Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Craig W. Thomson on 16/09/2015 16:31:24
-
I think I have an answer for this question, but I am not a scientist, so I wanted to post my ideas for critique.
Here's the premise:
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-sun-perfectly-baffles-scientists.html
Synopsis: Scientists had predicted that the Sun would have significantly more equatorial bulge than it does, and were surprised to find it is a nearly perfect sphere. If the Sun was the size of a beach ball, the equatorial bulge would be about the thickness of a human hair.
Here's my simple, straightforward hypothesis to explain: Fusion is what makes the Sun round. While Jupiter and Saturn are compositionally similar to the Sun (mosty hydrogen and helium) and exhibit prominent equatorial bulging, they do not have fusion occuring in their cores. Fusion applies pressure from the center of the Sun outward, and this tends to push the poles out, cancelling most of that flattening. Otherwise, the Sun would have a more pronounced equatorial bulge like Saturn and Jupiter.
So, I chalk up the Sun's spherical shape to hydrostatic equilibrium. According to the Internet:
"In continuum mechanics, a fluid is said to be in hydrostatic equilibrium or hydrostatic balance when it is at rest, or when the flow velocity at each point is constant over time. This occurs when external forces such as gravity are balanced by a pressure gradient force."
I think the same thing applies to plasma in the Sun, which behaves like a fluid in this case.
Again, I am not a scientist. I am a layman. Comments welcome.
-
I think I have an answer for this question, but I am not a scientist, so I wanted to post my ideas for critique.
Here's the premise:
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-sun-perfectly-baffles-scientists.html
Synopsis: Scientists had predicted that the Sun would have significantly more equatorial bulge than it does, and were surprised to find it is a nearly perfect sphere. If the Sun was the size of a beach ball, the equatorial bulge would be about the thickness of a human hair.
Here's my simple, straightforward hypothesis to explain: Fusion is what makes the Sun round. While Jupiter and Saturn are compositionally similar to the Sun (mosty hydrogen and helium) and exhibit prominent equatorial bulging, they do not have fusion occuring in their cores. Fusion applies pressure from the center of the Sun outward, and this tends to push the poles out, cancelling most of that flattening. Otherwise, the Sun would have a more pronounced equatorial bulge like Saturn and Jupiter.
So, I chalk up the Sun's spherical shape to hydrostatic equilibrium. According to the Internet:
"In continuum mechanics, a fluid is said to be in hydrostatic equilibrium or hydrostatic balance when it is at rest, or when the flow velocity at each point is constant over time. This occurs when external forces such as gravity are balanced by a pressure gradient force."
I think the same thing applies to plasma in the Sun, which behaves like a fluid in this case.
Again, I am not a scientist. I am a layman. Comments welcome.
I have never seen a perfect sphere that gives off solar flares and does not have a smooth surface, the sun is hardly a perfect sphere,
it is sphere like because of gravity or magnetic bottling from space?
-
I have never seen a perfect sphere that gives off solar flares and does not have a smooth surface, the sun is hardly a perfect sphere,
it is sphere like because of gravity or magnetic bottling from space?
First of all, the words "perfect sphere" are not mine. They are from dozens of articles written by scientists and science writers, one of which I posted a link to. I'm using their words.
Secondly, they are referring to the overall, mean, average shape of the Sun. Of course, if the Sun was shaped more like an oblate spheroid, it would still have those prominences and flares. That's not what they or I am talking about. If somebody told you a basketball was an example of a nearly perfect sphere, you would not say, "I've never seen a perfect sphere with black grooves circling it, grainy texture, and a hole used to inflate it" unless you were intentionally being obtuse.
I think the Sun's nearly perfect spherical shape is primarily a result of hydrostatic equilibrium between the forces of fusion pressure and gravity, with "centrifugal force" barely expressing itself against much stronger fusion pressure.
-
I have never seen a perfect sphere that gives off solar flares and does not have a smooth surface, the sun is hardly a perfect sphere,
it is sphere like because of gravity or magnetic bottling from space?
First of all, the words "perfect sphere" are not mine. They are from dozens of articles written by scientists and science writers, one of which I posted a link to. I'm using their words.
Secondly, they are referring to the overall, mean, average shape of the Sun. Of course, if the Sun was shaped more like an oblate spheroid, it would still have those prominences and flares. That's not what they or I am talking about. If somebody told you a basketball was an example of a nearly perfect sphere, you would not say, "I've never seen a perfect sphere with black grooves circling it, grainy texture, and a hole used to inflate it" unless you were intentionally being obtuse.
I think the Sun's nearly perfect spherical shape is primarily a result of hydrostatic equilibrium between the forces of fusion pressure and gravity, with "centrifugal force" barely expressing itself against much stronger fusion pressure.
