Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Dave Lev on 29/06/2023 17:35:19
-
Based on the following article:
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/solar-energy/
"Solar energy is created by nuclear fusion that takes place in the sun. Fusion occurs when protons of hydrogen atoms violently collide in the sun?s core and fuse to create a helium atom.
This process, known as a PP (proton-proton) chain reaction, emits an enormous amount of energy. In its core, the sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen every second. The PP chain reaction occurs in other stars that are about the size of our sun, and provides them with continuous energy and heat. The temperature for these stars is around 4 million degrees on the Kelvin scale (about 4 million degrees Celsius, 7 million degrees Fahrenheit).
The energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
However, high energy/temp is needed to start this fusion:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63957085
"getting two identical elements to combine is actually very hard.
Because they have the same positive charge, they naturally repel each other.
A lot of energy is needed to overcome this resistance.
In the Sun, this happens thanks to extremely high temperatures of around ten million degrees Celsius, and significant pressure - more than 100 billion times that of the Earth's atmosphere."
"The waste produced by nuclear fusion is less radioactive and decays much more quickly."
After all of that info, my questions are as follow:
A. Fusion activity:
1. How the Sun could increase its internal temp to that ten million Celsius in order to start the fusion process?
How the internal pressure in the sun due to gravity can gain so high temp?
Do we have any way to measure that internal temp?
2. How do we know that in its core, the sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen every second?
Can we really measure that quantity or is it just based on some mathematical assumption?
3. It is stated that "The waste produced by nuclear fusion is less radioactive and decays much more quickly". So somehow there must be some radioactive radiation due to fusion activity. Do we really see any radioactive radiation from the Sun?
4. If Fusion activity was real, why it can't run out of control and bomb the entire Sun
B. Electromagnetic Radiation
6. It is stated: The energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Does it means that we clearly observe that the energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)?
7. So why we can't agree that the Solar energy is created ONLY by its EM energy?
8 Why this EM energy can't be created by external tidal forces on the Sun without any need for the Fusion activity idea? .
9. Why do we insist to add the idea of that invisible Fusion activity?
-
"This process, known as a PP (proton-proton) chain reaction, emits an enormous amount of energy.
The PP reaction is part of the fusion process. It doesn't make any helium, but it makes one deuterium nucleus out of two protons. The fustion reactors on Earth for instance don't do this, and they mine the ocean for already-existing deuterium and tritium and do only the easy part: Merging two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus.
PP is prevalent in smaller stars, but the CNO cycle (a catalytic reaction) is more prevalent in larger ones.
"getting two identical elements to combine is actually very hard.
Because they have the same positive charge, they naturally repel each other."
Well that's true of any nuclei, identical or not.
"The waste produced by nuclear fusion is less radioactive and decays much more quickly."
I think they mean 'more quickly than the waste of fission'.
1. How the Sun could increase its internal temp to that ten million Celsius in order to start the fusion process?
Anything under pressure is going to rise in temperature
How the internal pressure in the sun due to gravity can gain so high temp?
Compression causes higher temps. Here's a typical article going on about it, but most of them concern squeezing of air and not so much stellar processes. There is an incredible amount of energy released by all the mass of a star falling so deep into a major gravity well. It would fall further, but the ignition of the star creates a counter-pressure that staves off further collapse for as long as the reaction can be maintained.
https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-processes-in-closed-systems/why-does-pressure-and-temperature-increase-during-the-compression-of-a-gas/
Do we have any way to measure that internal temp?
Models. No way to directly measure it. We only see the surface and can measure energy output, mass, magnetic fields, etc.
2. How do we know that in its core, the sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen every second?
Energy output can be directly measured. E=mc2 does the rest.
Can we really measure that quantity or is it just based on some mathematical assumption?
All measurement is based on mathematical assumptions, so same thing.
So somehow there must be some radioactive radiation due to fusion activity. Do we really see any radioactive radiation from the Sun?
The waste products tend to stay and decay right in the sun. I imagine there are trace amounts in the solar wind and such. One such product is positrons, and those very much don't lost long enough to reach the surface. They don't decay, but they find electrons and annihilate them.
4. If Fusion activity was real, why it can't run out of control and bomb the entire Sun
The temperature of the sun prevents the density of the fuel from reaching explosive levels. That changes when the fuel runs low and the temperature can no longer maintain enough pressure to hold the star material at its current radius. Then collapse occurs, and the gravitational energy released from that collapse ignites the next layer of fuel (helium say) and that does explode.
6. It is stated: The energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Much of which is visible light, yes. We directly observe that, yes, even EMR in other frequencies.
7. So why we can't agree that the Solar energy is created ONLY by its EM energy?
It isn't created by EM energy at all. EM energy is the product, not the fuel.
8 Why this EM energy can't be created by external tidal forces on the Sun without any need for the Fusion activity idea?
There are almost no tidal forces on the sun. There's nothing large and close enough to produce them.
9. Why do we insist to add the idea of that invisible Fusion activity?
Because there's the only other source of energy would be that of falling material, and that is nowhere near enough to maintain the energy level for billions of years. A week maybe is it. This question seems to sound like fusion denialism.
-
I can't believe we are going to be subjected to yet another thread by dave that is filled with wild claims and his misunderstandings.
-
So Dave is a fusion denialist as well? We know that fusion goes on inside of the Sun partly because of neutrinos: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2934-0
-
Dear Halc
Thanks for your support.
However, why do you claim that "There are almost no tidal forces on the sun":
Quote
8 Why this EM energy can't be created by external tidal forces on the Sun without any need for the Fusion activity idea?
There are almost no tidal forces on the sun. There's nothing large and close enough to produce them.
In the following articles it is stated:
http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm
As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol.
As many as 19 G-type stars have been identified as being located in Sol's immediate neighborhood (within 10 parsecs or 32.6 light-years)
https://planetplanet.net/2016/07/12/exactly-how-unusual-is-our-solar-system/
Our Sun is a G star. There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as ?red dwarfs?. These small red stars have much longer lifetimes than G stars but shine much fainter. Among nearby stars, the Sun is modestly weird. If give our definition of a ?Sun-like? star some latitude, our star ends up being rare at the 10% level. That is about the fraction of American adults who are vegetarian.
Hence, do you confirm that by average there is a density of 64 G stars density per 50 LY radius around the Sun in the Orion arm?
As the thickness of this arm is about 1000LY, then its radius is 500 LY.
Therefore, if we keep that 64 G stars per 50LY, we should get about 64* 500/50 ^ 3 = 64,000 G stars.
In the article it is stated: "There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as ?red dwarfs?
Hence, as 20 G stars means 400 stars in total (including M stars) than do you confirm that 64,000 G stars means about 1,280,000 stars in total (again - just in the radius of 500LY in the Orion arm around us).
Even if there are only 100,000 stars in total around the Sun, why those stars can't set severe tidal forces on the Sun?
With regards to the impact of Tidal forces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)
With over 400 active volcanoes, Io is the most geologically active object in the Solar System.[11][12][13] This extreme geologic activity is the result of tidal heating from friction generated within Io's interior as it is pulled between Jupiter and the other Galilean moons?Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.
If IO moon can be so hot as a result of tidal heating from friction generated within nearby objects, why the SUN can't gain its heat due to a similar tidal heating process?
Please remember, IO is relatively small with just few objects around it, while the Sun is very massive with over than 100,000 stars around it.
Quote
1. How the Sun could increase its internal temp to that ten million Celsius in order to start the fusion process?
Anything under pressure is going to rise in temperature
I hope that we all agree that in order to start the fusion process, it is vital for the Sun to increase its internal heat to about 10,000,000 c.
So you claim that the internal Pressure by itself could increase the Sun temp to that 10 Million c.
If that is correct, then why there is a need for a fusion process?
Why can't we just claim that:
1. The internal pressure (I claim for tidal forces) can increase dramatically the internal heat of the SUN.
2. That heat would be transformed into ULTRA strong EM energy by internal dynamo in the Sun.
3. That EM power would set severe magnetic storm at the surface of the Sun and convert the ionized Hydrogen into hot plasma at about 5,000 c (without any need for fusion activity)
Please remember:
All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html
"What is solar activity?
A model of the sun's magnetic field lines.
The sun is a magnetic variable star that fluctuates on times scales ranging from a fraction of a second to billions of years.
Credits: NASA
Solar flares, coronal mass ejections, high-speed solar wind, and solar energetic particles are all forms of solar activity.
All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field."
Hence, while you insist that the solar magnetic field is due to the fusion activity, I claim that it is due to tidal forces and internal pressure.
Don't you agree that if there was a fusion activity in the Sun core, it could prevent from the Sun' core to rotate and hold the internal dynamo process?
In this case the Sun won't be able to create its EM power that is so vital for the Solar energy process.
-
There is so much error in your last post that it would take too long to counter all this. Two points: Io is affected by changing gravitational gradients but does it glow like the sun-it does not. The heat from compression is a one off occurrence, it will quickly dissipate if no other process takes over. The prodigious output of the sun can only be explained by nuclear processes.
-
If IO moon can be so hot as a result of tidal heating from friction generated within nearby objects, why the SUN can't gain its heat due to a similar tidal heating process?
Because the nearest stars are light-years away. If those stars were capable of producing strong enough tidal forces to heat the Sun into a glowing hot plasma, then they would heat the planets as well.
If that is correct, then why there is a need for a fusion process?
A compressed gas getting hot can't explain why the Sun emits neutrinos.
-
A compressed gas getting hot can't explain why the Sun emits neutrinos.
Nor does it explain the energy output from the sun, the sun would be cool by now if the only heat was from compression.
I am seeing a lot of misconceptions from dave about stars, compression and fusion.
-
Because the nearest stars are light-years away.
That is perfectly OK
The oort cloud extends up to 3.2LY away from the Sun and sets the border of the solar system.
Therefore, it is very clear that even if we just focus on the 400 stars that are located up to 20 LY away from the sun (and ignore all the other millions that are located further away) we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.
If those stars were capable of producing strong enough tidal forces to heat the Sun into a glowing hot plasma, then they would heat the planets as well.
Well, the Sun mass is massive by 330,000 times than our planet.
Gravity force formula is as follow:
F = Gm1m2 / r2
Therefore, the gravity/tidal force between any nearby star to the sun should be higher by 330,000 than its gravity/tidal force with our planet.
Therefore, its tidal impact on the planet is neglected.
Nor does it explain the energy output from the sun, the sun would be cool by now if the only heat was from compression.
Sorry, you have a severe mistake!
Please remember:
All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html
So, it is not about any kind of energy but about a very specific energy that is called "solar magnetic field" or EM energy!!!
I would compare the solar magnetic field engine to Tesla car engine.
If we would set 100 gallons of gasoline on this tesla engine, would it increase its power or just kill it?
In the same token, any Fusion activity at the Sun core should kill the requested smooth rotation of its internal dynamo.
The only force in the nature that can increase and maintain the EM power of any planet or star is tidal force.
Therefore, Fusion activity at the Sun core won't help it to gain it's requested solar magnetic field energy!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
"In physics, the dynamo theory proposes a mechanism by which a celestial body such as Earth or a star generates a magnetic field. The dynamo theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid can maintain a magnetic field over astronomical time scales. A dynamo is thought to be the source of the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic fields of Mercury and the Jovian planets."
"Tidal heating supporting a dynamo
Tidal forces between celestial orbiting bodies cause friction that heats up their interiors. This is known as tidal heating, and it helps keep the interior in a liquid state. A liquid interior that can conduct electricity is required to produce a dynamo. Saturn's Enceladus and Jupiter's Io have enough tidal heating to liquify their inner cores, but they may not create a dynamo because they cannot conduct electricity.[11][12] Mercury, despite its small size, has a magnetic field, because it has a conductive liquid core created by its iron composition and friction resulting from its highly elliptical orbit.[13] It is theorized that the Moon once had a magnetic field, based on evidence from magnetized lunar rocks, due to its short-lived closer distance to Earth creating tidal heating.[14] An orbit and rotation of a planet helps provide a liquid core, and supplements kinetic energy that supports a dynamo action."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory#/media/File:Dynamo_Theory_-_Outer_core_convection_and_magnetic_field_generation.svg
"Illustration of the dynamo mechanism that generates the Earth's magnetic field: convection currents of fluid metal in the Earth's outer core, driven by heat flow from the inner core, organized into rolls by the Coriolis force, generate circulating electric currents, which supports the magnetic field.[1]"
-
we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.
Show us the math to support this assertion.
So, it is not about any kind of energy but about a very specific energy that is called "solar magnetic field" or EM energy!!!
Those magnetic fields come about because the Sun is composed of a conducting, circulating fluid (plasma). The Sun is composed of a conductive fluid because it is very hot. It is very hot because fusion is happening in the core.
