1

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 15/08/2010 20:53:55 »

As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL  []

Was Father Georges Lemaître Right?

We don't know.  Why not simply admit that we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite?

But more is being revealed every day about the Little Bang that made the Solar System right here [Science 195, 208-209 (1977); Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); Geokhimiya no. 12, 1776-1801 (1981); Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)].

Naked science readers may be interested in reading about the similarity in the one of the shapes allowed for electrons in the 3d orbital of the Hydrogen atom (two dumbbells passing through the hole in a doughnut) to the supernova debris that formed the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, . . . .

And to the events that more recently formed SN 1987A and the Planetary Nebula Eta Carina:
 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43451

Let's celebrate new information that is being revealed today and stop arguing about information that none of have yet.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

2

New Theories / Re: What is consciousness?

« on: 01/08/2010 05:29:42 »

Human consciousness.  Is it measurable?  Can it be isolated and identified?  What is consciousness – and can it be discussed on a scientific forum, or is it a topic more suitable to the philosophical ones? 

Mod edit - I've formatted your subject as a question - this helps to keep the forum tidy and easy to navigate - thanks!

Gerry, a discussion of quantum theory on Physics World has stumbled onto the same question.   See:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43275


With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

3

New Theories / Creation of our universe (Theory behind the big bang)

« on: 25/06/2010 05:53:49 »

Hi Mark, Oliver and others:

Thanks for the interesting ideas!

Your theoretical models of creation may be the initial stage of the evolution that is now recorded in experimental measurements on material here in our tiny corner of the universe.

See the story of Nellie the Neutron, Neutron Repulsion and NewClear Science: 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=31352.0

Oliver K. Manuel

4

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 25/06/2010 05:23:21 »

i think it must have been a constant universe that LOOKS like it inflated from a point for any observer within the universe... each observer point probably has a different point of seeming 'big bang' origin ... although all of us here on earth might find it difficult to separate the different points of origin out thanks to the huge scale...

...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...

Quantitative experimental data on
 
a.) Nuclear rest masses of all known types of atoms,
b.) Solar luminosity, solar neutrinos and solar wind emissions, and
c.) Material in meteorites, planets, the solar photosphere, the solar wind, and solar flares

Indicate that material in the Solar System is now expanding because

d) Volume increases by 10^15 in neutron decay (Step 2 below), and
e.) Four reactions produce all of the solar products listed in b.) above:

1. Neutron emission from the solar core: <n>  => n + 12 MeV/nucleon
2. Neutron decay after emission: n => H + 1 MeV/nucleon
3. H-fusion after decay: 4 H => He-4 + 2 v + 7 MeV/nucleon
4. Escape of excess H in the solar wind: Solar H => 50,000 billion metric ton of SW H/year is discharged to interstellar space.

Our Sun is maintained by dynamic competition between neutron repulsion and gravitational attraction in the neutron-rich solar core.  In Step 2 above the atomic volume of the product H atom is ~10^15 times bigger than that of the neutron:

V(H)/V(n) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000

Presently the universe is expanding here as compact nuclear matter in the solar core is expanding by about a factor of ~10^15 and being ejected to fill interstellar space with Hydrogen.

In the future, when the neutron-rich core of stars have all evaporated, there will be no repulsive force opposing the attractive force of gravity.  Then,

f.) If the universe is infinite it may collapse back down as part of an infinite series of oscillations, or
g.) If the universe is finite and started with the Big Bang, it may become cold, dead and static.

That's how it looks from here.

Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Where has all the antimatter gone?

« on: 01/06/2010 04:40:03 »

The Sun and the cosmos are currently powered by dynamic competition between neutron repulsion and gravitational attraction.

Matter/antimatter asymmetry is a problem if the universe is finite and all matter was came into being at some hypothetical time like the Big Bang.

Matter/antimatter asymmetry is a not problem if the universe is infinite and oscillates between:

1. Expansion as compact nuclear matter dissociates, and

Neutron stars => Neutrons => Hydrogen

2. Contraction after the neutron stars are gone and neutron repulsion no longer counters gravitational attraction:

Hydrogen => He => C => . . . . Fe => Neutron stars

This was discussed earlier here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=14739.msg266410#msg266410

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

6

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 08/05/2010 12:55:16 »

Four new videos on "Nellie the Neutron" and "New Clear Science" <nuclear science> explain the role of neutron repulsion as the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=31352.0

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does Gravity do any work?