Plasma is not really a liquid or neither is the sun, so hydro is not really a word involved in any of the suns processes. Do you imagine the sun to be like molten Lava?
Either way the sun is not at rest in any sense with viscous outbursts and ''belts'' that flow around it, I think the sun holds its sphere like shape because it is magnetic bottled as can be seen in plasma physics and the attempt to make plasma,
is one and the other not the same mimic?
technically the sun should just disperse into space as a plasma gas.
I think science will argue it is gravity alone and mass that holds the sun together and maintains its shape because gravity is isotropic.
-
Craig
Welcome to the forum.
It might be worth getting the full paper as there seem to be suggestions that solar magnetism, turbulence, subsurface and meridional flows might have sufficient effect to explain the lack of bulge.
How would you envisage fusion acting. It would still have to overcome any inequalities due to rotational effects.
-
Plasma is not really a liquid or neither is the sun, so hydro is not really a word involved in any of the suns processes. Do you imagine the sun to be like molten Lava?
Either way the sun is not at rest in any sense with viscous outbursts and ''belts'' that flow around it, I think the sun holds its sphere like shape because it is magnetic bottled as can be seen in plasma physics and the attempt to make plasma,
is one and the other not the same mimic?
technically the sun should just disperse into space as a plasma gas.
I think science will argue it is gravity alone and mass that holds the sun together and maintains its shape because gravity is isotropic.
That's not correct at all. Jupiter has an intense magnetic field, yet it is flattened significantly at the poles. The difference between Jupiter and the Sun is that the Sun is plasma. The Sun is plasma because of fusion. Fusion applies isotropic pressure outward, which cancels equatorial bulge.
Gravity still applies to plasma, so no, the Sun should not disperse into space.
Science argued that the Sun should be flattened more at the poles, but it is not. That's why the title of the article I posted a link to says scientists were "baffled" by this discovery. That is why I proposed this hypothesis. Something causes the Sun to be a more perfect sphere than Jupiter, and I say that something is isotropic fusion pressure.
Imagine a slightly underinflated basketball. Sit on it, and you cause "flattening at the poles." Remain sitting on it, but have someone inflate it the rest of the way. The isotropic pressure cancels the flattening, causing the basketball to be more spherical despite your weight. That's the simplest analogy I can come up with.
-
Craig
Welcome to the forum.
It might be worth getting the full paper as there seem to be suggestions that solar magnetism, turbulence, subsurface and meridional flows might have sufficient effect to explain the lack of bulge.
How would you envisage fusion acting. It would still have to overcome any inequalities due to rotational effects.
Thanks.
All the papers I've read say scientists still aren't sure why the Sun is such a perfect sphere. The "rotational effects" you speak of are the equatorial bulge I mentioned. That is mostly cancelled out by isotropic fusion pressure from the Sun's interior which, unlike centrifugal force, applies outward pressure at the poles.
I don't buy that magnetic fields could account for the nearly perfect spherical shape of the Sun, because Jupiter has an intense magnetic field, yet it has a pronounced equatorial bulge. I believe that if you could somehow increase Jupiter's mass tenfold, that would ignite fusion, and its equatorial bulge would disappear.
Turbulence wouldn't make the Sun more round. It would tend to disrupt that roundness.
Gravity is a container of sorts. Fusion pressure makes the plasma in that container behave like steam in a pressure cooker. If that pressure cooker was malleable, it would take the shape of a sphere.
-
That's not correct at all. Jupiter has an intense magnetic field, yet it is flattened significantly at the poles. The difference between Jupiter and the Sun is that the Sun is plasma. The Sun is plasma because of fusion. Fusion applies isotropic pressure outward, which cancels equatorial bulge.
Gravity still applies to plasma, so no, the Sun should not disperse into space.
Science argued that the Sun should be flattened more at the poles, but it is not. That's why the title of the article I posted a link to says scientists were "baffled" by this discovery. That is why I proposed this hypothesis. Something causes the Sun to be a more perfect sphere than Jupiter, and I say that something is isotropic fusion pressure.
Imagine a slightly underinflated basketball. Sit on it, and you cause "flattening at the poles." Remain sitting on it, but have someone inflate it the rest of the way. The isotropic pressure cancels the flattening, causing the basketball to be more spherical despite your weight. That's the simplest analogy I can come up with.
the only reason your basketball scenario works is because the ball has containment of an outer shell unlike the sun.
-
Plasma is not really a liquid or neither is the sun, so hydro is not really a word involved in any of the suns processes. Do you imagine the sun to be like molten Lava?