I would compare the solar magnetic field engine to Tesla car engine.
If we would set 100 gallons of gasoline on this tesla engine, would it increase its power or just kill it?
False analogy. I just explained above how fusion ultimately gives rise to that magnetic field.
In the same token, any Fusion activity at the Sun core should kill the requested smooth rotation of its internal dynamo.
Can you back that assertion up with a reputable source?
The only force in the nature that can increase and maintain the EM power of any planet or star is tidal force.
Not so. Anything that can provide the needed heat is good enough.
Therefore, Fusion activity at the Sun core won't help it to gain it's requested solar magnetic field energy!
Yes it will, because it keeps the gas hot enough to stay in the plasma phase (necessary for a magnetic dynamo in a star).
You also have not offered an explanation for the neutrinos emitted by the Sun.
-
Absolute unmitigated nonsense, please learn some basic physics. AAGH!, as Alancalverd recently opined.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:44:28
we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.
Show us the math to support this assertion.
Sorry.
I don't need to set any math.
The Dynamo_theory is well established and proved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
"In physics, the dynamo theory proposes a mechanism by which a celestial body such as Earth or a star generates a magnetic field. The dynamo theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid can maintain a magnetic field over astronomical time scales. A dynamo is thought to be the source of the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic fields of Mercury and the Jovian planets."
That theory is clearly based on tidal force:
"Tidal heating supporting a dynamo
Tidal forces between celestial orbiting bodies cause friction that heats up their interiors. This is known as tidal heating, and it helps keep the interior in a liquid state. A liquid interior that can conduct electricity is required to produce a dynamo. Saturn's Enceladus and Jupiter's Io have enough tidal heating to liquify their inner cores, but they may not create a dynamo because they cannot conduct electricity.[11][12] Mercury, despite its small size, has a magnetic field, because it has a conductive liquid core created by its iron composition and friction resulting from its highly elliptical orbit.[13] It is theorized that the Moon once had a magnetic field, based on evidence from magnetized lunar rocks, due to its short-lived closer distance to Earth creating tidal heating.[14] An orbit and rotation of a planet helps provide a liquid core, and supplements kinetic energy that supports a dynamo action."
and it is related to planets and stars:
the dynamo theory proposes a mechanism by which a celestial body such as Earth or a star generates a magnetic field.
Why don't agree with this theory?.
However, you are the one that need to show how the Fusion activity could start.
We all clearly know that in order to start the Fusion activity, the internal star heat should be 10,000,000 c.
So, please, take a young protostar that was a ball of hydrogen and helium and show how the internal pressure could increase its internal temp to that imagination level of 10,000,000 c..
Did you read the message from Origin:
the sun would be cool by now if the only heat was from compression.
If you think that the young protostar can gain such high temp only by its internal pressure/compression than please show the math to support this assertion.
Those magnetic fields come about because the Sun is composed of a conducting, circulating fluid (plasma). The Sun is composed of a conductive fluid because it is very hot. It is very hot because fusion is happening in the core.
The fusion is a random activity.
Therefore, it can't set the N & S magnetic poles in the Sun to be fully gained with the Sun rotation motion:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/science/solar-rotation.html
"The Sun rotates on its axis once in about 27 days. This rotation was first detected by observing the motion of sunspots. The Sun's rotation axis is tilted by about 7.25 degrees from the axis of the Earth's orbit so we see more of the Sun's north pole in September of each year and more of its south pole in March."
So how it works:
Let's assume that there is a nearby star exactly above the Sun's rotation axis
In this case, the Sun tidal impact due to that star would be minimal or almost zero.
However, if we put the same star (and at the same radius from the Sun) directly above the Sun's equatorial regions it will have the maximal tidal impact.
Therefore, although the stars are randomly spread around the Sun, those stars that are located above the Sun's equatorial regions have the maximal tidal heat impact and therefore, the sun poles are fully aligned with its rotation motion.
This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.
A random internal fusion activity won't be able to set so high synchronization between the poles and the rotation motion of the sun
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:44:28
Therefore, Fusion activity at the Sun core won't help it to gain it's requested solar magnetic field energy!
Yes it will, because it keeps the gas hot enough to stay in the plasma phase (necessary for a magnetic dynamo in a star).
Please show the Dynamo_theory that is based on Fusion activity
You also have not offered an explanation for the neutrinos emitted by the Sun.
I will think about it and let you know.
-
we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.
False, the gravitational effects on the sun from other stars is negligible.
So, it is not about any kind of energy but about a very specific energy that is called "solar magnetic field" or EM energy!!!
I would compare the solar magnetic field engine to Tesla car engine.
You would be wrong the energy streaming from the sun is due to fusion.
Why don't agree with this theory?.
The dynamo theory has nothing to do with the energy produced by the sun. The suns energy comes from fusion. The suns magnetic field comes from the rotating plasma.
So, please, take a young protostar that was a ball of hydrogen and helium and show how the internal pressure could increase its internal temp to that imagination level of 10,000,000 c.
You are the one making the claim here. You are the one that needs to show that a proto star would not attain the heat and pressure to initiate fusion.
This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.
A random internal fusion activity won't be able to set so high synchronization between the poles and the rotation motion of the sun
Stop making wild claims! The suns magnetic field is not due to tidal forces and it is not due to fusion. Why don't you just ask questions about things you don't know instead of making wild guesses?
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:44:28
we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.
False, the gravitational effects on the sun from other stars is negligible.
Well, if we focus on just one nearby star than I fully agree that its gravity force is quite negligible.
However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is severe.
I have proved that the density of G stars in our aria is about 64 stars per 50 Ly radius.
Please read again my following explanation:
http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm
As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol.
As many as 19 G-type stars have been identified as being located in Sol's immediate neighborhood (within 10 parsecs or 32.6 light-years)
https://planetplanet.net/2016/07/12/exactly-how-unusual-is-our-solar-system/
Our Sun is a G star. There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as ?red dwarfs?. These small red stars have much longer lifetimes than G stars but shine much fainter. Among nearby stars, the Sun is modestly weird. If give our definition of a ?Sun-like? star some latitude, our star ends up being rare at the 10% level. That is about the fraction of American adults who are vegetarian.
Hence, do you confirm that by average there is a density of 64 G stars density per 50 LY radius around the Sun in the Orion arm?
As the thickness of this arm is about 1000LY, then its radius is 500 LY.
Therefore, if we keep that 64 G stars per 50LY, we should get about 64* 500/50 ^ 3 = 64,000 G stars.
In the article it is stated: "There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as red dwarfs.
Hence, as 20 G stars means 400 stars in total (including M stars) than do you confirm that 64,000 G stars means about 1,280,000 stars in total (again - just in the radius of 500LY in the Orion arm around us).
Therefore, if we increase the radius around the Sun by 2 we actually increase the total stars by 2^3=8.
Hence, let's assume that at a radius R there is just one star with a gravity force of F.
If we increase the radius by 2 (2R), there will be 2^3=8 stars while each star will have only F/2^2 = 1/4F.
Hence, although the gravity force of each star had been reduced by 4, in total the gravity force of those 8 stars would set a combined gravity force that is stronger by 2 with regards to the single one at radius R.
F(at 2R) = 1/4 F(at R) * 8 = 2 F(at R)
Therefore, as we calculate the gravity impact of the total millions or even billions of stars in the Orion arm and around it on the Sun, we should find that the combined tidal gravity force is severe.
I'm quite sure that if we could take out the Sun from the milky way galaxy and set it in the open space without any nearby star, its energy would be decrease dramatically due to the missing tidal gravity force.
-
However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is severe.
Here's what you should have said.
"However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is severe averages to zero because, for every star pulling in one direction there is (on average) another star pulling in the opposite direction."
You really need to stop presenting your mistakes as facts. It just makes you look bad.
Really,it's even worse than that.
You could copy this
"Hence, let's assume that at a radius R there is just one star with a gravity force of F.
If we increase the radius by 2 (2R), there will be 2^3=8 stars while each star will have only F/2^2 = 1/4F.
Hence, although the gravity force of each star had been reduced by 4, in total the gravity force of those 8 stars would set a combined gravity force that is stronger by 2 with regards to the single one at radius R.
F(at 2R) = 1/4 F(at R) * 8 = 2 F(at R)
Therefore, as we calculate the gravity impact of the total millions or even billions of stars in the Orion arm and around it on the Sun, we should find that the combined tidal gravity force is severe.
I'm quite sure that if we could take out the Sun from the milky way galaxy and set it in the open space without any nearby star, its energy would be decrease dramatically due to the missing tidal gravity force."
And replace all the mentions of "gravity" by "light" and all the instances of "mass" by "brightness".
And at the end you would conclude that starlight at night is as bright as sunlight in the day.
So, even if we didn't know why you are wrong, we would still know that you are wrong.
But all I did there was link your idea to Olber's paradox.
So you should have known about the problem with your idea.
So you shouldn't have posted it.
But you did- because you refuse to learn science.
Incidentally, that's still not the biggest problem with your idea.
Tidal forces do not follow the inverse square law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force#:~:text=In%20this%20graph%2C%20the%20attractive,the%20cube%20of%20the%20distance.
If you knew the science, you might have done the right maths and got a sensible answer.
Or you could simply have opened your eyes and seen that we have tide tables that include the Sun and Moon, but not the other stars.
But you refuse to accept that your ideas are wrong.
You are the dogmatist here.
You insist on thinking you are right even though it is literally as clear as day and night that you are wrong.
You are the opposite of science.
Why are you here?
-
Well, if we focus on just one nearby star than I fully agree that its gravity force is quite negligible.
However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is severe.
No it isn't. Alpha Centauri A and B combined gravitational force is about 100 times weaker than the earths moon gravitational force on the sun. The same 2 solar masses at twice the distance from earth would be 400 times weaker than the moon. The same 2 solar mass at 50 ly would have a gravitational force that's 10,000 times weaker than the moon.
That is not going to cause tidal heating.
It is absurd that we have to try and convince you how ludicrous your idea is. The suns energy is from fusion, this is really not a question in any bodies mind that has even a minimum knowledge of astronomy.
-
Sorry.
I don't need to set any math.
You do if you want to be taken seriously. You need to demonstrate that tidal forces from distant stars are sufficient to heat the Sun up to its measured temperature. If the math doesn't check out, then your idea is wrong.
The Dynamo_theory is well established and proved:
That it is, but that's not the issue here. The fact that the Sun is made of conductive, circulating fluid explains why it has a magnetic field. There's the dynamo theory in action right there. The issue is how you can explain the Sun's great temperature from the tidal forces of objects many light-years away.
That theory is clearly based on tidal force:
It is not. Tidal forces merely supply the heat needed to keep the cores of some heavenly bodies liquid. Any source of heat that can keep the core liquid will work. We have even built a dynamo with liquid sodium metal that creates a magnetic field. Not tidal forces are required to keep that sodium dynamo working.
and it is related to planets and stars:
Yes, dynamos are related to planets and stars. That doesn't mean that tidal forces are needed to maintain every dynamo in every planet and star. Again, any source of energy that can heat the interior into a conductive fluid will work.
Why don't agree with this theory?.
I do agree with the theory. What I disagree with is your assertion that tidal forces are the only way that a celestial body can maintain the internal heat needed to form a conductive fluid. Radioactive decay and residual formation heat also provide warmth to the interiors of planets.
However, you are the one that need to show how the Fusion activity could start.
We all clearly know that in order to start the Fusion activity, the internal star heat should be 10,000,000 c.
So, please, take a young protostar that was a ball of hydrogen and helium and show how the internal pressure could increase its internal temp to that imagination level of 10,000,000 c..
Here is a paper describing the math involved in calculating the upper mass limit on brown dwarf stars (equivalent to the minimum mass needed to start the fusion processes needed for main sequence stars). Temperature is discussed as well. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.08575.pdf
Did you read the message from Origin:
Yes I did. Origin is talking about the loss of heat over time without fusion to keep it going.
If you think that the young protostar can gain such high temp only by its internal pressure/compression than please show the math to support this assertion.
Refer to my link above.
The fusion is a random activity.
Therefore, it can't set the N & S magnetic poles in the Sun to be fully gained with the Sun rotation motion:
Fusion isn't directly responsible for creating the magnetic fields. All fusion does is supply the heat needed to turn the Sun into a plasma. The rotation of the Sun is what determines where the north and south poles are.
"The Sun rotates on its axis once in about 27 days. This rotation was first detected by observing the motion of sunspots. The Sun's rotation axis is tilted by about 7.25 degrees from the axis of the Earth's orbit so we see more of the Sun's north pole in September of each year and more of its south pole in March."