« on: 29/12/2009 16:26:23 »

Those interested in the role of gravity in the cosmos should go to

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=9197.0

To recap a small part:

1. Gravity is a nuclear force since essentially all mass is in the nucleus.

2. Gravity is a weak force over long distances.

3. Gravity is a very strong force over very short distances, but

4. Gravity cannot overcome repulsive forces between neutrons to convert neutron stars into black holes.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1

In the Sun and in the cosmos, dynamic competition between long-range attractive gravitational forces and short-range repulsive forces between neutrons powers the objects that release energy and fill interstellar space with Hydrogen, a neutron-decay product.

If the universe is finite, then neutrons themselves may be the particle-sized black holes that were made in a Big Bang and compressed into massive, highly energetic neutron stars.

If the universe is infinite, then it may oscillate between expansion as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant over repulsive forces between neutrons.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

8

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 14/08/2009 23:03:49 »

CONCLUSION TO DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST

Oliver,

I regret that I will have to pend further discussion for the forseeable future. My thinking in relation to another poster in a separate sub-forum is out of synch with forum moderation. The honourable thing for me to do is to absent myself for a time. I apologise for the impact this will have on what could have been an interesting discussion.

Regards
Ophiolite

Thanks, Ophiolite.

I am sorry if my last posting appeared to be an advertisement.  Before closing, I wanted to let Naked Science Forum Readers know of the important contributions made by high school, graduate and undergraduate students, as well as other colleagues.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

9

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 13/08/2009 11:42:44 »

A DOZEN SCIENCE STUDENTS

I want to draw special attention to twelve of the hundreds of devoted family members and talented teachers, students, friends, and colleagues that made possible My Journey to the Core of the Sun: A Summary of Fifty Joyful Years of Continuous Discovery [Autobiography, in preparation].

1. Golden Hwaung coauthored the landmark 1983 paper showing the Sun, the Earth, and ordinary meteorites are all made mostly of the same elements: Iron (Fe), Oxygen (O), Nickel (Ni), Silicon (Si) and Sulfur (S) ["Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].  A picture of Golden Hwaung about 20 years later in his Electrical Engineering laboratory at Louisiana State University is posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

2. Ken Windler, Adam Nolte, Lucie Johannes, Dan Ragland and Joshua Zirbel were undergraduate students at the University of Missouri-Rolla in 1998 who analyzed isotope data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter's atmosphere to confirm the 1983 paper published 15 years earlier ["Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33,  A97 (1998) abstract 5011].  A 1998 picture of the five students - UMR's Jupiter Team - is posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

3. Marcel Pleessl was a high school student in Germany who came to the University of Missouri-Rolla and used neutron capture cross sections to confirm the 1983 paper showing that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si and S [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) 159-163].  Marcel is now a university student.  A picture of Marcel when he was still a high school student working on the research described in this JRANC article is posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

4. Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke, and Bing Zhang were five graduate students at the University of Missouri-Rolla who helped discover evidence of repulsive interactions between neutrons in rest masses of 3,000 nuclei posted in Message ID: 265523 (23/07/2009).  Photographs of some of these graduate students are posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

The ever-evolving nature of science, continuously changing across the lives of successive generations, is illustrated by contributions of these twelve high school, undergraduate and graduate students in the latter part of my research career and the guidance that I received from two well established scientists at its start, almost fifty (50) years ago on that fateful day in 1960 when Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda called me to his office to share surprising evidence that the solar system formed almost immediately after violent nuclear reactions in a supernova produced our elements:

A. Kuroda's paper on the decay products of extinct plutonium-244 in air [“Nuclear fission in the early history of the Earth”, Nature 187 (1960) 36-38], and

B. John H. Reynolds' landmark papers on the decay product of extinct iodine-129 [“Determination of the age of the elements”, Physical Review Letters 4 (1960) 8-10] and a "strange" mixture of the nine stable xenon isotopes in meteorites [“Isotopic composition of primordial xenon”, Physical Review Letters 4 (1960) 351-354].

