[chiralSPO]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Craig W. Thomson (OP)]

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?

[Craig W. Thomson (OP)]

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.

[chiralSPO]

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?

[Craig W. Thomson (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson (OP)]

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.

[guest39538]

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

[Craig W. Thomson (OP)]

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

[guest39538]

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.

[jeffreyH]

CRaig you may be interested in this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak

[chiralSPO]

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)

[chiralSPO]

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.

[guest39538]

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?