Either way the sun is not at rest in any sense with viscous outbursts and ''belts'' that flow around it, I think the sun holds its sphere like shape because it is magnetic bottled as can be seen in plasma physics and the attempt to make plasma,
is one and the other not the same mimic?
technically the sun should just disperse into space as a plasma gas.
I think science will argue it is gravity alone and mass that holds the sun together and maintains its shape because gravity is isotropic.
That's not correct at all. Jupiter has an intense magnetic field, yet it is flattened significantly at the poles. The difference between Jupiter and the Sun is that the Sun is plasma. The Sun is plasma because of fusion. Fusion applies isotropic pressure outward, which cancels equatorial bulge.
Gravity still applies to plasma, so no, the Sun should not disperse into space.
Science argued that the Sun should be flattened more at the poles, but it is not. That's why the title of the article I posted a link to says scientists were "baffled" by this discovery. That is why I proposed this hypothesis. Something causes the Sun to be a more perfect sphere than Jupiter, and I say that something is isotropic fusion pressure.
Imagine a slightly underinflated basketball. Sit on it, and you cause "flattening at the poles." Remain sitting on it, but have someone inflate it the rest of the way. The isotropic pressure cancels the flattening, causing the basketball to be more spherical despite your weight. That's the simplest analogy I can come up with.
Two things:
1) Plasma (as in the Sun) interacts with magnetic fields, whereas gas (as in Jupiter) does not. The source of the plasma (fusion in the case of the sun, but solar wind in the case of our ionosphere, and gravitational acceleration in the case of accretion discs) doesn't matter.
2) An isotropic force plus an anisotropic force must have a net anisotropic effect. Therefore, if we know that an anisotropic force is in effect, there must be another anisotropic force to counterbalance it in order to have an overall isotropic equilibrium.
-
Plasma is not really a liquid or neither is the sun, so hydro is not really a word involved in any of the suns processes. Do you imagine the sun to be like molten Lava?
Either way the sun is not at rest in any sense with viscous outbursts and ''belts'' that flow around it, I think the sun holds its sphere like shape because it is magnetic bottled as can be seen in plasma physics and the attempt to make plasma,
is one and the other not the same mimic?
technically the sun should just disperse into space as a plasma gas.
I think science will argue it is gravity alone and mass that holds the sun together and maintains its shape because gravity is isotropic.
That's not correct at all. Jupiter has an intense magnetic field, yet it is flattened significantly at the poles. The difference between Jupiter and the Sun is that the Sun is plasma. The Sun is plasma because of fusion. Fusion applies isotropic pressure outward, which cancels equatorial bulge.
Gravity still applies to plasma, so no, the Sun should not disperse into space.
Science argued that the Sun should be flattened more at the poles, but it is not. That's why the title of the article I posted a link to says scientists were "baffled" by this discovery. That is why I proposed this hypothesis. Something causes the Sun to be a more perfect sphere than Jupiter, and I say that something is isotropic fusion pressure.
Imagine a slightly underinflated basketball. Sit on it, and you cause "flattening at the poles." Remain sitting on it, but have someone inflate it the rest of the way. The isotropic pressure cancels the flattening, causing the basketball to be more spherical despite your weight. That's the simplest analogy I can come up with.
Two things:
1) Plasma (as in the Sun) interacts with magnetic fields, whereas gas (as in Jupiter) does not. The source of the plasma (fusion in the case of the sun, but solar wind in the case of our ionosphere, and gravitational acceleration in the case of accretion discs) doesn't matter.
2) An isotropic force plus an anisotropic force must have a net anisotropic effect. Therefore, if we know that an anisotropic force is in effect, there must be another anisotropic force to counterbalance it in order to have an overall isotropic equilibrium.
I am going to have to read that through again later chiral. It may fit in with something I am looking at.
-
Plasma is not really a liquid or neither is the sun, so hydro is not really a word involved in any of the suns processes. Do you imagine the sun to be like molten Lava?
Either way the sun is not at rest in any sense with viscous outbursts and ''belts'' that flow around it, I think the sun holds its sphere like shape because it is magnetic bottled as can be seen in plasma physics and the attempt to make plasma,
is one and the other not the same mimic?
technically the sun should just disperse into space as a plasma gas.
I think science will argue it is gravity alone and mass that holds the sun together and maintains its shape because gravity is isotropic.
That's not correct at all. Jupiter has an intense magnetic field, yet it is flattened significantly at the poles. The difference between Jupiter and the Sun is that the Sun is plasma. The Sun is plasma because of fusion. Fusion applies isotropic pressure outward, which cancels equatorial bulge.
Gravity still applies to plasma, so no, the Sun should not disperse into space.