So how it works:
Let's assume that there is a nearby star exactly above the Sun's rotation axis
In this case, the Sun tidal impact due to that star would be minimal or almost zero.
However, if we put the same star (and at the same radius from the Sun) directly above the Sun's equatorial regions it will have the maximal tidal impact.
Therefore, although the stars are randomly spread around the Sun, those stars that are located above the Sun's equatorial regions have the maximal tidal heat impact and therefore, the sun poles are fully aligned with its rotation motion.
This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.
That isn't proof. You need to supply the numbers to show that it is plausible. We aren't going to believe you just because you say so.
A random internal fusion activity won't be able to set so high synchronization between the poles and the rotation motion of the sun
The rotation of the Sun itself is what causes the magnetic pole orientation to be where it is, so of course it's going to be synchronized. All fusion does is make the Sun hot. It isn't directly responsible for the magnetic field, only indirectly.
Please show the Dynamo_theory that is based on Fusion activity
This is like asking me to show you the fetal development theory based on sunlight. Although the energy required for a fetus to grow ultimately comes from sunlight (as all the food we eat comes from plants, either directly or indirectly), the study of fetal development has nothing to do with the exact source of the energy needed to produce the food. It's the same thing with a dynamo.
However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is severe.
Please demonstrate that this is the case. Your intuition isn't good enough.
Therefore, as we calculate the gravity impact of the total millions or even billions of stars in the Orion arm and around it on the Sun, we should find that the combined tidal gravity force is severe.
So then calculate it. Show that it is "severe".
I'm quite sure that if we could take out the Sun from the milky way galaxy and set it in the open space without any nearby star, its energy would be decrease dramatically due to the missing tidal gravity force.
What you feel "quite sure" of isn't good enough. You need to show this is the case with evidence.
-
Doubling posting, I know, but I did some math. Here's a webpage describing the equation to calculate tidal forces: https://www.astro.uvic.ca/~jwillis/teaching/astr201/maths.7.tidal_heating.pdf
The tidal force is described by: (2GM1M2)/r3, where
G is the gravitational constant
M1 is the mass of one body
M2 is the mass of the other body, and
r is the distance between the masses.
So now we will calculate the tidal force between the Sun and Alpha Centauri A:
(2GM1M2)/r3
((2)(6.674 x 10-11)(1.9885 x 1030)(2.1452 x 1030))/(4.1097 x 16)3
((5.694 x 1050)/(6.941 x 1049)
8.2 newtons per meter
The total tidal force can be computed by multiplying the force per unit distance by the diameter of the Sun:
8.2 x 6.96 x 108= 5.7 x 109 newtons
Now compare that to the tidal forces experienced by Io in its orbit around Jupiter. According to the page linked above, it is 9 x 1020 newtons. So Io experiences tidal forces 100 million times stronger from Jupiter than the Sun does from Alpha Centauri A. So it would take 100 million Sun-like stars at a distance of 4.3 light-years from the Sun to even cause as much tidal force as Io experiences.
Since the Sun is obviously much, much hotter than Io and there aren't anywhere near 100 million stars within a few light-years of us, then tidal heating is woefully insufficient to explain the Sun's temperature.
-
This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.
Since your "ultimate" proof is wrong, we can close the topic.
-
The total tidal force can be computed by multiplying the force per unit distance by the diameter of the Sun:
8.2 x 6.96 x 10^8= 5.7 x 10^9 newtons
There is a small error with the diameter of the Sun. You have used the radius instead of the diameter, but that isn't the key error.
Tidal heat is not just a direct outcome from the tidal force.
There are some other factors that we need to verify as rotational motion.
The Earth gets its magnetic fields mainly due to the Tidal force with the moon.
However, the moon itself is cold as ice.
The main difference is that the Earth rotates while the moon is face locked with the earth. Therefore, the earth moon tidal force doesn't contribute any tidal heat energy to the moon.
There are millions or even billions of stars that have a similar Sun mass.
If you would monitor them, you might find that each one of them has different energy.
Some of them might be considers as G stars and others as M stars.
The tidal heat energy is also based on other factors as the size and the conditions of the object. Is it a solid object, gas object or a liquid hot plasma object (As the sun).
If it was due to Fusion activity, then it is expected that all of them should have exactly the same energy.
Each one of the following factors could change the tidal heat due to the tidal force:
The Sun Equatorial circumference = 4.379 10^6 km
It sets one Equatorial rotation in 24.4 Days.
Therefore, the sun Equatorial rotation velocity is 7,477 Km/h
Io Equatorial rotation velocity is only 271 Km/h
Io Radius = 1,821 km
Sun Radius = 696,000 km
Io is a solid object while the sun is a hot liquid plasma
Therefore, the same tidal force would set at the Sun significantly more tidal heat energy than in IO.
If we could slow down the rotational motion of the Sun (or even stop it), we would reduce dramatically the solar energy.
The location in the spiral arm might also be a factor. if it is in the center of the arm then it should gain more tidal force from all the nearby stars. If it is at the edge of the arm or even outside the arm, its tidal heat energy would be reduced.
The rotation of the Sun itself is what causes the magnetic pole orientation to be where it is, so of course it's going to be synchronized. All fusion does is make the Sun hot. It isn't directly responsible for the magnetic field, only indirectly.
The rotation of the dynamo in the core of the Sun is what causes the magnetic pole orientation to be where it is.
That core MUST be SOLID in order to gain the magnetic field.
On earth, the core temp is about 6500 c, never the less, it is stated that it is a solid plasma core due to the internal pressure.
On the Sun, 10 M c would be too high to maintain a solid plasma core.
Therefore, at this temp, a liquid dynamo won't generate any magnetic field.
Therefore, it is not just an issue of internal heat up to 10 M c, but about the correct heat that should maintain a proper rotational operation of the solid dynamo.
Here is a paper describing the math involved in calculating the upper mass limit on brown dwarf stars (equivalent to the minimum mass needed to start the fusion processes needed for main sequence stars). Temperature is discussed as well. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.08575.pdf
There is a fatal mistake in the first step of this explanation.
It is stated:
"1). As the protostar continues to contract, increasing its density, temperature rises reaching values of 10^3K. At this point, the hydrogen atoms begin to gradually ionize, until the protostar becomes a sphere composed mainly of plasma, which can be modeled as an ideal completely ionized hydrogen gas"
ionized hydrogen gas means a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged.
There is no way for the Hydrogen to lose its electron without real source of EM power. Heat by itself isn't good enough.
They claim that:
"We know that the mass of a brown dwarf is less than ∼ 0.08M , and that its effective temperature is ∼ 10^3K"
They make some assumptions and some calculation and hope that it would jump from 10^3K to 10^7K:
"Stellar formation models agree on a value of Mmin ≈ 0.08M
[2-5]. Therefore, if the mass reaches or exceeds this value, the process of contraction continues until the protostars center reaches the temperature required to ignite thermonuclear reactions, where hydrogen is fused into helium. This temperature is ∼ 10^7K and marks the birth of a star"
Hence, without real explanation how the temp is jumping from 10^3K to 10^7K, they now are using this high temp to generate an expansive pressure that can stop the gravitational collapse.
"These high temperatures generate an expansive pressure that can stop the gravitational collapse, allowing
the star to reach a state of equilibrium"
The assume as follow:
"If we assume that the protostar is made of an ideal hydrogen gas that is completely ionized,
then according to statistical mechanics EK ∼ N kT, where N is the total number of particles
(protons and electrons), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the absolute temperature."
As we have assumed an electrically neutral hydrogen gas, then the number of electrons Ne is
equal to the number of protons Np
If we assume that T ≈ Tig, then M ≈ Mmin
Now it is clear to me that with all of those assumption, they can get any temp as they wish.
Sorry, I don't accept this kind of explanation as a real theory to gain the requested 10 million c and how the core could be solid at that temp for the proper operation of the dynamo.
-
There is a small error with the diameter of the Sun. You have used the radius instead of the diameter, but that isn't the key error.
Yes, you are correct, I did make an error there. So the tidal forces should be 50 million times weaker on the Sun from Alpha Centauri A than from Jupiter on Io instead of 100 million times. At least this shows that you looked at the math instead of skipping it.
Tidal heat is not just a direct outcome from the tidal force.
There are some other factors that we need to verify as rotational motion.
Yes, this is true.
The Earth gets its magnetic fields mainly due to the Tidal force with the moon.
Tidal action from the Moon does heat the Earth to a degree, but radioactive decay and residual heat from the Earth's formation also contribute to the Earth's interior being liquid.
However, the moon itself is cold as ice.
Only the night time side of the Moon is cold. During the day, it can become boiling hot.
The main difference is that the Earth rotates while the moon is face locked with the earth. Therefore, the earth moon tidal force doesn't contribute any tidal heat energy to the moon.
Not exactly. The Moon's orbit is elliptical. The change in distance over time will change the tidal forces over time and thus result in some degree of heating. This is what causes Io to heat up (but to a more extreme extent than our Moon).
There are millions or even billions of stars that have a similar Sun mass.
If you would monitor them, you might find that each one of them has different energy.
Some of them might be considers as G stars and others as M stars.
Yes, this is true.
The tidal heat energy is also based on other factors as the size and the conditions of the object. Is it a solid object, gas object or a liquid hot plasma object (As the sun).
The Sun is not liquid.
If it was due to Fusion activity, then it is expected that all of them should have exactly the same energy.
That is not what fusion theory predicts at all. Stars with more mass have higher pressure, hotter cores which burn hydrogen faster. If you are going to argue against fusion theory, please don't misrepresent it.
Io is a solid object while the sun is a hot liquid plasma
Again, the Sun is not a liquid.
Each one of the following factors could change the tidal heat due to the tidal force:
The Sun Equatorial circumference = 4.379 10^6 km
It sets one Equatorial rotation in 24.4 Days.
Therefore, the sun Equatorial rotation velocity is 7,477 Km/h
Io Equatorial rotation velocity is only 271 Km/h
Io Radius = 1,821 km
Sun Radius = 696,000 km
Since the Sun takes 24 to nearly 38 days to complete a rotation (depending on where you are doing the measuring), then that's also how long it takes to complete one tidal flexing cycle. It takes Io about 1.8 days to orbit Jupiter, so its tidal flexing period is much faster than the Sun's. The tidal flexing period matters more than rotation velocity when it comes to heating, since rapid changes in physical stresses generate more heat than slower changes. So it's not at all clear from those numbers you posted that the Sun has the advantage in terms of tidal heating over Io (especially in light of Io experiencing millions of times greater tidal forces than the Sun).
Therefore, the same tidal force would set at the Sun significantly more tidal heat energy than in IO.
Given that Io experiences millions of times the tidal force that the Sun does and experiences more rapid tidal flexes, that's awfully unlikely.
If we could slow down the rotational motion of the Sun (or even stop it), we would reduce dramatically the solar energy.
Please demonstrate that this would be the case.
The location in the spiral arm might also be a factor. if it is in the center of the arm then it should gain more tidal force from all the nearby stars. If it is at the edge of the arm or even outside the arm, its tidal heat energy would be reduced.
Again, please demonstrate this.
The rotation of the dynamo in the core of the Sun is what causes the magnetic pole orientation to be where it is.
That core MUST be SOLID in order to gain the magnetic field.
On earth, the core temp is about 6500 c, never the less, it is stated that it is a solid plasma core due to the internal pressure.
On the Sun, 10 M c would be too high to maintain a solid plasma core.
Therefore, at this temp, a liquid dynamo won't generate any magnetic field.
Therefore, it is not just an issue of internal heat up to 10 M c, but about the correct heat that should maintain a proper rotational operation of the solid dynamo.
What is needed is a circulating, conductive fluid. Take this quote from the Wikipedia article on dynamo theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
Dynamo theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid acts to maintain a magnetic field.
Both the Sun and the Earth meet this requirement. No solids are needed to create a magnetic field.
ionized hydrogen gas means a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged.
There is no way for the Hydrogen to lose its electron without real source of EM power. Heat by itself isn't good enough.
Yes it is. Electrons are bound to atoms by a finite amount of force. If a material is sufficiently hot, then the atoms within it can collide with enough energy to dislodge the electrons. The only way that could be false would be if electrons were bound to atoms by infinite force. If that was the case, then direct stimulation by electromagnetic radiation wouldn't be sufficient to dislodge them either.
They make some assumptions and some calculation and hope that it would jump from 10^3K to 10^7K:
They are pointing out the 1,000 degree mark specifically because that's the order of magnitude where hydrogen becomes ionized. This is during a phase of the collapse and it does not stay at that temperature. As the protostar continues to collapse, it will continue to heat up in accordance with the gas laws.
Now it is clear to me that with all of those assumption, they can get any temp as they wish.