I had the good fortune to have both of these talented scientists as research mentors.  My research career is, in fact, an extension of studies that Kuroda and Reynolds started when I was a child, and they each worked on defense projects—on opposing sides of the Second World War.

Looking forward to a seventy-third (73rd) birthday in a couple of months, my life and my research career confirm the vision of life that Shakespeare expressed through Jaques in the play, As You Like It:

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages." 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

10

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 10/08/2009 15:18:00 »

CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WAS 10,000,000,000 YEARS AGO

The 20 July 2009 issue of Ap J provides new information on ultra-compact, hyperactive galaxies in the universe about 10^10 years ago [M. Kreik, P. G. van Dokkum, I. Labbe, M. Frank, G. Illingworth, D. Marchesini and R. F. Quadri, Astrophysical  Journal 700 (20 July 2009) 221-231].

http://hubblesite.org/pubinfo/pdf/2009/24/pdf2.pdf

See also the news story and discussion of the implications of these findings on the PhysOrg site:

http://www.physorg.com/news168698290.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

11

General Science / Re: Science Photo of the Week

« on: 04/08/2009 14:45:20 »

ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!

How little we know about the object beneath our feet!

The material that it continues to collect every day from outer space.

Material that squirts out in volcanos and cracks in the deep ocean floor.

Fifty years ago I started a scientific investigation of Earth's Genesis.

The journey has been rewarding beyond my wildest dreams.

What a beautiful laboratory for those who want to learn!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

PS - I will be 73 years old in a couple of months, approaching the end of life.  I hope to write a biography on the fifty (50) year anniversary of the start of my effort in 1960 to rewrite the Biblical story of Genesis from a scientific point of view [See: "My Journey to the Core of the Sun", in preparation].

The late Nuclear Geochemistry Professor (Paul) Kazuo Kuroda, convinced me to undertake this study in 1960 with reports that the nuclear reactions that produced our elements were still visible as decay products of extinct iodine-129, extinct palladium-107, and extinct plutonium-244, as well as poorly mixed isotopes of element #54 (xenon) in meteorites and in the Earth.  All of these findings have been confirmed, and many other records of the birth of the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) ago from fresh supernova debris!   

The late Physics Professor John H. Reynolds developed and in 1962-1964 showed me how to operate the mass spectrometer that revealed other recordings of element synthesis in the supernova debris that orbits the Sun and an unmistakable clue to the compact, energetic object at the core of the Sun.   

12

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 28/07/2009 01:53:06 »

MORE ON THE BIG BANG
(WHILE WAITING FOR THE RESPONSE FROM A GEOLOGIST)

Prayer for Serenity in Science:

"Grant me the serenity to accept WHAT IS.
Courage to challenge my own beliefs toward WHAT IS.
Wisdom to know that attitudes may distort perception of WHAT IS,
But attitudes cannot change WHAT IS."
- - - adapted from Reinhold Niebuhr

WHAT IS: [Established by fifty (50) years of measurements and contemplation along the road less traveled!]

01. Neutron-neutron interactions are repulsive, NOT attractive.

02. Neutron stars are highly energized, NOT "dead" nuclear embers.

03. Neutron repulsion prevents the collapse of neutron stars into Black Holes.

04. Neutron repulsion primarily powers the Sun and the cosmos.

05. After neutron-emission, neutron-decay produces Hydrogen (H).

06. The Sun discards 50,000 billion metric ton of solar-wind H annually.

07. Hydrogen (H) covers stellar surfaces, but stars are NOT balls of H.

08. Compact nuclear objects dissociate to fill interstellar space with H.

09. Interstellar H is a waste product of, not fuel for, the cosmic engine.

10. Massive neutron stars at galactic centers produce H and cosmic explosions.

CONCLUSIONS:

Today we have evidence that the Sun, other stars, and galactic centers are powered by nuclear dissociation that releases Hydrogen to interstellar space as a waste product. 

Therefore if there really was a "Big Bang" then it produced neutrons and compressed them into massive neutron stars -- the most compact, energetic form of nuclear matter -- rather than Hydrogen, the most dispersed form of nuclear matter. 

The concept of a "Big Bang" became more plausible to me after reading the recent paper by Coyne and D. C. Cheng ["A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics:  An alternative mechanism for black holes to appear at accelerator experiments," http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1 ].  According to that scenario, neutrons themselves may be considered as particle-sized black holes that were made in the "Big Bang."