Science argued that the Sun should be flattened more at the poles, but it is not. That's why the title of the article I posted a link to says scientists were "baffled" by this discovery. That is why I proposed this hypothesis. Something causes the Sun to be a more perfect sphere than Jupiter, and I say that something is isotropic fusion pressure.
Imagine a slightly underinflated basketball. Sit on it, and you cause "flattening at the poles." Remain sitting on it, but have someone inflate it the rest of the way. The isotropic pressure cancels the flattening, causing the basketball to be more spherical despite your weight. That's the simplest analogy I can come up with.
Two things:
1) Plasma (as in the Sun) interacts with magnetic fields, whereas gas (as in Jupiter) does not. The source of the plasma (fusion in the case of the sun, but solar wind in the case of our ionosphere, and gravitational acceleration in the case of accretion discs) doesn't matter.
2) An isotropic force plus an anisotropic force must have a net anisotropic effect. Therefore, if we know that an anisotropic force is in effect, there must be another anisotropic force to counterbalance it in order to have an overall isotropic equilibrium.
I am going to have to read that through again later chiral. It may fit in with something I am looking at.
''Ball lightning is an unexplained atmospheric electrical phenomenon. The term refers to reports of luminous, spherical objects which vary in diameter from pea-sized to several meters. It is usually associated with thunderstorms, but lasts considerably longer than the split-second flash of a lightning bolt. Many early reports say that the ball eventually explodes, sometimes with fatal consequences, leaving behind the odor of sulfur.[1][2]''
Plasma in a ball same thing.
-
the only reason your basketball scenario works is because the ball has containment of an outer shell unlike the sun.
No, because gravity is a container. Gravity literally "contains" the Sun's mass. It's not a scenario; it's an analogy.
Let me try another analogy that's less confusing. A bubble under water is spherical because the outward pressure of the air and the inward pressure of the water create that shape. No container, no basketball skin, just a surface with a spherical shape.
In the Sun, you have the gravity pulling the Sun's material in and fusion pressure pushing outward. That outward pressure helps cancel most of the centrifugal effects.
-
Two things:
1) Plasma (as in the Sun) interacts with magnetic fields, whereas gas (as in Jupiter) does not. The source of the plasma (fusion in the case of the sun, but solar wind in the case of our ionosphere, and gravitational acceleration in the case of accretion discs) doesn't matter.
2) An isotropic force plus an anisotropic force must have a net anisotropic effect. Therefore, if we know that an anisotropic force is in effect, there must be another anisotropic force to counterbalance it in order to have an overall isotropic equilibrium.
1) Plasma is still subject to gravity, and still retains some fluidlike properties, just as both gases and liquids are subject to the principles of fluid dynamics.
2) Of course, the Sun is not perfectly spherical, just really close. There is still a bit of equatorial bulge, the result of the anisotropic force you spoke of, but MOSTLY it is cancelled by fusion pressure, or the Sun would be more oblate.
-
It's a sphere because that's the shape corresponding to the lowest energy. If there was a bulge in it then there would be non-zero forces which would pull the matter into a sphere making it once again the lowest potential energy.
-
Let me try another analogy that's less confusing. A bubble under water is spherical because the outward pressure of the air and the inward pressure of the water create that shape. No container, no basketball skin, just a surface with a spherical shape.
An air pocket under water tries to expand isotropically pushing the water away from the center of the pocket. At the same time the water wants to fill the pocket creating centripetal pressure against an isotropic expansion, if there were no centripetal isotropic pressure of the water (the skin), the bubble would disperse. The water is your skin, space has no observable ''skin'' around the sun, although the isotropic centripetal force of gravity holds the sun together, there is no known ''skin'' to stop the plasma dispersing. The volume of space around the sun is not of the polarity of the sun, there has to be a ''skin'', a virtual confinement .
-
An air pocket under water tries to expand isotropically pushing the water away from the center of the pocket. At the same time the water wants to fill the pocket creating centripetal pressure against an isotropic expansion, if there were no centripetal isotropic pressure of the water (the skin), the bubble would disperse. The water is your skin, space has no observable ''skin'' around the sun, although the isotropic centripetal force of gravity holds the sun together, there is no known ''skin'' to stop the plasma dispersing. The volume of space around the sun is not of the polarity of the sun, there has to be a ''skin'', a virtual confinement .
Again, the Sun doesn't need a skin. Gravity acts as the container. That's what keeps the plasma from dispersing. That's the "virtual confinement."
Let's go back to the basketball again since you won't stop being obtuse. Spin a partially inflated basketball fast enough around an axis, and it will bulge at the equator. Increase the air pressure, and some of that bulge will be cancelled. Sit on a basketball, and you get flattening at the poles. Decrease the air pressure, and that flattening increases. Increase the air pressure, and that flattening decreases. This is a simple, straightforward analogy.