Not so. Scientists don't just make stuff up for the fun of it. If they did, then other scientists would call them out on it. Articles are peer-reviewed for a reason.
Sorry, I don't accept this kind of explanation as a real theory to gain the requested 10 million c
Because you misunderstood it.
and how the core could be solid at that temp for the proper operation of the dynamo.
The Sun doesn't have a solid core nor does it need one.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Sun generates neutrinos (and at the expected rate for fusion, at that).
-
The Earth gets its magnetic fields mainly due to the Tidal force with the moon.
It is known that the earth' magnetic field has reversed many times in the past.
Are you saying that the Moon suddenly stopped and started orbiting backwards?
No, of course it didn't.
And that's how we know that, yet again, you are wrong.
There are millions or even billions of stars that have a similar Sun mass.
If you would monitor them, you might find that each one of them has different energy.
And, on average, they cancel out.
But that's not very important because, in reality, they are too far away to matter.
We already explained this to you.
But you do not pay attention to facts.
Why are you on a science page if you do not want to pay attention to facts?
-
There is a fatal mistake in the first step of this explanation.
Which of these is more likely?
(1) there is a mistake and you are the only one to notice, even though you don't understand science or
(2) there is no mistake there, but you think there is because don't understand it.
-
If it was due to Fusion activity, then it is expected that all of them should have exactly the same energy.
Wrong. Your statement doesn't even make sense.
The rotation of the dynamo in the core of the Sun is what causes the magnetic pole orientation to be where it is.
That core MUST be SOLID in order to gain the magnetic field.
Wrong.
There is no way for the Hydrogen to lose its electron without real source of EM power. Heat by itself isn't good enough.
Wrong.
Sorry, I don't accept this kind of explanation as a real theory
Who cares what you think? You make up absurd claims that are disproven in almost every one of you posts. I think it is safe to say that you put out more pseudoscience than anyone else on this site. It is really a shame because you clearly aren't dumb, just incredibly confused, stubborn or a troll
-
Both the Sun and the Earth meet this requirement. No solids are needed to create a magnetic field.
Solid inner core is a mandatory request:
https://www.ipgp.fr/~aubert/the-geodynamo.html
At the heart of our planet, the Earth?s core is mainly composed of liquid (outer core) and solid (inner core) iron. Its formation and differentiation is one of the significant events in the early history of our planet.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab8780
The inner core with a radius of 1210 km is solid, the outer core is liquid.
The Sun doesn't have a solid core nor does it need one.
Sorry, inner core must be solid. Without it there is no dynamo.
Here's what you should have said.
"However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is severe averages to zero because, for every star pulling in one direction there is (on average) another star pulling in the opposite direction."
You have a severe mistake
https://exploringthecosmos.tumblr.com/image/35967694059
https://exploringthecosmos.tumblr.com/post/35967694059/tides-contrary-to-what-one-may-think-tides-are
"Contrary to what one may think, tides are caused by a differential force, not simply the mere force of gravity. Consider the fact that there are two tidal bulges on Earth; if tides were simply caused by the gravitational pull of our Moon, there would only be one tidal bulge on the side of Earth closest to the Moon when in fact, there is one tidal bulge on each side"
Therefore, if we could place one more moon exactly at the other side of the earth, then we would get two identical bulges
Each bulge would be:
GM/(r+R)^2 + GM/(r-R)^2
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Sun generates neutrinos (and at the expected rate for fusion, at that).
I need few more days.
-
Yes, the Earth has a solid inner core. No, the Earth's inner core doesn't need to be solid in order for there to be a dynamo. If you disagree, then give us the exact quote from your source which states that it is necessary.
-
Without it there is no dynamo.
You keep saying that.
It is wrong.
Why do you keep saying it?
You have a severe mistake
No, I have not.
Your picture does not show anything like the scenario I was talking about. It's the same picture I have known about for 40 years or more. Posting a copy of it here is stupid because all the real scientists already know about it.
And we know that it does NOT prove your point.
You need to stop assuming that everyone else is wrong.
I was pointing out that, if you have two distant stars in opposite directions, the pull from them cancels out and you end up with a tiny effect on the Sun or Earth.
Not the "severe" effect that you somehow seem to need to believe in.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Do you even read the articles you post? The first one you quoted says that the inner core is solid, correct, but that the magnetic field arises in the liquid outer core, same as the solar plasma. Nowhere is a solid core "mandatory".
-
Yes, the Earth has a solid inner core.
Well, don't you agree that the earth core should be liquid?
It is stated:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab8780
" In the center of the Earth, it is about 6000 K, at the surface of the core it is slightly more than 4000 K."
It is made out of iron, so why they insist for a solid core?
The answer is very simple:
Based on their simulation it had been discovered that only if the inner solid conductive core rotates in a liquid conductive outer core the geodynamo can work!
https://cfn-live-content-bucket-iop-org.s3.amazonaws.com/journals/0143-0807/41/4/045803/revision2/ejpab8780f1_online.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAYDKQL6LTV7YY2HIK&Expires=1688973293&Signature=ORMCwMbQAxSGmue%2FiOs4qQqMO%2Fo%3D
The geodynamo has some specific characteristics:
"The self-excited dynamo has some characteristics that we also find in the geodynamo, and which we would like to highlight here.
In order for the self-excited dynamo to start, the stator must first be supplied from another source, because as long as no current flows in the stator coils, no current is induced in the rotor coils.
If the dynamo runs too slowly, it can 'extinguish'.
If the rotor runs sufficiently fast, an arbitrarily small magnetic field is sufficient to start the dynamo effect. The faster the dynamo runs, the more unstable becomes the currentless state."
Therefore, the dynamo must be solid and it can't run to fast or too slow.
Did you ever try to run one kind of a liquid in other liquid without mixing them all together?
Therefore, if the inner core is liquid it would mix up with the outer liquid core and shut down the geodynamo proper operation.
However, if you still think that there is a possibility for a liquid dynamo to rotate in a liquid outer core and maintain its proper functionality, then please show the article to support this imagination.
-
Well, don't you agree that the earth core should be liquid?
No.
We agree with reality which tells us that it happens to have a solid core.
You should try it some time.
Based on their simulation it had been discovered that only if the inner solid conductive core rotates in a liquid conductive outer core the geodynamo can work!
Based on reality, we know that you do not need a solid core; we checked.
Why do you keep ignoring reality and trying to push your weird impossible ideas?
-
Based on reality, we know that you do not need a solid core; we checked.
Why do you keep ignoring reality and trying to push your weird impossible ideas?
What did they really check in this toy demo?
Did they check the core conditions in the sun?
Did the calculate the impact of the 10 M c imagination temp on the Sun' metal core?
Could it be that the Metal core at the Sun had been transformed to A Gas?
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/can-a-metal-be-gas.html
Can A Metal Be A Gas?
"Yes, absolutely! Although metals usually occur in a solid state at room temperature (which is probably why we associate the word ?metal? with solid objects), metals can be in a gaseous state. "
"Does A Metal Remain A Metal When It Turns Into Gas?
We've established that metals can turn into gases if they're heated to their boiling points, but once a metal is heated to its boiling point and becomes gas, is it still metal? In other words, can a metal be in a gaseous state and still be considered a metal?
The short answer? No.
Gaseous metals don't retain the properties of their solid counterparts, including the metallic bonds, metallic conductivity, ductility, luster or other metallic properties. This is why metals are no longer considered metals when they assume a gaseous state, they're just gas with certain characteristic properties of the parent element, i.e. mercury gas"
So, if the metal core in the sun is transformed to gas at 10 M c and it doesn't retain the properties its solid counterparts, including the metallic bonds, metallic conductivity, ductility, luster or other metallic properties, then how it could generate any sort of magnetic field?
Do you have better answer than this toy demo?
-
The Sun's core isn't made of metal anyway. It's made of hydrogen plasma (which is electrically conductive).
-
What did they really check in this toy demo?
That you do not need a solid core to male a magnetic field in a conductive liquid.
In doing so they proved that you are wrong to say "he dynamo must be solid
Did you ever try to run one kind of a liquid in other liquid without mixing them all together?
Yes, it's a very common thing to do in (old school) analytical chemistry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid%E2%80%93liquid_extraction
Why did you ask?
Gaseous metals don't retain the properties of their solid counterparts, including the metallic bonds, metallic conductivity, ductility, luster or other metallic properties. This is why metals are no longer considered metals when they assume a gaseous state, they're just gas with certain characteristic properties of the parent element, i.e. mercury gas"
Here is a picture of mercury, as a gas, carrying an electric current.
https://edisontechcenter.org/MercuryVaporLamps.html
It forms a plasma- just like the hydrogen in the sun.
I can't see why you think the question is relevant.
Do you have better answer than this toy demo?
We don't need one.
They didn't have a solid core and they got a magnetic firld.
So we know that you do not need a solid core to get a magnetic field.
Even this toy is good enough to prove that you are wrong.
-
Could it be that the Metal core at the Sun had been transformed to A Gas?
No. Because the sun doesn't have a metal core.
Did the calculate the impact of the 10 M c imagination temp on the Sun' metal core?
That does not parse as English.
-
Let's refer back to the link calculating tidal forces I posted earlier: https://www.astro.uvic.ca/~jwillis/teaching/astr201/maths.7.tidal_heating.pdf
According to the equation calculating the power of the tidal forces affecting Io, the total power is 6 x 1017 watts. The power is inversely proportional to the tidal cycle period, so if we reduce the period from the 1.769 days of Io to the 25.05 days of the Sun, that reduces the total power to 4.24 x 1017 watts. The power is also linearly proportional to the tidal force. Since the tidal force on the Sun from Alpha Centauri A is 50 million times lower than that of Io, then the power also reduces 50 million-fold to 8.47 x 108 watts.
The Sun's total power output is 3.828 x 1026 watts. If we assume (very, very generously) that tidal power is converted into heat with 100% efficiency, then the heights of the tides on the Sun would need to be 4.519 x 1017 times higher than they are on Io (according to the equation). Since Io's tidal heights are about 50 meters, that corresponds to tidal heights on the Sun of 2.26 x 1016 kilometers. That's over 16 billion times larger than the Sun's own diameter. So even if every star in the Milky Way (400 billion of them) could exert the same amount of tidal force on the Sun that Alpha Centauri A does (which, of course, is impossible because they are much too far away), that would still require tides nearly 112,000 kilometers high (about the size of the planet Saturn) on the Sun.
Since the Sun does not have such extreme tides (despite extremely unrealistic assumptions that would help your model), then we know that your model cannot possibly be correct.
-
That's over 16 billion times larger than the Sun's own diameter. So even if every star in the Milky Way (400 billion of them) could exert the same amount of tidal force on the Sun that Alpha Centauri A does (which, of course, is impossible), that would still require tides nearly 56,000 kilometers high (larger than the diameter of Uranus) on the Sun.
Let's assume that you are fully correct with your calculation.
How do we know that there are no other invisible dark stars or even blackholes?
Don't you agree that we can only see those stars that emits light.
However, there is always a possibility that some proto stars have not been converted into Sun like star.
It is stated: "10,000 black holes discovered at the center of Milky Way"
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/10-000-black-holes-discovered-at-the-center-of-milky-way-columbia-university-of-new-york-1205215-2018-04-05
If there are so many BHs just in the core, why there can't be millions or even billions of invisible BHs in the galaxy?
Astronomers Find a Sun-like Star Orbiting a Nearby Black Hole
https://www.universetoday.com/157655/astronomers-find-a-sun-like-star-orbiting-a-nearby-black-hole/
In this case we see the BH due to its accretion disc.
However, without the accretion disc, that BH would be invisible.
Astronomers Uncover Black Hole Closer to Earth Than Ever Before
https://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-uncover-black-hole-closer-to-earth-than-ever-before/#google_vignette
Do we also have an idea about the total tidal heat impact of the solar system itself based on planets, Kepler belt and Oort cloud?
Could it be that the total mass there is several times the Sun mass?
Could There Be a Black Hole Lurking on the Edge of the Solar System?
https://www.newsweek.com/black-hole-hidden-edge-solar-sysem-1741515
"There also could be a black hole on the edge of the solar system," Smethurst said. "Like there's this idea that there's another planet out there that we haven't discovered yet, that could be shepherding some of the objects out there into these weird orbits that we've seen, and we haven't found it."
Therefore, you can't just eliminate the idea that somehow there is enough matter around the Sun and in the galaxy that could set the requested tidal heat on the Sun.
-
Could it be that the total mass there is several times the Sun mass?
No, the Sun is the most massive object in the Solar System by a wide margin (99.8% of the Solar System's mass is in the Sun): https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/in-depth/#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20nebula's%20material,of%20our%20solar%20system's%20mass.