On the other hand if the universe is infinite, then it probably oscillates between:

a.) The expansion that is observed currently as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and

b.) A subsequent contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com


 

13

General Science / Re: Science Photo of the Week

« on: 26/07/2009 13:25:29 »

The Big Corona
Credit & Copyright: Koen van Gorp



 [ Invalid Attachment ]



Most photographs don't adequately portray the magnificence of the Sun's corona. . . .

Thanks for this beautiful and informative photo of the solar corona!

Even in these times of low solar activity - between the end of solar cycle #23 and the long awaited start of solar cycle #24 - the violent and erratic nature of material above the solar photosphere is obvious.

Earth glides through the Sun's next higher level of material - the heliosphere - in the annual journey around the Sun that produces our four seasons - Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter.

Earth is directly connected to the Sun, orbiting through this invisible sheath of solar wind particles and solar magnetic and electric fields that extends more that 100 AU above the normally invisible corona and the visible solar photosphere.

Earth and the Sun are mistakenly perceived as separate entities, in large part because visible light from the photosphere produces the illusion of a solar "surface" that separates Earth from the Sun.

Thank you, neilep, for posting an observation that will be of interest to taxpayers who were told that anthropologic CO2 (from fossil fuels) has a greater impact than the Sun on global climate change.

My favorite climatologist - Dr. Timo Niroma of Helsinki, Finland - has a couple of web sites that look at the historical record of the link of Earth's climate with solar activity.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html

With kind regards
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

14

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 25/07/2009 05:15:21 »

Oliver,

. . . . - your meteorite data, for example, is outdated and wrong. I am currently studying . . . before responding.
Rgds
O.

Take your time, Ophiolite, but don't waste your time.

Very few, if any, of my conclusions rest solely on data from my laboratory:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/MassSpec.htm

Usually I use the best data available.  For example,

1. This table of extinct elements that were alive when supernova debris formed meteorites is based on data from the best research laboratories worldwide - Australia, France, India, and the United States [University of Arkansas, University of California-Berkeley, Cal Tech, and the University of California-San Diego]:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1960Data.htm

2. This graph shows Ne isotopes that I measured in the Fayetteville meteorite while in the laboratory of Professor John H. Reynolds at UC-Berkeley:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1964Data.htm

3. This is a graph of data from my laboratory at the University of Missouri showing that isotopes of Kr and Xe in the solar wind have been mass fractionated.

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

4. This graph is based on He and Xe in the Allende meteorite as measured in Professor Edward Anders' laboratory at the University of Chicago:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm

5. This graph of mass fractionated isotopes in the solar wind is based on measurements in Professor Geiss' laboratory at the University of Bern (Switzerland), in Professor Reynolds' laboratory at the University of California-Berkeley, and in Professor A. O. Nier's laboratory the University of Minnesota:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

6. This graph of oxygen isotopes in various classes of meteorites and planets is based on data from Robert Clayton's laboratory at the University of Chicago.

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1976Data.htm

7. This graph of molybdenum isotopes - showing that massive iron meteorites came directly from a supernova - is from measurements made at the University of Tokyo.

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1991Data.htm

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

15

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 23/07/2009 22:41:20 »

DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued):

Before responding to Ophiolite's request for empirical evidence that Hydrogen-fusion does NOT power the Sun nor the cosmos, please consider this

Prayer for Serenity in Science:

"Grant me the serenity to accept WHAT IS.
Courage to challenge my own beliefs toward WHAT IS.
Wisdom to know that attitudes may distort perception of WHAT IS,
But attitudes cannot change WHAT IS."
- - - adapted from Reinhold Niebuhr

WHAT IS: [Established by fifty (50) years of measurements and contemplation along the road less traveled!]

1. The Sun is mostly IRON, not HYDROGEN.
2. The Sun discards HYDROGEN as a WASTE PRODUCT.
3. Nuclear dissociation, rather than fusion, powers the Sun and the cosmos and fills interstellar space with HYDROGEN.

