zorro

"If you chance to read me once in a while I spoke of going from Si to Fe but not directly; then gave a cut of a large Star "

So not the sun, which isn't large as stars go.

And, even that picture shows the outer layers (where the photosphere is) as non-burning

So your whole thread is wrong because you didn't read properly.

 

That would explain why you can't provide evidence and are talking nonsense.

hi, jojo,

Well nobody is perfect, especially me. I am reading you but we are not in sync yet.

Large stars describes going from Si ... Fe in a exaggeration more than the sun to clarify my point of Si .... Fe .

The Sun has Fe thus could have Fusion in its past.

That is an insert to show fusion layering not the Photosphere.

Whole post is as perfect as is I.

I provide, you don't understand yet due to higher expectations on a SPECULATION post.

zorro

Engineering Joke of the day.

Well, it works on lawnmowers..............
I can see some of you guys trying this!
How to start a crop sprayer if the battery is duff. That's a good size engine in the sprayer. Ingenuity at work.
Have a great day

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=401176083333530&set=vb.291480754303064&type=2&theater

The Photosphere looks delicious. Now make a cake model of a Fusion Reactor. zorro

Nope, you have forgotten something, well quite a lot of things really.

Unless they were condensed down into metallic iron, they never were magnetised so they never had the magnetic energy to lose.

If they had then that energy is (as I pointed out, but you didn't seem to understand) tiny compared ti the thermal energies involved.

 

"Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???"

The answer is in the box just to the right of this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Characteristics

 

Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???

The state is a plasma at about 5000K and a density of about 2E-4 kg/m^3

 

Can I have my 64,000$ now please?

Nope, no shares of the $64,000 (Yours is 1Buck) until I get the Nobel ... Ha

Moderator

Admitting that we Scientists and Engineers don't have all the answers is not a Slam. It is a compliment that the universe is complex but that humans continue to investigate the many unknowns using the scientific method.

Ciao, Zorro

I am going to put this as absolutely simply as I can.

 

You have made the claim that, contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them, our Sun is somehow fusing Silicon into Iron, despite being far too small to actually do so.

 

Do you have any evidence or any mathematical model (even one you can link to from someone else) that supports this claim? I'm not saying it has to be right - but at this point in the discussion you need something aside from "Because that's what I think" as a response, or we're done here.

Greg my man, Well zap me with a -10 Rep. ....ha

If you chance to read me once in a while I spoke of going from Si to Fe but not directly; then gave a cut of a large Star showing fusing as it gets closer to the Core. Step of Si, S .... Fe or sloshing in a Si .... Fe mix. I also said that a Si Burning process is also a possibility.

http://www.essential-physics.com/Texas/pBook/eBook-SBTE/BookInd-484.html

zorro

Fusion flow examples:

http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/supernova.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec18.html

God Particle

CERN's work can bemuse neophytes, but the researchers find ways to make it simple.

"Everybody knows what an electron is, especially if they put their finger in an electric socket," joked Pierluigi Campana, whose team has just provided the most exhaustive confirmation to date of the Standard Model, the chief theoretical framework of particle physics conceived in the 1970s.

They achieved the most accurate measurement yet of a change in a particle called a Bs, showing that out of every billion, only a handful decay into smaller particles called muon, and do so in pairs.

For the experts, that finding was almost as thrilling as tracking the Higgs Boson—nicknamed the God Particle.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-higgs-breakthrough-cern-readies-cosmic.html#jCp

Yesterday when you made this suggestion I stated that I didn't think it was trolling, that I felt zorro was sincere in his beliefs, just mistaken and/or misguided. I think at this point, however, it's quite clear that I was mistaken and you were correct in this early assessment that he's simply trolling.

He clearly doesn't seem to care about learning or being correct, or even engaging in any sort of rational discourse. He's just in it to get a response and a rise out of the members, much like a child who acts out because mommy didn't pay him enough attention.

hello inow, zzzzzzzzz

The sun ism in a sense a big dynamo.

However that has nothing to do with iron (which is just as well, there's not a lot of iron there).

You need to look more carefully at the idea of a triple point, it's got next to nothing to do with a curie point.

Hot iron simply isn't magnetic at any high temperature (regardless of pressure) because the thermal energy is much bigger than the energy associated with the domain dipoles.

 

Also, any iron in the sun is in a fluid state, (the distinction between plasma liquid and gas is a bit fuzzy, but it doesn't matter).

Fluids are, at best, paramagnetic so iron would have no advantage over, for example, hydrogen which is also paramagnetic under those conditions.

 

Perhaps, you should stop making any new unsupported assertions until you have come up with some semblance of evidence for those you have already made.

You forget to report that as materials go thru the stage points and curie point, there is a transfer of energy. That and a transfer of magnetism and electrical currents are another properties that Iron and a few Elements offer.

Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???

I was unaware that asking for evidence to back up a claim about science (especially one that deviates significantly from accepted theory) was somehow attacking you or anyone else. How do scientists get through their days with all of these "attacks" without succumbing to the constant barrage and running off to hide.

 

Oh, right. They provide evidence. Or at least a mathematical model that supports their claims. You've provided neither. You've made claims that fly in the face of accepted stellar theories and provided not a shred of either evidence or math to back them up. When asked to do so, you simply wave your hands like a magician while screaming "I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!" in a vain attempt to evoke some kind of sympathy to a plight for which you have only yourself to blame.

 

I'll (vainly) ask you one last time. Kindly provide some kind - any kind - of evidence or mathematical support for your claims. It doesn't even have to be your own work. A journal article - a random letter from a magazine. Something a kid scribbled on the back of a napkin in crayon which has somehow convinced you that science is wrong and you are right would be more than you have presented so far.

 

My conversation with you so far can be summarized as:

 

"The sun fuses Silicon into Iron in the photosphere!"

"No, it doesn't."

"Yes it does."

"The sun doesn't have enough pressure or temperature to do that."

"But it happens anyway."

"And your evidence for that is....?"

"Stop attacking me!"

I was unaware that asking for evidence to back up a claim about science (especially one that deviates significantly from accepted theory) was somehow attacking you or anyone else. How do scientists get through their days with all of these "attacks" without succumbing to the constant barrage and running off to hide.

 

 

Asking for something that we both know is either wrong or not attainable is an unacceptable trick but not a attack. Some of it is valid levity.

 

 

Oh, right. They provide evidence. Or at least a mathematical model that supports their claims. You've provided neither. You've made claims that fly in the face of accepted stellar theories and provided not a shred of either evidence or math to back them up. When asked to do so, you simply wave your hands like a magician while screaming "I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!" in a vain attempt to evoke some kind of sympathy to a plight for which you have only yourself to blame.

 

 

I have provided much evidence . Please see the OP down to Post #3. You just ask for trickery backup wherein you have the data but won't reveal it in advance.

 

 

I'll (vainly) ask you one last time. Kindly provide some kind - any kind - of evidence or mathematical support for your claims. It doesn't even have to be your own work. A journal article - a random letter from a magazine. Something a kid scribbled on the back of a napkin in crayon which has somehow convinced you that science is wrong and you are right would be more than you have presented so far.

 

 

I pointed you to the "Binding Energy" analysis that you refuse to accept frankly. You can do your own google and homework. The Photosphere is a vast unknown and I too have many more questions than you have answers.

What does being a priest and/or a nuclear engineer have to do with anything?

 

I'm not a monkey trainer, but I know that Si -> Fe fusion only happens above a certain temperate and pressure. Since the sun does not contain those pressures or temperatures anywhere inside it, including in the core, it is therefore physically impossible for Si -> Fe fusion to take place inside the sun.

 

I am going to move that the moderators lock this thread unless you can actually come up with something besides hand waving to support your idea.

 

In short, provide some evidence for your position, or please stop trying to defend it.

 

 

hollo again greg,

You keep asking for a thesis style conversation when none can be done in your way by a non Nuclear Engineer or Priest. All; in a open thread, as is this one is, understand how I use the language in this way.

Si to Fe can go many ways depending on the isotopes and hydrogen bindings. You seem to be a purest here and won't reveal how the steps are to get there.

Go ahead and complain to a MOD if you wish. I chose this SPECULATION Thread to turn back attacks such as yours and allow a General member to be comfortable from critics such as you.

!

Moderator Note

 

zorro,

 

Please do not lower yourself to personal insults. This is a scientific discussion, and we will not accept any personal attacks. Calling somebody 'sir', and then insulting them does not make it any better.

 

John, please don't bother to reply to any insults.

Sorry

No insults here. Just ribbing because he forgets pressure impacts iron magnetic properties.

CHILL Cap, .... zorro

 

!

Moderator Note

I thought we had dealt with this: it was named the God particle by the publishing industry, not scientists. Straw-man arguments, especially repeated, are against the rules.

 

!

Moderator Note

Being dismissive of a legitimate question that was posed is also not going to fly.

 

!

Moderator Note

Explain why the numbers are unreliable. Bald assertions are not evidence.

 

!

Moderator Note

I thought we had dealt with this: it was named the God particle by the publishing industry, not scientists. Straw-man arguments, especially repeated, are against the rules.

 

!

Moderator Note

Being dismissive of a legitimate question that was posed is also not going to fly.

 

!

Moderator Note

Explain why the numbers are unreliable. Bald assertions are not evidence.

hello mod,

Changes made thanx,

God Particle is used by CHERN in a creation context so it is allowed to use it. It's origin of usage is unknown

His tears condemned my colors which is allowed for clarity.