If there are so many BHs just in the core, why there can't be millions or even billions of invisible BHs in the galaxy?
Do you have evidence that there are that many? Let's also not forget that the vast majority of them would be much too far away to help with your tidal energy problem. Sagittarius A*, which is far and away the most massive black hole in the galaxy, still produces only 9.48 x 104 newtons of tidal force on the Sun (over 120,000 times weaker than Alpha Centauri A's pull) despite weighing over 4 million solar masses. It's just too far away to matter. And if something that massive doesn't matter, then any black holes on the other side of the galaxy from us with more typical masses (like 10 solar masses) are going to be much less relevant.
So if you want your idea to be taken seriously, you need to show us that the needed number of black holes at the needed distances are really out there. Otherwise, you are just speculating.
Remember, my calculation was immensely generous in your favor. I assumed that every single star in the galaxy was only 4.3 light-years away from the Sun all at the same time. That's equivalent to having a 400 billion solar mass black hole (one weighing around 100,000 times as much as Sagittarius A*) sitting only 4.3 light-years from us. If something even that unrealistically monstrous at such a very close distance to us can't give the Sun its needed tidal energy output, then how do you expect your idea to work?
-
How do we know that there are no other invisible dark stars or even blackholes?
Because the effects of their gravity would be apparent.
That's how we know about dark matter.
It's important to remember that tidal forces drop of as an inverse cube, but attraction drops as an inverse square.
So, if the tidal forces were detectable, the attractive forces would be much much bigger and we would notice them.Could it be that the total mass there is several times the Sun mass?
No.
That much mass would affect the orbits of the planets.
Therefore, you can't just eliminate the idea that somehow there is enough matter around the Sun and in the galaxy that could set the requested tidal heat on the Sun.
Yes we can.
Kryptid came up with a clever way of doing it.
You are saying that the tidal forces of distant objects provide (significant) heat in the sun.
To provide heat they have to do work.
Work is done when a mass moves through a distance.
In this case, the mass would be the part of the sun subject to tides and the distance would be the difference between "high tide" and "low tide" on the sun.
And as was pointed out, that would require the sun to shrink and grow in response to the tide effects.
But the diameter of the sun is essentially constant.
So we know it is not being stretched and squashed by tidal effects.
So we know that practically no work is being done on it.
So we know that can't be the source of the sun's heat.
-
I wanted to see what kind of data existed on physical distortions of the Sun's shape (tidal effects from other stars would definitely affect this if your model is correct). It seems that the Sun is very close to being a perfect sphere with little in the way of distortions: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun
It seems that, on average, the Sun varies from a perfect sphere by only about 6 kilometers (8 milliarcseconds). Based on the measurements, there seems to be times where the distortion is more extreme than that: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Left-solar-figure-as-from-the-RHESSI-measurements-Right-solar-oblateness-measured-by_fig4_51910936
The distortion appears to reach a maximum of about 24 milliarcseconds (which would be equivalent to 18 kilometers). If we assume (again, generously) that this area of maximum distortion is caused by the tidal effects of other stars, then I can calculate the needed tidal forces for your model to work. Since I calculated that a 400 billion solar mass object sitting 4.3 light-years away would need to produce 112,000 kilometer tides on the Sun in order to produce the needed power to explain the Sun's luminosity, then the required tidal forces would need to be be (112,000/18) = 6,222 times larger than what I originally calculated. This would be equivalent to a 2.489 quadrillion solar mass black hole sitting 4.3 light-years from the Sun. That is over 2,000 times the mass of all the stars in the entire Milky Way galaxy.
-
There are not many things in life that are a sure bet, but there is no doubt that after being shown lots of evidence showing Dave that he is wrong he will still double down on his WAG.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:27:15
Could it be that the total mass there is several times the Sun mass?
No, the Sun is the most massive object in the Solar System by a wide margin (99.8% of the Solar System's mass is in the Sun): https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/in-depth/#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20nebula's%20material,of%20our%20solar%20system's%20mass.
The Sun and the whole solar system had been created from the same gas cloud.
Is it realistic to believe that 99.8% from the cloud had been used to create the sun itself?
How this kind of process could be so efficient?
How could it be that only 0.2% left over?
If it is so successful, why the whole 100% didn't fall inwards into the sun?
Do you have evidence that there are that many? Let's also not forget that the vast majority of them would be much too far away to help with your tidal energy problem.
It is stated that "All stars are born in pairs: Even the sun had a twin!"
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/stars-born-pairs-983697-2017-06-20
Could it be that the sun has a nearby twin?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:27:15
How do we know that there are no other invisible dark stars or even blackholes?
Because the effects of their gravity would be apparent.
That's how we know about dark matter.
Thanks for this great message.
What could force our Sun to oscillate around its mean Galactic orbit?
https://www.space.com/10532-earth-biodiversity-pattern-trace-bobbing-solar-system-path.html
"As the sun orbits around the center of the Milky Way, it bobs up and down relative to the plane of the galactic disk"
However, the Moon motion around the Sun is very similar to that Sun motion around the galaxy.
https://scienceblogs.com/files/startswithabang/files/2012/05/planetary_moon_comet_orbits.png
Therefore, why do we reject the idea that as the moon orbits around the earth (or actually around each other) while they both orbit around the sun, there is High possibility that the Sun orbits around its twin dark star or massive BH (/Bhs) and they all orbit around the galaxy?
It's important to remember that tidal forces drop of as an inverse cube, but attraction drops as an inverse square.
So, if the tidal forces were detectable, the attractive forces would be much bigger and we would notice them
So why do we ignore the real meaning of this sun wobbling motion?
Let's assume that we were not living on earth and it is invisible for us. How could we explain the wobbling motion of the Moon around the Sun? Why do we refuse to understand that the wombling motion of the sun is a clear indication that there must be some nearby invisible stars or BHs?
So if you want your idea to be taken seriously, you need to show us that the needed number of black holes at the needed distances are really out there. Otherwise, you are just speculating.
The science has proved that tidal heat process can generate EM energy.
We clearly know how the Geodynamo works based on tidal force.
So, instead of claiming that the visible matter is not good enough for the Sun tidal energy and look for other ideas as fusion, why don't we try to find the invisible Stars/Bhs that could do the job.
Fusion
I still think that there is a fatal problem with this process (I will cover the neutrino issue later on):
1. It is not realistic for a protostar to increase its internal heat from 1Kc to 10Mc just based on its size. However, as you have offer the math with this temp target, then lets assume that this idea is real.
2. However, 10Mc is not good enough for the Fusion. We need something to start that process. So, how this process could start while there are no neutrinos??
3. Let's assume that the fusion started somewhere in the core. So now the chain reaction would expand that activity anywhere is the core. However, any reaction would increase the nearby temp to 10Mc.
You have stated:
The Sun's core isn't made of metal anyway. It's made of hydrogen plasma (which is electrically conductive).
Hence, any nearby hydrogen could potentially be part of the Nuclear fusion process. so why that process would stop at the core? Why it can't continue all they way to the outer aria of the sun - Step by step and over time?
Is there any kind of envelop (or layer) in the sun that keeps the process only in the core?
4. Magnetic field -
Any Geodaynamo (even in the toy demo), there must be layers of different components.
In Earth it is a solid Iron core, liquid outer core and insolation layer.
Any basic battery is made out of different components.
The Sun's core isn't made of metal anyway. It's made of hydrogen plasma (which is electrically conductive).
So, how could it be that The Sun that is made out of hydrogen plasma (without any metal and isolation) can get its magnetic field.
4.There is also the problem of starting the Geodynamo.
It can't just work without electricity starter. So, even if we have a perfect Geodynamo in the Sun, how it could start working without nearby EM starter?
I assume that the Earth Dynamo got its first starter from the Sun EM power, but how the Sun itself got its first EM starter?
This could be one more indication that there might be a nearby BH that gave the Sun the requested EM starter.
-
There are not many things in life that are a sure bet, but there is no doubt that after being shown lots of evidence showing Dave that he is wrong he will still double down on his WAG.
Got it in one.
He's really not good at reading and understanding.
But, just in case some lost soul thinks that his idea is science, rather than nonsense, I will point out some of the most glaring errors.
-
Having skimmed through Dave's questions, I can safely say that the answer to every one is in the textbooks, so I see little point in anyone contributing further to this thread.
-
As usual Dave, everything you have said is clearly wrong.
Is it realistic to believe that 99.8% from the cloud had been used to create the sun itself?
Yes
How this kind of process could be so efficient?
Gravity is a positive feedback system.
Once something is heavy, it attracts the other heavy things and they all stick together.
If it is so successful, why the whole 100% didn't fall inwards into the sun?
Mainly the conservation of linear and angular momentum.
Were you actually asking those as serious questions or did you somehow imagine they would be "difficult"?
Could it be that the sun has a nearby twin?
No.
the thing about stars is that they are bright.
If there was one nearby we would see it.
What could force our Sun to oscillate around its mean Galactic orbit?
Gravitational (but not tidal) forces of other objects.
Try to remember that tidal effects are much much smaller than gravitational ones unless you are very close to a mass.
Therefore, why do we reject the idea that as the moon orbits around the earth (or actually around each other) while they both orbit around the sun
I wasn't aware that we did reject that.
there is High possibility that the Sun orbits around its twin dark star
Nope, we would notice if we were going round in circles.
So why do we ignore the real meaning of this sun wobbling motion?
Why have you put the word "so" at the start of that sentence?
We don't ignore it; we even measured it and it's tiny.
Why do we refuse to understand that the wombling motion of the sun is a clear indication that there must be some nearby invisible stars or BHs?
Because it's actually an indication of the presence of planets (especially Jupiter- which is big).
We clearly know how the Geodynamo works based on tidal force.
It does not.
You really really need to learn that gravity and tides are not the same thing.
But it's beside the point; the earth's magnetic field is driven by the production of heat deep in the earth.
So, instead of claiming that the visible matter is not good enough for the Sun tidal energy and look for other ideas as fusion, why don't we try to find the invisible Stars/Bhs that could do the job.
For the third time.
If the tides were driving teh heating of the Sun then we would see the sun change size and shape the same way that we see the oceans change.
But the Sun is almost perfectly spherical.
So we know that any tides are tiny.
So we know that can not explain the huge amount of energy the sun puts out.
I still think that there is a fatal problem with this process
People who understand science and evidence do not think there is a problem.
Who should we believe?
-
It is not realistic for a protostar to increase its internal heat from 1Kc to 10Mc just based on its size.
Yes it is.
Do the maths.
. However, 10Mc is not good enough for the Fusion.
Yes it is.
Do you know that people do fusion in their garages?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
We need something to start that process. So, how this process could start while there are no neutrinos??
Again, you keep posting your mistakes as if they are facts.
It just makes you look arrogant as well as ill-informed.
Hence, any nearby hydrogen could potentially be part of the Nuclear fusion process. so why that process would stop at the core? Why it can't continue all they way to the outer aria of the sun
Density and temperature.
The outer areas of the sun cool by radiation into space and so hey are too cold for much fusion to take place.
Is there any kind of envelop (or layer) in the sun that keeps the process only in the core?
Yes.
Gravity.
That's what keeps the centre dense enough for the reaction to happen "quickly".
Any Geodaynamo (even in the toy demo), there must be layers of different components.
In Earth it is a solid Iron core, liquid outer core and insolation layer.
No; we already explained this.
As we have demonstrated with the molten sodium experiment.
You do not need a solid core.
So, how could it be that The Sun that is made out of hydrogen plasma (without any metal and isolation) can get its magnetic field.
Because ionised gases conduct electricity.
There is also the problem of starting the Geodynamo.
No, there isn't, as they said in the video about the molten sodium sphere.
Why do you not listen when people explain things to you?
I assume...
Wrongly, as usual.
This could be one more indication that there might be a nearby BH that gave the Sun the requested EM starter.
No.
Why do you post on science pages?
You are clearly not interested in science.
-
(I will cover the neutrino issue later on):
You have yet to cover anything else.
You just post rambling misunderstandings.
-
. We need something to start that process. So, how this process could start while there are no neutrinos??
The process can start without neutrinos because neutrinos are not needed for fusion to occur.
Edit:
I see Board chemist already addressed this. Dave has presented so many errors I lost track.
-
Dave has presented so many errors...
Has he posted anything else?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Is it realistic to believe that 99.8% from the cloud had been used to create the sun itself?
Yes, because that is what happened.
How this kind of process could be so efficient?
How could it be that only 0.2% left over?
If it is so successful, why the whole 100% didn't fall inwards into the sun?
I don't know the answer to that question, but it's irrelevant. We can measure the mass of the objects in the Solar System. The Sun has 99.8% of the Solar System's total mass. If your model can't work with that, then it can't work.