1. Hydrogen is a trace element inside the Sun, although this lightest of all elements comprises 91% of atoms in the photosphere.  The most abundant elements inside the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg.  Mass-fractionation inside the Sun has been quantitatively established by two completely independent measurements:

1 a.) Abundances of twenty-two (22) noble gas isotopes in the solar wind relative to their abundances in planetary material [See: "Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222], and

1b.) Abundances of seventy-two (72) s-products in the solar photosphere relative to the abundances predicted from neutron-capture cross sections [See: "Nuclear systematics: Part IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radio-analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) 159-163].

When solar surface abundances are corrected for the mass fraction empirically defined by either

_ a.) Noble gas isotopes in the solar wind, or
_ b.) s-products in the photosphere,

The most abundant elements inside the Sun turn out to be Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - the elements that are also most abundant in ordinary meteorites!
 
The probability (P) that these three measurements fortuitously (by meaningless chance) agree on the dominant abundance of these same seven elements is zero (0),
P < 0.00000000000000000000000000000002 ! http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1

2. Antoine Lavoisier coined the name Hydrogen for the colorless, flammable gas that is released together with heat as sulfuric acid reacts with zinc:

Sulfuric Acid + Zinc  => Zinc Sulfate + Heat + Hydrogen

The Sun also releases Heat and Hydrogen, but Hydrogen has been mistakenly classified as the fuel rather than as a by-product of the solar engine.

3. Solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind Hydrogen pouring from the surface of the Sun arise from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core that trigger this series of nuclear reactions: 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

3 a.) Neutron-emission generates 60% of solar luminosity:
---- <n> => n + 12 Mev

3 b.) Neutron-decay generates 5% of solar luminosity:
---- n => proton + electron + 1 MeV

3 c.) Protons fuse to He-4 as they are accelerated upward by deep-seated magnetic fields, generating 35% of solar luminosity:
---- p => 0.25 He-4 + 7 MeV

3 d.) Protons surviving the upward journey depart in the solar wind, generating 100% of SW Hydrogen:
---- 3 x 10^43 protons => depart annually in the solar wind.

3 e.) Repulsive interactions between neutrons (above) were discovered with the help of five students in the last graduate class that I taught in the spring semester of 2000.


The five students were Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke, and Bing Zhang, all at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

The above picture is shown as Figure 16, page 16 of the AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pages 206-225:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0510001

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” – Herbert Spencer

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

Postscript: The following comment about a cross-sectional view of the Sun in a bottle, originally posted on Physics World (May 4, 2009), may help Ophiolite and other readers understand the operation of the Sun.

The comment concerns a book review by Dr. Cris W. Barnes [Deputy Division Leader of the Physics Division at the Los Alamos National Laboratory] of Charles Seife's book, "Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking" [2008 Viking Books].

It should be okay to repeat the comment here, since someone other than me deleted it from Physics World.

NO MORE THAN WISHFUL THINKING

Unfortunately, the idea of controlled fusion is based on an illusion that the Sun and other ordinary stars are giant balls of Hydrogen heated by Hydrogen fusion.

They are not: The Sun in a bottle would not be a bottle of Hydrogen!

True, the solar surface is covered with Hydrogen - the lightest of all elements.  This is smoke from the nuclear furnace at the solar core - not the primary fuel. 

Each year the Sun exhausts 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen in the solar wind, like CO2 pouring from the exhaust pipes of cars and chimneys of homes and factories.

The Sun operates like a high-efficiency furnace.  The first stage of the furnace generates 65% of solar luminosity.  The first stage also generates Hydrogen as a neutron decay product. 

Most of the Hydrogen - like the dirty, dark waste gas of a coal furnace that encounters hot catalytic converters  - is further burned into Helium as the Hydrogen moves upward toward the solar surface.  This generates 35% of solar luminosity and 100% of the solar neutrinos. 

If the Sun were in a very tall bottle that allowed nothing to escape through the walls:

a.) Pouring from the top of the bottle would be heat and light, Bottle-Wind Hydrogen that had been produced in the bottle, and enough Bottle Neutrinos to account for 35% of the heat and light by Hydrogen-fusion. 

b.) At the bottom of the bottle would be a tiny, invisible speck emitting neutrons.

c.) Near the bottom of the bottle, neutrons would decay to Hydrogen ions and electrons.

d.) Strong magnetic fields would carry the Hydrogen upward.

e.) Most of the Hydrogen would fuse into Helium during this upward journey

f.) The upward flow of Hydrogen would maintain mass separation in the bottle selectively carrying lightweight elements and lightweight isotopes of each element to the top of the bottle and away in the Bottle-wind.