You judged this unfairly at me and not to his intrangences.

Science is inconclusive on the phases of Fusion and Burning. The layering we now consider as Fusion is a mix and a mesh of Fe, Si, N, and all the rest. 0 to 8 Solar Masses seem to be the unclear. I presume some of the reluctance is the secrecy of the Weapons programs.

What would Sheldon say to that.

Just checking, you do know that iron isn't magnetic once it's above about red hot,don't you?

So making dynamos out of it in the sun would be silly.

 

"Something in the Photosphere is containing the energy from core. What; ..... we don't know??"

No it isn't.

If it was the sun wouldn't shine.

We don't need to speculate about what causes an effect that doesn't happen.

 

The sun follows the laws of physics as we know them.

If you want to show otherwise, please start with finding out what those laws predict, then show how reality differs.

(that requires you to learn the physics first)

hello john

WHAT !!!! the sun is a tremendous Dynamo and when iron is compressed back around its triple point phase it turns on it's Magnet.

Sir, you may realize that properties of materials vary according with their temp vs pressure characteristics.

You likewise confuse the rest of your conversation with basket-weaving I would guess. ...... Go back to your basics and return your edu. degrees is the only hope for us.

 

 

The 7% figure comes from a peer reviewed article in the Publication Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

The 3% figure comes from a peer reviewed artilce in the journal Intelligence. http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Lynn-et-al.pdf

 

The sources are fine.

Hello Bio.

NO No, they are unreliable also. in that clicking on the links goes dead thus hidden Rev 1

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. .......

..... duplicate please trash.

 

The way how light and heat is radiating from the sun should show that the energy is not contained in a way that can be controlled by us. (hint: there was no control)

hello melllinia.

Light and heat are transmitted thru the Photosphere by the circulating storms at the equatorial belt. To control this and other factors, it is proposed to rotate the Reactor thru a magnetic field. Thus producing a dynamo also withh the iron in the P-h shell. And use the light as a laser feed and control.

 

Then forget the photosphere and show me the calculation that shows that Silicon can fuse into Iron at all under those conditions.

 

Let me save you the trouble: It can't. It violates the laws of physics. So unless you have some damned amazing math to back up your claims, we're done here.

 

On the other hand, if you do have such math available, I'd go ahead and pack for your trip to Oslo.

hello again:

I am neither a Nuclear Engineer nor a Priest. I have seen the calcs in the Binding Energy Analysis and use the fact that Si ... Fe Fusion occurs in stars 8X the Sun and larger. Our Sun has Iron and is a dynamo. The miraculous entity, if you will, is that the Photosphere is there. Shielding 14m dK down to around 4000 dK. Your crummy equation won't predict it nor compute it's fusion elements. BUT IT IS THERE ANYWAY. I SEEM TO LEAN ON OBSERVATION than my iMAC.

 

 

A post of mine from an old thread:

 

 

 

So a rough estimate in the UK and the US puts the number of scientists who believe in some form of personal God at 3% and 7% respectively.

That is an unreliable Source.

The LA Times found around 40% Theist Scientists.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

 

 

Quite the contrary I think i am dead on topic, the idea of presupposing that science is discovering god is arrogant beyond belief. If Science is discovering anything it is discovering that god is irrelevant to any discussion of science and has no place in the natural world.

 

You have every right to your own beliefs but you do not have any right to your own reality, God is not an answer to anything, the concept of god has no evidence much less the concept of any particular god. If science is revealing god then which god? Krishna? Adrianna, Allah? Xenu? Why assume something that has no detectable effect on anything and is functionally no different than assuming angels push the planets around the sun...

 

If science is revealing or explaining anything it is explaining why god is not necessary to existence, and that god serves no purpose other than allowing a few to control many with lies and deceit...

Thanx for another melancholy lecture.

Your kind named it the God Particle and the Big Bang.

I suggest that you not Blaspheme. I am sure that your God has instituted the First Commandment also.

Let us know when you hear of an A-thiestismo Particle.

Good Science will always consult God; not religions as the Jim Jones, A=theists. Lost Christianity, Wikkka ......

 

Assuming God doesn’t make him any more likely to exist; there probably won’t be any convergence, but why the time limit? Your clumsy attempts at explaining nature is worth nothing, BTW, nature is what it is and depends on no-one’s belief.

 

P.S. No more red please...

thanx for the extraneous waste of our time.

 

How do you see DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY fitting in to all this ?

 

What proportion of scientists do you think are currently Theistic Scientists worldwide ( even if secretly , not openly) ?

 

1 % 5 % 10 % 25 % 50 % ?