It is stated that "All stars are born in pairs: Even the sun had a twin!"
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/stars-born-pairs-983697-2017-06-20
Could it be that the sun has a nearby twin?
Possibly. That would be the Nemesis hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(hypothetical_star) If Nemesis does exist, it would have to be very cool, very low mass star. Otherwise, it would be bright enough to easily detect and we would have found it by now. So the existence of Nemesis wouldn't be good enough to make your model work.
So why do we ignore the real meaning of this sun wobbling motion?
Let's assume that we were not living on earth and it is invisible for us. How could we explain the wobbling motion of the Moon around the Sun? Why do we refuse to understand that the wombling motion of the sun is a clear indication that there must be some nearby invisible stars or BHs?
There can't possibly be enough of them. Remember, there would need to be the equivalent of a black hole 2,000 times heavier than the entire Milky Way galaxy parked a mere 4.3 light-years away from us in order to get the needed tidal energy transfer.
The science has proved that tidal heat process can generate EM energy.
In the sense that all hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation, yes.
We clearly know how the Geodynamo works based on tidal force.
Tidal forces aren't needed for a geodynamo to work. We've explained this.
So, instead of claiming that the visible matter is not good enough for the Sun tidal energy and look for other ideas as fusion, why don't we try to find the invisible Stars/Bhs that could do the job.
There can't possibly be enough of them. Did you not read what I said about that multi-quadrillion solar mass black hole?
2. However, 10Mc is not good enough for the Fusion. We need something to start that process. So, how this process could start while there are no neutrinos??
Please learn how fusion works before criticizing it. Neutrinos are a byproduct of fusion, not a trigger for it. We can create fusion in the laboratory without using neutrinos to get it started (whatever that would even mean).
Hence, any nearby hydrogen could potentially be part of the Nuclear fusion process. so why that process would stop at the core? Why it can't continue all they way to the outer aria of the sun - Step by step and over time?
Is there any kind of envelop (or layer) in the sun that keeps the process only in the core?
The pressure and temperature isn't high enough outside the core for fusion to occur there.
Any Geodaynamo (even in the toy demo), there must be layers of different components.
Support this assertion with a reputable source.
So, how could it be that The Sun that is made out of hydrogen plasma (without any metal and isolation) can get its magnetic field.
Because plasma is a conductive fluid.
It can't just work without electricity starter.
Prove that you aren't just making stuff up by providing a citation for this.
-
Neutrinos
Some basic data about Neutrinos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
"Flavor, mass, and their mixing - Weak interactions create neutrinos in one of three leptonic flavors: electron neutrinos (νe), muon neutrinos (νμ), or tau neutrinos (ντ), associated with the corresponding charged leptons, the electron (e−), muon (μ−), and tau (τ−), respectively.[35]
Although neutrinos were long believed to be massless, it is now known that there are three discrete neutrino masses;
For each neutrino, there also exists a corresponding antiparticle, called an antineutrino, which also has no electric charge and half-integer spin.
Nuclear reactions- Neutrinos can interact with a nucleus, changing it to another nucleus. This process is used in radiochemical neutrino detectors
It is very hard to uniquely identify neutrino interactions among the natural background of radioactivity.
Within a cubic meter of water placed right outside a nuclear reactor, only relatively few such interactions can be recorded, but the setup is now used for measuring the reactor's plutonium production rate.
The three known neutrino flavors are the only candidates for dark matter that are experimentally established elementary particles ? specifically, they would be hot dark matter. However, the currently known neutrino types seem to be essentially ruled out as a substantial proportion of dark matter, based on observations of the cosmic microwave background.
Cosmic neutrinos
Main articles: cosmic neutrino background and diffuse supernova neutrino background
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7298169/
The Sun produces abundant neutrinos due to nuclear fusion reactions. A pioneering experiment in the early '70s detected neutrinos from the Sun, but found that the observed flux was smaller than expected, which was then called the missing solar neutrino problem.
all of the experiments indicated deficits of the observed solar neutrinos. It was something like to solve a jigsaw puzzle to draw a consistent view among the experiments.
Neutrino oscillation may violate CP invariance.
Neutrinos, on the contrary, taking only 3% of the total energy released, reach the surface of the Sun in 2 seconds and arrive at Earth 8 minutes after emanation. Therefore, neutrinos can monitor the current status of the solar core.
Large numbers of incoming neutrinos and huge detectors are needed to detect and study neutrinos. But this is not a trivial matter. Therefore, even the basic properties of neutrinos, like masses, were not addressed until recently.
the electron neutrinos created in the core as ν2m = νe, finally exit the Sun as νμ. The solar neutrinos convert to another type of neutrinos. This process is called an adiabatic resonance conversion (MSW effect87)). The survival probability is sin2 θ.84)
Although we have a variety of handles on the solar neutrino measurements, the common problems of solar neutrino experiments are that they have small cross sections (10−44∼−42 cm2) and large backgrounds (see section 3 in details). The detectors thus need to be big, more than several tens of tons to ∼kilo tons. The small event rates of about one in a few days in the early experiments increased to 10?20 events per day in recent experiments. The radioactive impurities that influence signal detection must be removed.
The deficit of solar neutrinos that the solar neutrino event rate observed was significantly smaller than the prediction of the solar model calculation, was first indicated in the '70s by the Homestake experiment. This solar neutrino problem, which has been persistent, never diminished and became stronger when adding new results available from new experiments.
The solar neutrinos in the daytime reach the detector directly, but in the nighttime they need to traverse Earth before arriving. Those neutrinos passing through Earth may be affected by Earth?s matter effect. There may be a difference between the daytime and nighttime fluxes.
As described above, the Super-K results from 1,258 days of data showed no energy spectrum distortion, no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference.
Therefore, further study of the day/night flux difference is necessary. The results are still statistics dominant, and the size of the Super-K detector is a limiting factor.
Hence:
1. It is stated: "the electron neutrinos created in the core as ν2m = νe, finally exit the Sun as νμ. The solar neutrinos convert to another type of neutrinos. This process is called an adiabatic resonance conversion (MSW effect87)). The survival probability is sin2 θ.84)"
If the electron neutrinos from the core of the Sun is converted to another type of neutrinos, how do we know for sure that this detected type is clearly from the fusion activity in the sun core and not due to some other activity?
2. Ionized hydrogen is a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged. So, could it be that we actually measure the electron neutrinos which had been ejected from the hot plasma at the surface of the Sun and not from its core?
3. It is stated: " As described above, the Super-K results from 1,258 days of data showed no energy spectrum distortion, no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference"
So, as there is no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference, why can't we assume that we just get Cosmic neutrinos?
4. The Sun is not the only star in the Universe. There are billions of Sun like stars just in our galaxy. So, if it ejects Notorious, why the other stars in the universe can't do the same? So, why can't we claim that the Notorious that we detect are due to other Stars, cosmic neutrino background or diffuse supernova neutrino background? Actually the accretion disc around the SMBH could be an excellent source. The temp there is about 10^9c it has plenty of particles/atoms including Hydrogens. So why the Notorious that are ejected from the Billions accretion discs can't fill the Universe with a constant Notorious stream that is equal from all directions. Therefore, we get the same Notorious flux from all directions in daytime and nighttime?
5. It is stated: " Neutrinos, on the contrary, taking only 3% of the total energy released, reach the surface of the Sun".
Do we really get all of those 3% Neutrinos from the total energy? Can you please show the article to support that indication?
Even if we detect this quantity, how do we know that all of them are due to our sun fusion activity?
6. It is stated: "The three known neutrino flavors are the only candidates for dark matter that are experimentally established elementary particles"
If the neutrino had been changed its flavors when it had been ejected from the Sun core, why other neutrino that had been ejected from the dark matter can't change its flavors?
In other words, could it be that the detected neutrinos are also due to dark matter?
-
Why did you start that with about 60 lines of stuff from wiki that we already know, and you don't understand?
, how do we know for sure that this detected type is clearly from the fusion activity in the sun core and not due to some other activity?
Because there's no other pathway, they are produced in the right numbers and they come from the sun.
So, could it be that we actually measure the electron neutrinos which had been ejected from the hot plasma at the surface of the Sun and not from its core?
No.
That plasma isn't hot enough to get nuclei close enough together to fuse efficiently.
So, as there is no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference, why can't we assume that we just get Cosmic neutrinos?
Because their direction shows them to come from the sun.
Isn't that obvious?
why the other stars in the universe can't do the same?
They do.
Have you noticed that starlight is not as bright as sunlight?
That's because the other stars are far away.
Actually the accretion disc around the SMBH could be an excellent source.
It is a source, but not necessarily a good one.
The density is low.
Do we really get all of those 3% Neutrinos from the total energy?
No, but the article didn't say we did.
Can you please show the article to support that indication?
You made up that assertion; it's your job to find evidence for it.
n other words, could it be that the detected neutrinos are also due to dark matter?
As usual, you have not understood it.
the neutrinos are not the source of the dark matter they are dark matter.
-
In other words, could it be that the detected neutrinos are also due to dark matter?
I thought you didn't believe in dark matter.
-
In other words, could it be that the detected neutrinos are also due to dark matter?
I thought you didn't believe in dark matter.
Glory Be!
Someone contact the Vatican.
It's a miracle.
A fact has made it into Dave's head (at least for the moment).
(I hope it's not too lonely).
-
In other words, could it be that the detected neutrinos are also due to dark matter?
I thought you didn't believe in dark matter.
You are correct.
However, I hope that you don't ask this question inorder to band the thread after getting my reply.
Therefore, I will only focus on the following clear observations:
1. There are only two linear Bar arms in the spiral galaxy.
2. The velocity of the stars in the Bar is increase linearity and dramatically as we move from the Bulge to the ring.
3. The spiral arms are always symmetrical
4. The spiral arms always connected to a ring at the base (In the milky way the ring is located at 3KPC).
5. The thickness of the spiral arm at the base is 3000LY.
The thickness of the arm at our location (8KPC) is 1000LY.
The thickness of the arm at the edge (12-15 Kpc) is 400LY.
6. The orbital velocity of stars in the spiral arms is constant (about 220K/s in our galaxy).
7. The density of G stars in our location (in the spiral arm) is 64 per 50LY. For every G star there is about 20 M stars
8. The Sun is wobbling while orbiting around the galaxy.
The science community think that the observable ordinary matter is not good enough to perform all the above and I fully agree with this understanding.
However, while they claim for dark matter, I claim for dark invisible ordinary matter.
Nemesis is a perfect example:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/07/2023 21:18:07
It is stated that "All stars are born in pairs: Even the sun had a twin!"
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/stars-born-pairs-983697-2017-06-20
Could it be that the sun has a nearby twin?
Possibly. That would be the Nemesis hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(hypothetical_star) If Nemesis does exist, it would have to be very cool, very low mass star. Otherwise, it would be bright enough to easily detect and we would have found it by now. So the existence of Nemesis wouldn't be good enough to make your model work.
Nemesis is a dark invisible ordinary matter.
If it is a dark star at a low mass & temp, then it can't do the job by itself.
There might be several others nearby dark stars.
On the other hand, it could be a BH or even a MBH (assuming that we consider the BH as ordinary matter).
It is just invisible (and looks cold) as it has no accretion disc yet.
We clearly know that there are 20 M stars for each G star.
Therefore, there is a possibility for 500 (or more) Dark stars (including BHs/MBHs) for each M star.
The dark matter might give an answer to the orbital motion of the star in the spiral arm:
"6. The orbital velocity of stars in the spiral arms is constant (about 220K/s in our galaxy)."
However, it can't answer all the other observations.
So why the science community ignore all of those observations?
Why they only give an answer to no. 6. (and some limited explanation for 8.)
What about all the others?
As they believe that the dark matter is real and it has the requested mass that is needed to hold the sun in its orbital motion by mighty gravity force, then why this force (from the dark matter) can't be used for the sun requested tidal force.
Don't you agree that tidal heat is also due to gravity?
So why the dark matter can hold the Sun by its mighty gravity force but it can't contribute any tidal gravity force?
-
I claim for dark invisible ordinary matter.
You don't know what "dark" means, do you?
-
To be fair, black holes are a dark matter candidate.
As they believe that the dark matter is real and it has the requested mass that is needed to hold the sun in its orbital motion by mighty gravity force, then why this force (from the dark matter) can't be used for the sun requested tidal force.
The dark matter does help. Some. My previous calculation only considered the stars in the galaxy. Adding in the dark matter increases the tidal force by 2.875 times. That's still nowhere near enough, though. The required tidal force is equal to that produced by a 2.489 quadrillion solar mass black hole at 4.3 light-years from the Sun. The Milky Way galaxy (dark matter included) can only provide 1.15 trillion solar masses.