See: The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856 or Yadernaya Fizika (Russian) 69, number 11, Nov 2006; PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

16

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 21/07/2009 05:03:55 »

ASTROPHYSICISTS RE-DISCOVER: DYING STAR WAS LINKED TO BIRTH OF SOLAR SYSTEM

Eonfluxs7 need not despair.  "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].

In the last 24 hours there have been several news reports:
 
A team of international astrophysicists have discovered that a dying star was linked to the birth of the solar system !
http://www.physorg.com/news167302986.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720092022.htm

That is precisely what we told astrophysicists over 30 years ago, in scientific journals and in research conferences attended by leading astrophysicists:

1. "Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements", Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9 (1975) 104-122.

2. "The xenon record of element synthesis", abstract P58, presented at the 1976 AGU Meeting, Sheraton Hotel, Washington DC, April 14 (1976); Published in Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 57 (1976) 278.

3. "Xenon record of the early solar system", Nature 262 (1976) 28-32.

4. “Key issues in xenology: The main issues and where they are leading us today”, Gregynog Workshop on Isotopic Abundance Anomalies, Montgomery, WALES (August 1976).

5. "Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195 (1977) 208-209.

6. "Proceedings of Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII. Cosmochemistry," Robert Welch Foundation (1978) 263-272.

7. "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277 (1979) 615-620.

Even today this "team of international astrophysicists" fails to grasp that:

a. Most elements in the iron-rich object on which they live came directly from the deep interior of the dying star.

b. Large masses of iron that fall from the sky today as iron meteorites also came directly from the dying star.

c. The dying star expelled the material that now orbits the Sun, which re-formed on the remnant stellar core, a pulsar.

d. The Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen; This lightest of all elements is a neutron-decay product that covers the solar surface.

e. The Sun is heated primarily by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the pulsar on which it formed.

So do not despair, eonfluxs7.  Those who abuse political power and position are almost always corrupted and eventually destroyed by their own arrogance.

Recently when global warming became a wide-spread public concern, astrophysicists and astronomers were unprepared to explain the Sun's very obvious role in climate change. 

For over three decades they had ignored any and all experimental findings that threatened to expose the standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun as an illusion that was inconsistent with such obvious solar features as solar eruptions, sunspots, solar cycles, and the solar wind -- Not unlike the illusion of a child who believes apples must be red on the inside because they are red on the outside!

The well-established link between Earth's climate and solar cycles was, however, explained by experimental data from the mid-1970s that revealed Earth's heat source to be the unstable remains of a supernova that exploded 5 Gyr ago and gave birth to the solar system [See: "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN", Energy and Environment: SPECIAL ISSUE: Natural drivers of weather and climate, volume 20 (2009) 131-144. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704 ]

Remember, eonfluxs7, that science itself has this spiritual foundation: "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].   

 

THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS

Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.

If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.

This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. 

-----
This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something. 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/

17

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 20/07/2009 05:08:43 »

DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued)

G'day Oliver

Your response is fantastic, thank you for the info.

Thanks, Harry.
- - - - - - - - - -
Before continuing, let me answer the questions that I asked Ophiolite:

1. In the Earth O/C ~ 1000 and in the solar photosphere, O/C ~ 2 !

2. The latter value is a major problem for nuclear astrophysics, as noted by Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler:

“. . . we still cannot show in the laboratory or in theoretical calculations why the ratio of Oxygen to Carbon in the Sun and similar stars is close to two to one . . .” [William A. Fowler in Cauldrons in the Cosmos: Nuclear Astrophysics by Claus E. Rolf and William S. Rodney (David N. Schramm, series editor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1988) page xi].

The problem is this:  It is almost impossible to get three He-4 nuclei to fuse into C-12.  The conditions which make this happen are so extreme that another He-4 is almost always added.  I.e., almost all of the C-12 should have been quickly converted into O-16.