Similarly, slow down the rate of fusion in the Sun a bit, and it would exhibit more equatorial bulging. Increase the rate of fusion in the Sun a bit, and it would be an even more perfect sphere. I've got a pretty strong science background for a layman, and nothing you've said to me thus far even comes close to disproving my hypothesis. All you've done is demonstrate that you like to argue with people.
What's your science background? Because you seem like you're cramming a bunch of scientific words together that you read researching hydrostatic equilibrium on Wikipedia after I brought it up.
Again, Jupiter has strong gravity, and a strong magnetic field, and it has a pronounced equatorial bulge.
Again, the Sun has strong gravity, and a strong magnetic field, but has almost no equatorial bulge, way less than scientists' theories had predicted.
Again, the difference is fusion pressure, an additional isotropic pressure from within that exists on the Sun, but not Jupiter, and that is what pushes out on the poles of the Sun, cancelling that equatorial bulge.
This is the simplest hypothesis imaginable. All it requires is the correct application of existing theories. I'm not even proposing something new. This is all basic, fundamental science.
-
It's a sphere because that's the shape corresponding to the lowest energy. If there was a bulge in it then there would be non-zero forces which would pull the matter into a sphere making it once again the lowest potential energy.
Scientists' theories predicted that the Sun would have more equatorial bulge than it does, which is why the article claimed they were "baffled." It is not a perfect sphere, but it is close.
Again, what I'm trying to get across here is this: Start with a mass quantity of gas in space. Due to gravity, it will take a perfectly spherical shape. Now, spin it on it's axis, and it will bulge at the equator. Now, ignite that ball of gas, and fusion pressure will be exerted at the poles, cancelling out some of that equatorial bulge.
Despite the protests of TheBox, I believe a basketball serves as a pretty good analogy for this. Start with a quantity of gas in a basketball. Due to the basketball skin, it will take a perfectly spherical shape. Now, sit on it, and it will bulge at the equator. Now, pump some more air into the basketball, and that will exert extra pressure at the poles, cancelling out some of that equatorial bulge.
Let me try it a different way. After a balloon has been sitting around for a while, the air starts to escape and it gets flaccid. That essentially means the pressure from without is greater than the pressure from within compared to when it was first blown up. That is easily cancelled by heating the air within the balloon, causing it to exert pressure against the walls of the balloon. Similarly, the extra heat provided by fusion in the Sun causes the gases in the Sun to exert pressure against the "walls of gravity," cancelling most of the equatorial bulging.
-
Let's go back to the basketball
Yes lets go back to the basketball which has a hollow core unlike the Sun, spin a snooker ball on any axis at any speed, you will find nothing gives because the core is not hollow. The sun does not bulge because the core is not hollow.
nothing gives.
simple physics with no complication of fusion.
-
Let's go back to the basketball
Yes lets go back to the basketball which has a hollow core unlike the Sun, spin a snooker ball on any axis at any speed, you will find nothing gives because the core is not hollow. The sun does not bulge because the core is not hollow.
nothing gives.
simple physics with no complication of fusion.
Any sphere made of matter will distort from spinning, regardless of whether it is solid, glass, liquid, gas, plasma, degenerate matter, or any combination thereof. Unless there is another opposing force...
-
Any sphere made of matter will distort from spinning, regardless of whether it is solid, glass, liquid, gas, plasma, degenerate matter, or any combination thereof. Unless there is another opposing force...
On that note I have the answer, all the particles of the sun are of a positive polarity, therefore all the particles want to repel each other but gravity keeps them all together. The particles oppose their own distort, the particles push back.
The cbmr from all directions is also a positive polarity , so helps to hold them back.
Maybe the cbmr a little to far,
imagine I am inside your basket ball and I push back. the ball retains its shape,
-
On that note I have the answer, all the particles of the sun are of a positive polarity, therefore all the particles want to repel each other but gravity keeps them all together. The particles oppose their own distort, the particles push back.
The cbmr from all directions is also a positive polarity , so helps to hold them back.
Maybe the cbmr a little to far,
imagine I am inside your basket ball and I push back. the ball retains its shape,
only the protons, positrons and nuclei are positive... The electrons and muons are negative. Overall the sun is pretty close to electrically neutral.
CBMR is an electromagnetic wave, and as such must also be neutral.
-
only the protons, positrons and nuclei are positive... The electrons and muons are negative.
Impossible, the electrons and muons would stick to the protons and positrons before they left the sun, negatives being attracted to a positive, there is something not quite right with your quote. How can any of the above separately exist, surely they all would combine together?
-
only the protons, positrons and nuclei are positive... The electrons and muons are negative.