-
Lets focus on the tidal force formula:
Doubling posting, I know, but I did some math. Here's a webpage describing the equation to calculate tidal forces: https://www.astro.uvic.ca/~jwillis/teaching/astr201/maths.7.tidal_heating.pdf
The tidal force is described by: (2GM1M2)/r3, where
G is the gravitational constant
M1 is the mass of one body
M2 is the mass of the other body, and
r is the distance between the masses.
Are you sure that this formula is correct?
In the article it is stated that:
"The tidal force refers to the difference in gravitational force experienced by the near and far sides
of a satellite orbiting a parent body.
the tidal force is just to compute the difference between the near and far side gravitational force, e.g.
Ftidal = F(r − RIo) − F(r + RIo)."
In order to verify this issue, let's try to understand how tidal force really works:
Please see the following diagram:
https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/demonstrations/TidalForces-source.nb
We see that the tidal force works on every atom in the Object.
In the left side of the object, every atom is pulled to the left, while in the right side of the object every atom is pushed to the right.
The side effect is the any atom that is located directly upwards and downwards from the central mass is pulled to the center.
In other words, we can claim that tidal force represents a Push / Pull mechanism.
Hence, each atom in the object "feels" the impact of that tidal force.
Please remember
When tidal works on the sea, the water is rising up quite dramatically, however, even the ground below the sea is rising up.
As electronic Eng., I would compare this tidal push pull mechanism to a push/pull amplifier:
https://www.watelectronics.com/push-pull-amplifiers-circuit-diagram-working-and-applications/
"Push-pull amplifiers are the combinations of two bipolar junction transistors that is one of P-N-P type and the other is of N-P-N type. In this combination one act as push type and the other acts as pull type."
The total power is the sum of the Push power to the Pull power.
Therefore, the total tidal force must be the sum of all the tidal forces on each atom in the object.
As tidal works on every atom in a push /pull mechanism, why can't we claim that:
Ftidal(total) = ∑(all push forces) + ∑(all pull forces) = F(r − RIo) + F(r + RIo) + + +....
So, why the science community have decided to ignore all the internal tidal forces, including the tidal push /pull mechanism, and used the following formula:
Ftidal = F(r − RIo) − F(r + RIo).
-
As electronic Eng., I would compare this tidal push pull mechanism to a push/pull amplifier:
https://www.watelectronics.com/push-pull-amplifiers-circuit-diagram-working-and-applications/
"Push-pull amplifiers are the combinations of two bipolar junction transistors that is one of P-N-P type and the other is of N-P-N type. In this combination one act as push type and the other acts as pull type."
The total power is the sum of the Push power to the Pull power.
You have got that wrong too.
With a single ended amp the best power I can get to the load has a peak to peak voltage equal to value of the supply voltage.
With a push-pull amp, I can get twice the peak voltage.
So the power available is four times greater.
1+1 is not 4.
-
So, why the science community have decided to ignore all the internal tidal forces, including the tidal push /pull mechanism, and used the following formula:
Because tides are not the same as gravity.
Why do you not realise that?
You have been told several times.
-
Are you sure that this formula is correct?
Yes we are.
And the reason why is it correct is given in the article cited.
It's the derivative of the gravitational force wrt distance.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
You have got that wrong too.
With a single ended amp the best power I can get to the load has a peak to peak voltage equal to value of the supply voltage.
With a push-pull amp, I can get twice the peak voltage.
So the power available is four times greater.
1+1 is not 4.
We do not get those push pull waves in the same time.
Please remember, we discuss about heat/power/energies and not about voltage.
In the same token, it is not about pure tidal gravity force, but about tidal heat dispassion.
Don't you agree that in the push pull amplifier we should add the energy of the positive wave to the energy of the negative wave.
Hence, the Sum of the energies of the push and pull waves indicates about the total energy of the wave.
The Tidal power/energy is working exactly in the same way as the Push pull amplifier.
However, while the amplifier Push activity works at different times from the Pull activity, the Tidal push pull activities work simultaneously.
Therefore, while the Pull tidal gravity force increases the tidal heat/energy/power of the left side of the object, the Push tidal gravity force increases tidal heat/energy/power of the right side of the object.
Hence, we actually double the heat energy in the object at the same time.
It is so simple and clear.
So, why do you insist to deduct the tidal heat energy from one side with the tidal heat energy of the other side?
So, why the science community have decided to ignore all the internal tidal forces, including the tidal push /pull mechanism, and used the following formula:
Because tides are not the same as gravity.
Why do you not realise that?
You have been told several times.
Again, we must focus on the total tidal heat energy and not the reference between the tidal forces.
In any case, tidal force is based on gravity force
Take out the gravity from the tidal and you have no tidal.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:00:28
Are you sure that this formula is correct?
Yes we are.
And the reason why is it correct is given in the article cited.
It's the derivative of the gravitational force wrt distance.
We can't just deduct the tidal gravity forces and then extract the total tidal energy.
We must first find the tidal heat energy due to the tidal gravity forces on each atom and then add them all together.
Again, we focus on the total tidal heat dissipation/power and energy in the object
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to deduct tidal forces before we discover the impact of the tidal heat on every atom in the object.
Let's use the following example about pot with boiling water.
On the left side of the pot, we would set red water.
On the right side we would set blue water. (let assume that they do not mix together)
Therefore, do you really think that the total heat energy in the Pot is the deduction of the heat energy between the red water to the Blue water?
Therefore, how can we claim that the total heat dispassion due to tidal gravity force is the deduction of the tidal heat dissipation from one side of the object with the tidal heat dispassion from the other side of the object.
-
So, why do you insist to deduct the tidal heat energy from one side with the tidal heat energy of the other side?
We don't.
If a force to 1000 Newtons acts on an object from one side and a force of 999 Newtons acts on the opposite side and the object moves 1 metre how much work is done on the object?
Do you understand that the answer is 1 Joule, or do you hallucinate that it's 1999 Joules?
Please remember, we discuss about heat/power/energies and not about voltage.
Push Pull drive lets you double the voltage swing, so it gets you four times the power.
But your being wrong about doesn't matter much because it is irrelevant.
In any case, tidal force is based on gravity force
No. It is based on the first derivative of gravity wrt distance.
-
Ignoring saturation voltages a single ended amplifier and a push -pull amplifier will both output a peak to peak voltage equal to the supply rail. A bridge push pull will output twice the supply rail voltage and four times the power output, all other parameters unchanged. All above in the absence of transformers. The basic push pull is way more efficient than the single ended amplifier as the latter suffers from the lack of an active pull up/pull down mechanism.
-
Therefore, the total tidal force must be the sum of all the tidal forces on each atom in the object.
The equation takes that into consideration. The tidal force is measured in newtons per meter of distance. That would include all of the atoms in that same distance. As an example, let's say the tidal force is 10 newtons per meter and there are 1 trillion atoms in that meter. That would be an average force of 10-11 newtons per atom. If you really wanted to, you could calculate the total average force on all of the atoms in a body rather easily.
-
Thanks Kryptid
Do appreciate this clear explanation.
Now I do understand what is the source of the problem.
The tidal force formula is perfectly OK.
I have even proved it to myself by using gravity force VS centrifugal force by just few steps. (If you wish I can introduce this calculation.)
"The tidal force is measured in newtons per meter of distance."
The tidal force doesn't just lift the bulge it lifts every atom in the sun.
Let's go back to your calculation:
So now we will calculate the tidal force between the Sun and Alpha Centauri A:
(2GM1M2)/r3
((2)(6.674 x 10-11)(1.9885 x 1030)(2.1452 x 1030))/(4.1097 x 16)^3
((5.694 x 10^50)/(6.941 x 10^49)
8.2 newtons per meter
The total tidal force can be computed by multiplying the force per unit distance by the diameter of the Sun:
8.2 x 6.96 x 108= 5.7 x 10^9 newtons
The Diameter of the Sun is 1,392,000 km = 139,200,000 m
The radius is 69,600,000 m
Its volume in m is
V = 4/3 π R^3 = 4.18 * 337 10^21 m^3 = 4.18 * 337 10^21 m^3 = 11.5 10^24 m^3.
Even if we keep the tidal force between the Sun to Alpha Centauri A at 8.2 N
The total force is:
F = 8.2 * 11.5 10^24 = 9.43 10^25 N
Do you still claim that this tidal force is neglected?
-
Even if we keep the tidal force between the Sun to Alpha Centauri A at 8.2 N
The total force is:
F = 8.2 * 11.5 10^24 = 9.43 10^25 N
That makes no sense.
The units are wrong.
-
Even if we keep the tidal force between the Sun to Alpha Centauri A at 8.2 N
This is incorrect, the tidal force is 8.2 N/m, not 8.2N.
The total force is:
F = 8.2 * 11.5 10^24 = 9.43 10^25 N
That is not correct. To get the total force you multiply by the diameter, not the volume.
If you multiply this by the diameter of the sun you will get the total force: 1.14 x 10^10N.
Your incorrect calculations gives: 9.43 10^25 N-m^2, which is not force.
You cannot arbitrarily change an equation in physics and expect to get a reasonable answer
Do you still claim that this tidal force is neglected?
I think we all agree the force is negligible.
-
That is perfectly OK
The oort cloud extends up to 3.2LY away from the Sun and sets the border of the solar system.
Therefore, it is very clear that even if we just focus on the 400 stars that are located up to 20 LY away from the sun (and ignore all the other millions that are located further away) we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.
Except that's not how any of this works. Masses spread out surrounding the Solar system would cancel each other's tidal influences on the Sun out, they would not add up. We see this same thing when the Sun and Moon are at right angles to each other in the sky. We get less intense tides as they work against each other.
In addition, tidal forces increase across the size of the region they are acting. Therefore, tidal forces powerful enough to produce the type of heat energy the Sun outputs would rip the planets away from the Sun. The Sun's Hill sphere would be too small to allow for it to hold on to orbiting bodies
-
The total force is:
F = 8.2 * 11.5 10^24 = 9.43 10^25 N
Do you still claim that this tidal force is neglected?
Newtons per meter is a measure of force along a unit of length, not a unit of volume. So your math is incorrect.
-
Newtons per meter is a measure of force along a unit of length, not a unit of volume. So your math is incorrect.
Dear Kryptid
Please look again in the following diagram:
Please see the following diagram:
https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/demonstrations/TidalForces-source.nb
We see that the tidal force works on every atom in the Object.
In the left side of the object, every atom is pulled to the left, while in the right side of the object every atom is pushed to the right.
Don't you agree that we clearly see that the tidal force works on every atom in the Object.
You have even stated that the tidal force "include all of the atoms in that same distance":
The tidal force is measured in newtons per meter of distance. That would include all of the atoms in that same distance. As an example, let's say the tidal force is 10 newtons per meter and there are 1 trillion atoms in that meter. That would be an average force of 10-11 newtons per atom. If you really wanted to, you could calculate the total average force on all of the atoms in a body rather easily.
So how can you claim now that only the atoms in the diameter are effected by the tidal force?
What about the atoms above & below the diameter?
Why do you insist that tidal force can't work on them?
If that was the case, then it is expected that only those atoms in the diameter would set the bulge.
Hence, as Io bulge height is 100 m, don't you agree that based on this message, it is expected to see a tower shape of 100m (that is ejected directly from the diameter)?
Is that what we see at Io?
Would you kindly reconsider your reply?
Why are all in panic to discover that tidal force works on every atom in the object?
What could happen to the sun if suddenly the science community would understand that the tidal force is good enough to generate its internal electromagnetic force?
-
Please look again in the following diagram:
Looking at any diagram will not fix the problem with your meaningless calculation, will it?
The units will still be wrong, not matter who looks at what.
Why did you think looking at a diagram (one with which we are already familiar) would help somehow?
So how can you claim now that only the atoms in the diameter are effected by the tidal force?
Nobody did.
That's just your lack of understanding again.
It's not a matter of science, but of reading comprehension.
Why do you insist that tidal force can't work on them?
Again.
Nobody did.
Why are all in panic to discover that tidal force works on every atom in the object?
We are not.
It's just that you can't, or refuse to, understand what we say.
-
What could happen to the sun if suddenly the science community would understand that the tidal force is good enough to generate its internal electromagnetic force?
You already know the answer to that.
Therefore, tidal forces powerful enough to produce the type of heat energy the Sun outputs would rip the planets away from the Sun. The Sun's Hill sphere would be too small to allow for it to hold on to orbiting bodies
-
So how can you claim now that only the atoms in the diameter are effected by the tidal force?
I didn't. All of the atoms are affected because all of the atoms are already within the diameter of the Sun.
Why are all in panic to discover that tidal force works on every atom in the object?
We're not. We already knew that it did.