3. Rocky, Earth-like planets were first observed outside the solar system orbiting the pulsar collapsed core of a supernova, PSR 1257+12 [A. Wolszczan and D. A. Frail, “A planetary system around the millisecond pulsar PSR1257+12," Nature 355 (1992) 145-147; A. Wolszczan, “Confirmation of earth-mass planets orbiting the millisecond pulsar PSR B 1257+12”, Science 264 (1994) 538-542].
- - - - - - - - - -

We showed above that Earth and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of elements like Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - elements that were made in a supernova.  All six of these elements have even atomic numbers.

Harkins used data from wet chemical analysis of over 400 meteorites to conclude correctly in 1917 that “... in the evolution of elements much more material has gone into the even-numbered elements than into those which are odd...” [See page 869 of W. D. Harkins Journal American Chemical Society 39 (1917) 856-879].

However, Cecelia Payne analyzed line spectra from the solar photosphere and correctly reported in 1925 that an odd numbered element, Hydrogen (H), appears to be the most abundant element in the atmosphere of the Sun and the next lightest element, Helium (He) is the next most abundant element in the atmosphere of the Sun [See: Cecelia H. Payne Stellar Atmospheres (Harvard Observatory Monograph #1, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1925) pp. 177-189].

Cecelia Payne did not suggest that the interior of the Sun is H and He!  And indeed it is not.

The most abundant elements inside the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - like in meteorites, but lightweight elements are highly enriched in the atmosphere of the Sun.  We know that because independent quantitative measurements on two separate samples of the Sun show conclusively that . . .

a.) Lightweight isotopes are systematically enriched in the solar wind relative to their abundances in planetary material [See: "Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222], and
 
b.) Lightweight s-products are systematically enriched in the solar photosphere relative to the abundances predicted from neutron-capture cross sections [See: "Nuclear systematics: Part IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radio-analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (205) 159-163]. 

I am unable to post the data here for you to see, but you can see it in Figure 6 of the paper, "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856; Yadernaya Fizika 69, (2006) number 11; astro-ph/0609509; PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

PS - The energy source that continuously produces solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and the solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the surface of the Iron Sun in exactly the proportions measured is shown on page 20 as messages # 263063 and # 264134 of the Naked Science Forum discussion of Science Photo of the Week http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=957.475

18

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 17/07/2009 16:27:26 »

DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued)

Yes.  Iron (Fe), element #26, is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites and in rocky plants that orbit close to the Sun.

Oxygen (O), element #8, is the next most abundant element.

Those facts alone suggest that the Earth and ordinary meteorites came from a supernova.

Both of these elements are produced by very rapid, violent nuclear reactions in a supernova.

1. B₂FH reported that Iron (Fe) was made by the e-process, equilibrium process.  That is the violent nuclear reactions that occur near the core of a supernova, consuming other elements to produce the most stable of all nuclear species, Fe-56.  Those same nuclear reactions also produce lesser amounts of Ni-58 and Ni-60.

Fe and Ni are the ash, or stable end products, of nuclear reactions driven to completion, just as . . .

CO2 and H2O are stable end products of grape sugar oxidation. 
[Incomplete oxidation makes alcohol, then vinegar, then . . . . CO2 and H2O.]

Meteorites made mostly of Fe,Ni metal still fall from the skies today.
The core of the Earth and other terrestrial planets consists mostly of Fe,Ni metal.
Initially there were more metal meteorites than stone meteorites accreting here, as suggested by Turekian and Clarke ["Inhomogeneous accumulation of the earth from the primitive solar nebula," Earth & Planetary Science Letters 6 (1969) 346-348], but the solar nebula itself was never homogeneous.

2. B₂FH reported that Oxygen (O) was made by Helium burning.  That is also a violent series of nuclear reactions that overcome Coulomb repulsive forces between the positive charges on the Helium nuclei (He-4) and fuse them together to make high abundances of other nuclei with high nuclear stability: C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28, S-32,  etc.

He-4 + He-4 + He-4 => C-12
C-12 + He-4 => O-16
O-16 + He-4 => Ne-20
Ne-20 + He-4 => Mg-24
Mg-24 + He-4 => Si-28
Si-28 + He-4 => S-32, etc.

The products of explosive He-burning - [O, Mg, Si and S] - and products of the e-process  - [Fe and Ni] - make up the bulk of the material in the Earth, in ordinary meteorites, and in the other terrestrial planets that orbit close to the Sun.