 

 

.

hello mike:

This is not my fields of expertise. Maybe you could OP new threads. .... I would like to know also. << zorro

Very true mike, thanx.

The Church owned the salaries of the Sciences from the 18th century and before. Now we are paying the high prices for the inquisitions Fascism.

Theists were the Greatest and only Scientists before the 18th Century. Modern Scientists have yet to fall from these great shoulders.

 

 

Do you believe they ( " some scientists, or science as a composite institution " ) are converging on or diverging from

 

 

 

mike

Converging slowly. ....We have just begun. And little time in which to do it.

IMHO ..... I think that natured starts in a simple form for what its worth :

1. Spherical mass and Gravitational fields and

2. Spinning Mass and Electoral / Magnetic forces (or a spinning gravitational field)

....... and then everything is built from there as energies flow into masses and vice versa; and distances are shared as the Universes expands.

No, The nonsense you said (among others) was "Their interest is Weapons and not a Electric utility."

I was pointing out that the scientists are not interested in making weapons (which we already have) as much as they are interested in getting fusion power (which we don't have).

 

BTW, very few things have meaningful "insulating properties" under those conditions: photons and electrons are capable of carrying lots of energy about and the presence of a scrap of iron won't make any difference.

Have it your way, I'll stick to mine that Weapons gets the Lyon's share of fusion dollars.

btw reply: Something in the Photosphere is containing the energy from core. What; ..... we don't know?? Magnetic flux, fusion the phasing jumps of Fe, Ni, Si, N ..... who knows.

 

I can't reconcile this statement with you saying that science is unsure, and that an Iron-Nickel-Silicon processes is going on.

Science is inconclusive on the phases of Fusion and Burning. The layering we now consider as Fusion is a mix and a mesh of Fe, Si, N, and all the rest. 0 to 8 Solar Masses seem to be the unclear. I presume some of the reluctance is the secrecy of the Weapons programs.

What astonishes me is the arrogance of the theist to argue something they really know nothing about. "I've read most or some of the bible" "I know my god doesn't promote violence" and yet there are passages where god demands the deaths of not only armies but the women children and babies of the enemy, god demands the deaths of witches, homosexuals and unruly children. In one passage god tells his people to kill all the men women and male children but to keep the female children for their own pleasure. Another passage tells of god calling two she bears out of the woods to kill several children because they made fun of his prophets bald head... If you are going to argue for theism you should do much more that just read some of it... and then there is the arrogance of assuming your particular god is the only god and having no evidence what so ever to confirm that train of thought. Theism is the height of arrogance based on nothing...

You are way off topic now. Theist or not, Science is Clarifying God's nature but hasn't fully discovered or not God yet.

 

 

Please demonstrate, mathematically, how Si -> Fe fusion can occur at the low temperatures and pressures found in the Sun's photosphere given the following (at a standard optical depth of 1.0)¹:

 

 

Temperature = [math]6,533 K[/math]

Pressure = [math]1.25 \times 10^5[/math] [math]dynes/cm^2[/math]

Density = [math]3.00 \times 10^{-7}[/math] [math]g/cm^3[/math]

 

Feel free to take your time, and keep in mind that your answer must also explain why we can't fuse hydrogen, a process that takes significantly less energy, at this temperature and pressure.

 

---

1. Nieminen, T. A. (1995). Solar Line Asymmetries: Modelling the Effect of Granulation on the Solar Spectrum. Chap 2: p. 29. Retrieved on August 13, 2013 from http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/papers/thesis/chapter2_photosphere.pdf based on Holweger, H. and Müller, E. A. “The Photospheric Barium Spectrum: Solar Abundance and
   Collision Broadening of Ba II Lines by Hydrogen”, Solar Physics 39, pg 19-30 (1974).

 

It isn't' a Clean calculation because many Elements in the thin mash including , .... Carbon and Sulfur with a differing half life. I have seen the Binding Energy analyses of fusion. So go ahead and give me the results of your methods using all mash combos.

No Zorro,

You need to explain why you think that fusion to create iron can happen at lower temperatures than the fusion of H to He.

We know the Fe formation happens at high temperatures and pressures but you keep saying that it's formed in the Sun.

Well, the Sun simply isn't hot enough so you need to explain why you think it's forming iron.

 

 

(Much of the rest of what you said was also nonsense (for example), (for example, we already have weapons, but we don't have a reliable energy supply), (but I'm running out of patience with pointing it out in detail.)

You are off track here. I say that there is a minute amount of Ni / iron.... in the Sun. some in the Core some in the Photosphere. So you have badgered the point enough here. I am interested in its insulating properties ....

The Star Models are here in this lecture. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/ASTR100/class21.pdf

What can I say. You are not reading properly. bye for now.

ps : where did I say this nonsence???? we already have weapons, but we don't have a reliable energy supply