Impossible, the electrons and muons would stick to the protons and positrons before they left the sun, negatives being attracted to a positive, there is something not quite right with your quote. How can any of the above separately exist, surely they all would combine together?
The intense temperature of the Sun is enough to separate the charges into a plasma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29). The free, mobile charges are what makes the plasma interact with electric and magnetic fields.
-
The intense temperature of the Sun is enough to separate the charges into a plasma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29). The free, mobile charges are what makes the plasma interact with electric and magnetic fields.
Then surely the negative particles whilst in the Sun are really positive particles as they are ''charged'' the same as everything else?
-
Then surely the negative particles whilst in the Sun are really positive particles as they are ''charged'' the same as everything else?
They are "negatively charged," and cannot be positively charged. That's part of what defines an electron.
-
Then surely the negative particles whilst in the Sun are really positive particles as they are ''charged'' the same as everything else?
They are "negatively charged," and cannot be positively charged. That's part of what defines an electron.
Then we would need to talk about atoms,
If A is attracted to A to form B
And B absorbs C
And B emits D=C
Is E relevant?
-
Impossible, the electrons and muons would stick to the protons and positrons before they left the sun, negatives being attracted to a positive, there is something not quite right with your quote. How can any of the above separately exist, surely they all would combine together?
Good grief. I had suspected you found the words "isotropic" and "anisotropic" when you looked up hydrostatic equilibrium after I mentioned it a few days ago. Now I am convinced. I hate it when people debate me by looking up everything on Wikipedia on the fly as they go, and it's usually pretty obvious when they do.
FYI, an electron has kinetic energy. That keeps it from combining with a proton despite opposite charges. In order for that to occur, the pressure/density has to be high, like early in the Universe before protons and electrons could exist separately, in a neutron star where they get smashed together by gravity, or in a particle accelerator where they get smashed together by humans performing experiments.
Think about it this way. An electron is a fundamental particle, a "bit" of energy. In order to fall into the nucleus, it would have to lose some of that energy, which by definition would no longer make it an electron. An electron's mass/energy is not divisible, or it would not be a fundamental particle.
This is all off topic. If the science primer is over, can we get back to discussing how fusion pressure from the Sun's core provides an isotropic pressure that cancels out most of the Sun's equatorial bulge according to my hypothesis?
-
Plasma is not really a liquid or neither is the sun, so hydro is not really a word involved in any of the suns processes. Do you imagine the sun to be like molten Lava?
flu·id
noun
1.
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure; a gas or (especially) a liquid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)#Fluid_model
By the way, words like "hydrostatic" are as old as the words "particle" and "orbit." An electron is a wave, not a particle, and it exists in an electron cloud, not an actual orbit like a planet. Similarly, we continue to use the term "hydrostatic" to refer to other substances besides water.
-
Don't try convincing TheBox of anything, it is pointless as he believes his own logic trumps all logic.
Impossible, the electrons and muons would stick to the protons and positrons before they left the sun, negatives being attracted to a positive, there is something not quite right with your quote. How can any of the above separately exist, surely they all would combine together?
Good grief. I had suspected you found the words "isotropic" and "anisotropic" when you looked up hydrostatic equilibrium after I mentioned it a few days ago. Now I am convinced. I hate it when people debate me by looking up everything on Wikipedia on the fly as they go, and it's usually pretty obvious when they do.
FYI, an electron has kinetic energy. That keeps it from combining with a proton despite opposite charges. In order for that to occur, the pressure/density has to be high, like early in the Universe before protons and electrons could exist separately, in a neutron star where they get smashed together by gravity, or in a particle accelerator where they get smashed together by humans performing experiments.
Think about it this way. An electron is a fundamental particle, a "bit" of energy. In order to fall into the nucleus, it would have to lose some of that energy, which by definition would no longer make it an electron. An electron's mass/energy is not divisible, or it would not be a fundamental particle.
This is all off topic. If the science primer is over, can we get back to discussing how fusion pressure from the Sun's core provides an isotropic pressure that cancels out most of the Sun's equatorial bulge according to my hypothesis?
-
Don't try convincing TheBox of anything, it is pointless as he believes his own logic trumps all logic.
I get your point, but I am not a scientist. I'm just some guy who's interested in this stuff. I actually learn a lot trying to decimate flawed logic by doing research. If people who are serious and know these things won't reply to my posts, I'll work with what I've got.
-
The atmosphere of a planet behaves like a fluid and fluid dynamics can be used to model its behaviour. Can fusion pressure be considered in terms of fluid dynamics? May be a stupid question. I don't know.