Conclusion: Geochemical information on the composition of the Earth and ordinary meteorites, when combined with nuclear astrophysics from B₂FH, confirm that major elements in the Earth and in ordinary meteorites came from a supernova.

Questions:

How does the O/C ratio on Earth compare with that in the solar photosphere?

Why was Nobel Laureate W. A. Fowler puzzled by the O/C ratio in the photosphere?

Can Ophiolite describe where rocky, Earth-like planets were first observed in another planetary system outside the solar system?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

19

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 14/07/2009 17:28:08 »

DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST

I did not complete high school, I never had a course in geology, but I worked at the interface of nuclear chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy for almost 50 years and my first PdD graduate has been a professor of geology at a major university for a few years less. 

I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions?  You appeared to supply the answers.  Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching?  Whatever, I’ll play ball.

The idea is for you to learn something from this exchange, which may happen if you are personally engaged.  Knowledge cannot be poured on a student, . . . like water.

(And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)

The comment was not meant to be personal.  I simply cannot afford to invest time trying to explain science to those who are locked in their ego cages, trying to confirm their self-importance by arguing or challenging every concept that they don't understand.

I am pleased to see from your response that you are not one of those.

What is the most abundant element in the Earth?

Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)

The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).
White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17

………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.
Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41

From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)
The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32

You are right, Ophiolite.  IRON (Fe) is the most abundant element in the Earth and in ordinary meteorites.  Fe is element #26. 

Oxygen (O) is the second most abundant element in the Earth.  O is element #8. 

Oxygen (O) is the most abundant element at the surface of the Earth.

[There is a lesson there.]

Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more current that than your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)

You are right again, Ophiolite. 

Harkins used the results of wet chemical analysis of over 400 meteorites to show that the abundances of even numbered elements are higher than those of odd numbered elements.

Harkins also correctly predicted that even-numbered elements have higher nuclear stability than odd-numbered elements.  Harkins' 1917 prediction about higher nuclear stability of even-numbered elements was finally confirmed in the 1930s.

How did Harkings figure that out in 1917?  See item (2.) below

Papers that are "more current" than Harkins' 1917 paper are not necessarily more informative.

Two techniques seem to advance knowledge:

(1.) Experimental observations
(2.) Meditation and contemplation

Modern science has fallen in love with technology, which can certainly provide data faster and more accurately than older techniques.  That leaves little or no time for item (2.) above.

Modern instruments crank out data much faster than we can adsorb, and there is now a tremendous overload of reliable data out there that has never been comprehended.

Many scientists cannot see the forest for the leaves!

I experienced this problem myself when I was a NASA PI for Apollo samples.  I had a "state of the art" mass spectrometer, designed and built by my research advisor at UC-Berkeley - Professor John H. Reynolds.  It seemed that NASA would have another lunar sample in my mailbox almost every day, wanting me to crank out additional data for the next Lunar Science Conference.

Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet.  Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.

You display great insight in questioning the composition of the Earth's core.

From the information I have obtained from meteorites, I tend to go along with John Wood's (Harvard) idea that the fluid outer core is mostly nickel-iron mixed with sulfides, like the troilite inclusions found in iron meteorites.  The fraction of the core of the terrestrial planet that contains (Fe,Ni)S increases with distance from the Sun: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars.  The fraction that is metallic Fe,Ni increases toward the Sun: Mars, Earth, Venus, Mercury.

Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron?  I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.

Okay.

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?

I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.

The term, "Ordinary meteorites" came from Harkin's 1917 paper.

I find no fault with B²FH. WHo would argue with genius?

What is your point?

I want you to know the stellar nuclear reactions and the stellar conditions that produce IRON (Fe).  Okay, it is the e-process defined by B₂FH.  What does e represent?

I thank you, Ophiolite, for your willingness to learn.  I have family responsibilities and must sign off now.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel 

20

New Theories / is the big bang correct?

« on: 13/07/2009 17:43:37 »

Thanks, Ophiolite, for letting us know that you have a B.Sc (Honours) in Geology.

What is the most abundant element in Earth?

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?

Professor W. D. Harkins published the answer in the Journal of the American Chemical Society 39 (1917) 756-879.

What stellar nuclear reactions and conditions produce this element?

Professors Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle published the answer to this question in Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (1957) 547-650.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel