Sunday, November 8, 2009

Our Iron Sun: The Ancients Were Right Again



"Favorinus, in his Univeral History, says that Democritus said of Anaxagoras, that his opinions about the sun and moon were not his own, but were old theories, and that he had stolen them." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"He [Anaxagoras] asserted that the sun was a mass of burning iron...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"... Sotion, in his Succession of the Philosophers, says, that he [Anaxagoras] was persecuted for impiety by Cleon because he said that the sun was a fiery ball of iron. And though Pericles, who had been his pupil, defended him, he was, nevertheless, fined five talents and banished ... and that he was condemned to death in his absence. " -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it [the sun] is a magnet." -- George E. Hale, astronomer, 1913

Some imbecile named "Joe" the Plumber made the ignorant and uneducated remark that the ancients "saw the sun as a disk in the sky and nothing more." Having recently been focused on Diogenes Laertius, I knew this to be a lie. Anaxagoras said the sun is a mass of burning iron. So I went to see if Anaxagoras's statement is accurate. Guess what? The sun is in fact burning iron: The Surface Of The Sun.

While the gas model has enjoyed popular support over the past 50 years, that has not always been the case. In fact astronomers of 100 years ago believed in a predominantly iron sun, most notably Dr. Kristian Birkeland. ...

The surface crust of the sun is mostly made of iron.
Science Daily: The Sun: A Great Ball Of Iron?

ScienceDaily (July 17, 2002) — For years, scientists have assumed that the sun is an enormous mass of hydrogen. But in a paper presented before the American Astronomical Society, Dr. Oliver Manuel, a professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR, says iron, not hydrogen, is the sun's most abundant element.
TheSunIsIron.

11 comments:

BF said...

I posted this earlier on the previous thread, but it would be more appropriate here.

Hi Oils... you and other posters here might be interested to know that...

"a neutron star "swaddled" in carbon has just been reported in Cassiopeia A ["A neutron star with a carbon atmosphere in the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant," Nature 462, 71-73 (5 November 2009)]

http://www.nature. com/nature/ journal/v462/ n7269/full/ nature08525. html

or http://physicsworld .com/cws/ article/news/ 40873

The authors, Wynn C. G. Ho and Craig O. Heinke, state in the abstract,

"If there is accretion after neutron-star formation, the atmosphere could be composed of light elements (H or He); . . . "

They are apparently unaware that:
a.) Neutron emission, followed by neutron decay, produces H, and
b.) H-fusion then produces 35% of the total solar luminosity . . .
. . in the nearby star that has an outer atmosphere of H (91%) and He (9%)."

H/T Oliver Manuel (Yahoo Neutron Repulsion Group)

OilIsMastery said...

Hiya BF,

A friend of mine has a zinger for you.

"According to electric star theory, neutron stars belong in the same category with invisible pink unicorns." -- Stephen Smith, writer, November 2008

Quantum_Flux said...

What value does the Electric Sun Model give for the voltage potential between the Sun and the Earth?

OilIsMastery said...

"Now in the same 1845, the year of this triumph, Leverrier calculated also the anomaly of Mercury, and by this caused to think that the Newtonian law of gravitation may be not precisely true. Leverrier first thought of some planet moving inside the Mercurial orbit or of a possible unequal distribution of the mass in the sun. You [Einstein] have used the fact of the anomaly to prove that the space is curving in the presence of a mass. About the same time — in 1913 — G. E. Hale published his paper on 'The general magnetic field of the sun' (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity 'under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.' (Alfven) The last named author in his 'cosmical Electro-dynamics' (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

Quantum_Flux said...

"in 1913 — G. E. Hale published his paper on 'The general magnetic field of the sun' (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity."

At the surface of the sun or at 1 AU?

"a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field."

F = B*v*Q = m*v^2/r

r = mv/BQ

B=(.0050 volt-sec/m^2)
Q = 1.602 × 10−19 coulomb
m = 1.673 × 10−27 kg
v = 29,783 meters per second

Therefore - the radius of curvature for a proton at 50 gauss traveling at Earth velocity is about 0.0622 meters....the magnetic field effects definantly wouldn't cause the proton to orbit the sun, but rather a much tighter circle at such high gauss.

Quantum_Flux said...

However, assuming that it is 50 gauss on the surface of the sun, then at 1 AU the magnetic field strength would actually be:

B1 = 0.0050 Volt-sec/m^2

1 AU = 1.494 x10^12 m
1 R = 6.955 x10^8 m

B1*(4*Pi*R^2) = B2*(4*Pi*1AU^2)

B2 = B1 * (R^2 / 1AU^2)

B2 = 1.0835 x10^-9 Volt-sec/m^2

In that case of B2, the radius of curvature would be:

r = mv/B2*Q

r= 287,038 meters (meaning the diameter of rotation for a proton moving at Earth orbital velocities should be slightly greater than the distance of Earth to the Moon, still not big enough to orbit the sun though)

Quantum_Flux said...

Note, the orbital period for a proton of that speed would be:

T*v = Pi*2r

T = 60 seconds....that is extremely fast going from the Earth to the moon and back, assuming that we don't take the Earth's much stronger 0.00006 volt-seconds/m^2 field (0.6 gauss on the surface) into consideration which should ensure a much tighter radius of curvature. Perhaps protons do that at other Earth-Sun lagrange points or something.

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

It shou;d be possible to estimate the mass of an Iron-Calcium Sun? How does it fit with the predicted (understood) mass? Such a massive object would have colossal magnetic momentum? The 27.3 day period would surely send out radio waves of great length? What resonance effects could we seek to discern? On planets etc.

Great posts OIM!

Arie Sheyn said...

Iron sun. Iron works well with magnetism, this makes sense.

[img]http://i33.tinypic.com/k54mzt.jpg[/img]

Marvel Comics needs to update how powerful Erik Lensherr truly is!

Arie Sheyn said...

[img] does not work?

That takes the wind out of my sails... :)

OilIsMastery said...

Cool pic though...=)