-
Good grief. I had suspected you found the words "isotropic" and "anisotropic" when you looked up hydrostatic equilibrium after I mentioned it a few days ago. Now I am convinced. I hate it when people debate me by looking up everything on Wikipedia on the fly as they go, and it's usually pretty obvious when they do.
FYI, an electron has kinetic energy. That keeps it from combining with a proton despite opposite charges. In order for that to occur, the pressure/density has to be high, like early in the Universe before protons and electrons could exist separately, in a neutron star where they get smashed together by gravity, or in a particle accelerator where they get smashed together by humans performing experiments.
Think about it this way. An electron is a fundamental particle, a "bit" of energy. In order to fall into the nucleus, it would have to lose some of that energy, which by definition would no longer make it an electron. An electron's mass/energy is not divisible, or it would not be a fundamental particle.
This is all off topic. If the science primer is over, can we get back to discussing how fusion pressure from the Sun's core provides an isotropic pressure that cancels out most of the Sun's equatorial bulge according to my hypothesis?
That is rather rude when I bothered to use my time to engage in conversation with you. I do not need to look anything up on Wiki, I am not a scientist but have spent many years discoursing science information, I know my stuff. Isotropic is equal in all directions, i.e a sphere is equal in all directions from c.o.m.
But never mind.
-
That is rather rude when I bothered to use my time to engage in conversation with you. I do not need to look anything up on Wiki, I am not a scientist but have spent many years discoursing science information, I know my stuff. Isotropic is equal in all directions, i.e a sphere is equal in all directions from c.o.m.
But never mind.
Sorry, maybe that was rude, but like you, I have spent some years talking about this stuff. As such, I have plenty of experience with people who are no better educated than me that still try to refute everything I say.
Like you, I am not a scientist, either, but I know my stuff. I've taken some college math and physics, and read many dozens of science books over the years.
That's why I'm so sure isotropic fusion pressure is what presses the poles of the Sun outward, mostly countering equatorial bulging and giving the Sun a nearly spherical shape.
Gravity wants to make the Sun a perfect sphere. Fusion pressure makes the Sun's plasma "fill up" the gravitational container to it's greatest extent, providing a second force tending to make the Sun a perfect sphere. Two forces trying to achieve the same shape, so most of the bulging gets cancelled out.
-
That is rather rude when I bothered to use my time to engage in conversation with you. I do not need to look anything up on Wiki, I am not a scientist but have spent many years discoursing science information, I know my stuff. Isotropic is equal in all directions, i.e a sphere is equal in all directions from c.o.m.
But never mind.
Sorry, maybe that was rude, but like you, I have spent some years talking about this stuff. As such, I have plenty of experience with people who are no better educated than me that still try to refute everything I say.
Like you, I am not a scientist, either, but I know my stuff. I've taken some college math and physics, and read many dozens of science books over the years.
That's why I'm so sure isotropic fusion pressure is what presses the poles of the Sun outward, mostly countering equatorial bulging and giving the Sun a nearly spherical shape.
Gravity wants to make the Sun a perfect sphere. Fusion pressure makes the Sun's plasma "fill up" the gravitational container to it's greatest extent, providing a second force tending to make the Sun a perfect sphere. Two forces trying to achieve the same shape, so most of the bulging gets cancelled out.
I do understand your idea and you think that an outward pressure made by the fusion process counteracts the centripetal ''pressure'' of motion. A comparison to myself being inside a basket ball pushing back a collapse of form from you applying external force with myself applying an equal and opposing force. I think the problem with your idea is that the fusion inside the sun can have the uncertainty principle applied, the fusion being of random points, so the force would not be isotropic?
Where as gases expand isotropically, a result of polarisation, + is repelled by +.
m=[-=+]
m=-/+=.5
E=∑m/2
-
I think the problem with your idea is that the fusion inside the sun can have the uncertainty principle applied, the fusion being of random points, so the force would not be isotropic?
I don't think there is a problem with my idea. Gravity is "pulling" the Sun into a spherical shape, and fusion pressure is "pushing" the Sun into a spherical shape. Those two tendencies to make a perfect sphere are sufficient to cancel most equatorial bulging.
You can't get any more "simple and elegant" than that, and I have proposed no new theories, explaining the effect with existing scientific principles.
By the way, I enjoyed your conversation with waitedavid at physforum.com, LOL
-
I think the problem with your idea is that the fusion inside the sun can have the uncertainty principle applied, the fusion being of random points, so the force would not be isotropic?
I don't think there is a problem with my idea. Gravity is "pulling" the Sun into a spherical shape, and fusion pressure is "pushing" the Sun into a spherical shape. Those two tendencies to make a perfect sphere are sufficient to cancel most equatorial bulging.
You can't get any more "simple and elegant" than that, and I have proposed no new theories, explaining the effect with existing scientific principles.
By the way, I enjoyed your conversation with waitedavid at physforum.com, LOL
I only think the fault in your idea is because I do not think the fusion process is isotropic, if it is isotropic, then good idea. But I personally just like the simplicity of quanta being all of the same polarity , and the suns particles all repel each other to hold the suns shape.
-
CRaig you may be interested in this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak
-
But I personally just like the simplicity of quanta being all of the same polarity , and the suns particles all repel each other to hold the suns shape.
And you are wrong. Let's try to stick to accepted science and reasonable extensions thereof (which may ultimately be wrong, but at least we will learn something by considering the problem)
-
I don't think there is a problem with my idea. Gravity is "pulling" the Sun into a spherical shape, and fusion pressure is "pushing" the Sun into a spherical shape. Those two tendencies to make a perfect sphere are sufficient to cancel most equatorial bulging.
You can't get any more "simple and elegant" than that, and I have proposed no new theories, explaining the effect with existing scientific principles.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that because the rate of fusion is determined by the pressure (and temperature) of the plasma, any region of the sun that expands would see a reduction in fusion, causing it to cool and compress back to equilibrium, and any part of the sun would also resist compression by heating up and expanding due to increased fusion rate.
If this is a misinterpretation of your theory, please correct me so we are discussing the same thing. If it sounds right, please keep reading...
This equilibrium sounds reasonable to me, but I think it only ensures predictable density, and doesn't have a tremendous influence on the shape (symmetry) of the sun. Including gravity and the fusion equilibrium without any other forces around would certainly have a spherical optimum geometry. But I don't think that it will compensate other factors such as net rotation or magnetic field oscialtions to maintain the spherical shape. I am either misunderstanding something, or some other explanation is needed.
-
And you are wrong. Let's try to stick to accepted science and reasonable extensions thereof (which may ultimately be wrong, but at least we will learn something by considering the problem)
How can anyone be wrong if there is no present answer to start off with?
-
How can anyone be wrong if there is no present answer to start off with?
"I have all the answers , cant explain it great, but I do know what everything is all about and nobody seems to be interested sincerely because they cant understand ."
[;)]
-
It seems to me that you are suggesting that because the rate of fusion is determined by the pressure (and temperature) of the plasma, any region of the sun that expands would see a reduction in fusion, causing it to cool and compress back to equilibrium, and any part of the sun would also resist compression by heating up and expanding due to increased fusion rate.
If this is a misinterpretation of your theory, please correct me so we are discussing the same thing. If it sounds right, please keep reading...
This equilibrium sounds reasonable to me, but I think it only ensures predictable density, and doesn't have a tremendous influence on the shape (symmetry) of the sun. Including gravity and the fusion equilibrium without any other forces around would certainly have a spherical optimum geometry. But I don't think that it will compensate other factors such as net rotation or magnetic field oscialtions to maintain the spherical shape. I am either misunderstanding something, or some other explanation is needed.
Actually, I hadn't considered the rate of fusion. I think the rate of fusion in the Sun should be pretty constant without major fluctuations because if there were such fluctuations, the Sun would likely change size as a response.
Basically, I am starting with the premise that plasma behaves like a gas. When you put gas in a container, it fills up that container, pressing on the walls. If you turn up the temperature, the molecules move faster in general, and so the pressure on the walls of the container increases.
That's what I think is happening in the case of fusion. Gravity makes a "container" for the Sun's plasma that tends to be spherical, while the Sun's rotation causes bulging at the equator. At the same time, fusion raises the temperature of the plasma in that container causing an isotropic pressure, just like the gas in a bottle. Photons created by fusion in the Sun don't go straight to the surface and fly off into space. They can take thousands of years to reach the surface, being absorbed and re-emitted continuously, adding their energy back into the pool of temperature and density over and over again as they bump into neighboring particles crammed together by gravity. In my view, that trapped photon energy is a mechanism that presses outward at the poles, cancelling some of the Sun's equatorial bulging.
Earlier in the thread, I used a basketball as an analogy. Of course, a basketball will pop if you increase the pressure too much, so the analogy is not perfect, but basically, if you sit on that basketball, you cause "flattening at the poles." If you pump up the basketball a bit more, isotropic pressure from within will cancel some of flattening caused by your weight, pressing the "poles" outward. In a nutshell, that's the process I'm trying to describe when I say fusion pressure cancels most of the Sun's equatorial bulging.
Again, I don't think the rate of fusion changes a lot. An increased rate of fusion would produce more isotropic pressure, which I believe would "inflate" the Sun to a larger size, while slowing down the rate of fusion would likely shrink it.