity and a steady outflow of hydrogen from stellar surfaces. Neutron repulsion in more massive compact objects made by gravitational collapse produces violent, energetic, cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission). This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures.

Read the rest of this paper.

If Professor Oliver is correct than this will explain alot of issues and for this I would advice further investication.

I would rather look into it, than just agree with the standard model and find out years later that he was correct.

By now you probably know that I go out on a limb than jsut going with the flow.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Dearest Harry, I thing you've scaled that limb to the end and are dangling from the last leaf!

[harry]

Dr Skeptic

Dearest????

Are you are girl,,,,,,,,,,, if so,,,,,,,,,,,wow

That would explain alot of things. I get the same thing from my wife.

I better change my tune.

Thing,,,,,,,think

[Martin]

I agree Harry has an agenda. I think it is spiritually driven.

Harry, you have offered nothing more than pure speculation to a theoretical discussion. Although theoretical -it is supported by more than mere speculation. -------------And that is the DIFFERENCE.

Did that make sense??? (it's been a long day)

[Dr. Skeptic]

Dr Skeptic

Dearest????

Are you are girl,,,,,,,,,,, if so,,,,,,,,,,,wow

That would explain alot of things. I get the same thing from my wife.

I better change my tune.

Thing,,,,,,,think

Maybe I'm a transsexual sarcastian from the planet smartassia prime, what difference would that make? It doesn't change your flavor of wrong.

This beer is for you harry - cheers!

[harry]

Hello Martin.

I understand what you say.

But be specific, so I can respond to it.

What I'm looking at, is cutting edge info and if proved to be right, will change many theories.

Right or wrong its worth looking into.

I'm not sitting waiting for the next train.

If you wish to research what I'm looking at, it may help.

At this moment, I'm I have this huge building project with over five hundred men onsite and it will take another two years of my time.

This posting on the net is fun and interesting.

========================================
Dr Skeptic give it a rest mate, being right or wrong at this moment it is not as important as the information. I have my reasons and there is alot of information that I have to get through.

[BMAONE23]

What is interesting about this link of Harrys
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/ ... _D_063.jpg

is just how much it resembles the nerve connections of the brain

http://www.pharmacy.ferris.edu/htmls/ac ... ctions.htm
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/ ... _D_063.jpg

[linx]

Hi,
i think that is very special that all have the opportunity via the internet to discuss different viewpoints about the origin of the universe & other subjects
i cant help but think that the Creator of the Universe must be really pleased that He didnt create or include humans on a sort of committee as He developed the plans for the Universe, its amazing splendour or its order!
lets learn together with peaceful respect ... & be overpowered by the wonder of the beauty as are displayed in so many APOD's
Lin

[Dr. Skeptic]

Dr Skeptic give it a rest mate, being right or wrong at this moment it is not as important as the information. I have my reasons and there is alot of information that I have to get through.
_________________

I'll give it a rest when you get it right.

[Martin]

The peace and respect part is always a good idea.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Harry:
The foundation of any theory need to be the strongest point that the remainder is built on. The base of your theory has no strength, period. It is like erecting an enormous building with out footings, guaranteed to crack and fall.

It is respectful to correct someone when they are wrong, you are trying to reinvent the wheel but is insisting that it needs to be a square. Others learned that a round wheel is superior also why it is superior while you are trying to make the universe fit the square edges so your wheel works.

Go back to the basics Harry. Lets hear you hypothesis, short and simple and we can work from there.

The theory I lean towards is:

An event happened not of our four dimensional universe that caused the Big Bang which created space/time and (or as a byproduct) matter and energy.

That is my foundation.

Harry, lets hear yours. No evidence, no details, only the foundation.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

You say that a theory must have foundations.

I fully agree.

As for giving it a rest. Not on the discussion of the topic , but on the attitude of attacking people because they do not agree with you.

=====================================
You say

An event happened not of our four dimensional universe that caused the Big Bang which created space/time and (or as a byproduct) matter and energy

What do you mean?

=====================================

As for my theory

Nothing belongs to me.

I'd rather look at, where possible the observations and maybe deduce the events.

To look at star formations, how they evolve, the actual energy cycle involved. What possible acts trigger supernova and nova. In particular the inner core which holds the key to the functioning of any star.

To look at the formation of the light elements witin the star and the formation of the heavier elements during a supernova.

To look at the formation of galaxies, clusters and super clusters. The functioning of the MECO (Black Hole) and its unfluence on the formation of the surrounding galaxy structure. To investigate its role in the recycling of matter and to one day get evidence of the type of matter ejected from a MECH (BH)

These are the things that I'm looking at.

As for the Big Bang, if you wish to think along those lines, so be it.