What could happen to the sun if suddenly the science community would understand that the tidal force is good enough to generate its internal electromagnetic force?
But it isn't. Origin already pointed out that your equation results in the wrong units for the calculation to be measuring force. Let me elaborate on that. Let's go back to the 8.2 newtons per meter thing. That in itself is not a measure of force, but rather the measure of a force gradient (how force changes over distance). This means that every meter further from the gravitating body you get, the gravitational force acting on it becomes 8.2 newtons weaker. So that in itself doesn't tell you the total force acting on the body being affected by the gravity.
When you do math with measurements, you also have to do math with the units themselves. So if we want to know the total tidal force affecting the Sun, we need to somehow go from units of "newtons per meter" to regular old "newtons". In order to do that, we need to get rid of the meter part of the measurement (i.e. multiply 8.2 newtons per meter by the total number of meters over which the force gradient is being measured). This is because dividing a force by a length and then multiplying by a length again will go back to force, as multiplication and division are opposite functions and thus cancel out when performed in succession. So multiplying 8.2 newtons per meter by the diameter of the Sun (1,392,000,000 meters) yields a force of 1.14144 x 1010 newtons. That represents the difference in force between the near side of the Sun and the far side of the Sun from Alpha Centauri A.
When we do things your way, we end up multiplying a force gradient (newtons per meter) by a volume (cubic meters). This results, as Origin said, in newton-square meters. I don't know what that would even be measuring, but it's not a force. It's almost like confusing a pressure for a force, but it's also not a pressure. If you want your calculations to be valid, you need to get rid of the square meters and be left with nothing but newtons.
-
All of this is pretty pointless. Everybody's discussing tidal force, but tidal energy is very different from tidal force. For instance, Jupiter exerts incredible tidal force on its four larger moons, but those moons get almost zero energy from that The heating of IO comes from the other moons, far less tidal force, but far more tidal energy since IO isn't locked with them.
Tidal force is neither a scalar nor a vector. It's something like a vector with orientation but no direction. To be honest, the way to compute tidal force is simply to compute the gravitational field (potential) about the sun, taking everything into consideration, and then computing the 2nd derivative of that. Doing so gets you something entirely irrelevant to computing the energy the sun gets from those forces. This topic is supposed to be about energy, not force. Energy from tidal action on the sun is a function of its elasticity, rotation rate relative to the fields, etc
The energy output of the sun would have to be at least as large as the rate at which its angular kinetic energy is decreasing. Both of those are pretty easy to compute, far easier than trying to directly figure out how much tidal energy the sun gets from various objects around it. You'll find that the energy falls probably at least 20 orders of magnitude short of where it needs to be. Case close.
Dave, the math I suggest is trivial. Do it and show me otherwise.
-
All of this is pretty pointless. Everybody's discussing tidal force, but tidal energy is very different from tidal force. For instance, Jupiter exerts incredible tidal force on its four larger moons, but those moons get almost zero energy from that The heating of IO comes from the other moons, far less tidal force, but far more tidal energy since IO isn't locked with them.
Tidal force is neither a scalar nor a vector. It's something like a vector with orientation but no direction. To be honest, the way to compute tidal force is simply to compute the gravitational field (potential) about the sun, taking everything into consideration, and then computing the 2nd derivative of that. Doing so gets you something entirely irrelevant to computing the energy the sun gets from those forces. This topic is supposed to be about energy, not force. Energy from tidal action on the sun is a function of its elasticity, rotation rate relative to the fields, etc
The energy output of the sun would have to be at least as large as the rate at which its angular kinetic energy is decreasing. Both of those are pretty easy to compute, far easier than trying to directly figure out how much tidal energy the sun gets from various objects around it. You'll find that the energy falls probably at least 20 orders of magnitude short of where it needs to be. Case close.
Dave, the math I suggest is trivial. Do it and show me otherwise.
Sorry Halc, but, if Dave was interested in getting the right answer, he'd have realised roughly what that maths would say when I pointed this out.
{Dave says} the tidal forces of distant objects provide (significant) heat in the sun.
But, to provide heat they have to do work.
Work is done when a force moves through a distance.
In this case, the force would be accelerating the part of the sun subject to tides and the distance would be the difference between "high tide" and "low tide" on the sun.
And as was pointed out, that would require the sun to shrink and grow in response to the tide effects.
But the diameter of the sun is essentially constant.
So we know it is not being stretched and squashed by tidal effects.
So we know that practically no work is being done on it.
So we know that work can't be the source of the sun's heat.
And, since he's not interested in rational debate or learning science, I think he's not going the site any good so we should ban him.
-
Dear Halc
Everybody's discussing tidal force, but tidal energy is very different from tidal force. For instance, Jupiter exerts incredible tidal force on its four larger moons, but those moons get almost zero energy from that The heating of IO comes from the other moons, far less tidal force, but far more tidal energy since IO isn't locked with them.
Tidal force is neither a scalar nor a vector. It's something like a vector with orientation but no direction. This topic is supposed to be about energy, not force. Energy from tidal action on the sun is a function of its elasticity, rotation rate relative to the fields, etc
I fully agree with your above explanation.
Thank you for refocus the discussion.
Let's look again on Io Moon.
We have measured a Bulge of 100 m.
Therefore, I hope that we all agree that by everage we can claim that every atom there had been lifted by 50M.
Hence the work that is needed to set that bulge is:
W = MGH.
Io mass = M = 8.93 10^22 Kg
G = 9.8 m/s^2
H = 50 m
W = 4.375 10^25
However, that work is useless if the moon is face locked with its planet (as our moon) where its spin angular velocity is fully correlated with its orbital angular velocity around the earth.
In this case, the Bulge is fixed, it doesn't move across the moon and it doesn't contribute any sort of heat.
Therefore, technically even if the tidal force was stronger by 1 M times, it won't contribute any energy as long as it is face locked with the planet.
Hence, we can't claim that tidal force is automatically translated into heat energy.
In order to get that heat, the Bulge must move around the moon mass and set a friction between its atoms. That friction is the real source for what is called "tidal heat".
However, there is a small problem.
If there is a friction in the atoms, then it should slow down the spin velocity of the Moon.
As this spin velocity decrease, then eventually it would be face locked with its planet.
So, we can ask, how could it be that most of the orbital objects are not faced locked with their host?
The science community assume that over time every orbital object must decrease its spin velocity.
I claim that this assumption is incorrect and somehow the tidal force is also responsible for the continuation of the orbital spin/rotation
So how it works:
Please look again at the following image:
https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/demonstrations/TidalForces-source.nb
I would like to focus on the two main tidal forces.
One is horizontal tidal force and the other is a vertical tidal force.
The science community mainly focus on the horizontal tidal force as the source for the Bulge.
However, the vertical tidal force is neglected.
We actually do not even think about it.
I claim that this vertical tidal force is the MOST important force!!!
Without it, there will be no Dynamo and no magnetic fields.
So why does the vertical tidal force spin the Dynamo?
We can use a Spiral Ratchet Screwdrivers as nice example:
https://toolsforworkingwood.com/store/item/EE-SRS.XX
In this case, the vertical force is transformed into spin velocity.
However, it is clear that this example can't give the real physics answer.
Never the less, the Magnus effect might be the perfect explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect
"The Magnus effect is an observable phenomenon commonly associated with a spinning object moving through a fluid. A lift force acts on the spinning object."
In this case, a spinning object moving through a fluid would generate a lifting force.
However, in our case, we discuss about an object (dynamo) that moves in a fluid while the vertical tidal force works against its natural lifting force.
Therefore, there is a possibility that as we reverse the conditions and offer the force that works against the natural lifting force, this object (dynamo) would spin.
Conclusion:
The tidal horizontal force works on the spinning object and increase its internal heat due to internal frictions. At high enough temp the internal atoms would be at fluid mode.
Never the less, due to the mighty gravity pressure, the internal core would be transformed into a solid core.
However, in order for that solid core / dynamo to work, it must spin much faster than the self' object spin.
Therefore, somehow an external force is needed for that spinning motion.
That force is called the vertical tidal spinning force.
Without it, the dynamo won't spin faster than the object' spin and it won't generate any sort of magnetic field.
So, in reality, the heat due to the tidal force isn't translated into any EM energy.
It is just used to set the internal matter in a fluid mode in order to give the dynamo the possibility to spin, while the vertical tidal force is the one that force the dynamo to spin at higher velocity (with reference to the object spin).
Therefore, this vertical tidal force is the only force in the nature that can force the dynamo to spin at high velocity.
Take out the vertical tidal spin force and the Dynamo would just spin at the same velocity as the object itself without generating any sort of magnetic fields.
The Fusion activity idea can increase the internal heat but it can't force the dynamo to spin at higher velocity than the object itself.
Therefore, without vertical tidal spin force there is no way to spin the dynamo and gain any sort of magnetic fields.
-
Seriously Dave? Are you really going to double down on this silliness? You must be trolling.
I agree with bored chemist, he should be banned as a troll. I don't think he is as stupid as he acts, he is just trying to annoy members.
-
In this case, the Bulge is fixed, it doesn't move across the moon and it doesn't contribute any sort of heat.
Therefore, technically even if the tidal force was stronger by 1 M times, it won't contribute any energy as long as it is face locked with the planet.
Hence, we can't claim that tidal force is automatically translated into heat energy.
There are two things you are missing. One, Io has an eccentric orbit. That means that it is closer to Jupiter at some times and further away at other times. This therefore changes the size of the tidal bulge over time. This up-and-down flexing of the Moon generates heat. Two, as Halc stated, Io also receives tidal heating by interacting with Jupiter's other moons.
I claim that this vertical tidal force is the MOST important force!!!
Without it, there will be no Dynamo and no magnetic fields.
Provide a citation for this claim, please. If that was true, then we would be incapable of building artificial dynamos on Earth because we can't create tidal forces at will. The fact that we can proves that you are wrong.
In this case, a spinning object moving through a fluid would generate a lifting force.
You misunderstand the Magnus effect. In order for it to work, the fluid moving across one half of the spinning object has to be moving faster than on the other side. That isn't what happens in the cores of planets.
However, in order for that solid core / dynamo to work, it must spin much faster than the self' object spin.
Give a citation for this claim as well. I'm going to start bearing down on you to give us these citations. I'm really starting to consider locking this thread if you keep making claim after claim without actually backing them up with a reputable source. If you want to avoid that, then get to citing your sources.
You still haven't explained the neutrino problem nor given any correct math to show that your idea can work.
-
G = 9.8 m/s^2
When you say things like that, is it because you don't know that it makes you look stupid, or that you don't care about how stupid you look?
-
Dear Kryptid
Based on your following message and the clear requirements from BC and Orion to band the thread it seems to me that this might be my last reply in this thread.
I'm really starting to consider locking this thread if you keep making claim after claim without actually backing them up with a reputable source. If you want to avoid that, then get to citing your sources.
Therefore, with your permeation, I would use this last opportunity to highlight the following:
Neutrinos:
You still haven't explained the neutrino problem.
Yes I did.
Neutrinos
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7298169/
Neutrinos, on the contrary, taking only 3% of the total energy released, reach the surface of the Sun in 2 seconds and arrive at Earth 8 minutes after emanation. Therefore, neutrinos can monitor the current status of the solar core.
Hence:
1. It is stated: "the electron neutrinos created in the core as ν2m = νe, finally exit the Sun as νμ. The solar neutrinos convert to another type of neutrinos. This process is called an adiabatic resonance conversion (MSW effect87)). The survival probability is sin2 θ.84)"
If the electron neutrinos from the core of the Sun is converted to another type of neutrinos, how do we know for sure that this detected type is clearly from the fusion activity in the sun core and not due to some other activity?
2. Ionized hydrogen is a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged. So, could it be that we actually measure the electron neutrinos which had been ejected from the hot plasma at the surface of the Sun and not from its core?
3. It is stated: " As described above, the Super-K results from 1,258 days of data showed no energy spectrum distortion, no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference"
So, as there is no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference, why can't we assume that we just get Cosmic neutrinos?
4. The Sun is not the only star in the Universe. There are billions of Sun like stars just in our galaxy. So, if it ejects Notorious, why the other stars in the universe can't do the same? So, why can't we claim that the Notorious that we detect are due to other Stars, cosmic neutrino background or diffuse supernova neutrino background? Actually the accretion disc around the SMBH could be an excellent source. The temp there is about 10^9c it has plenty of particles/atoms including Hydrogens. So why the Notorious that are ejected from the Billions accretion discs can't fill the Universe with a constant Notorious stream that is equal from all directions. Therefore, we get the same Notorious flux from all directions in daytime and nighttime?
5. It is stated: " Neutrinos, on the contrary, taking only 3% of the total energy released, reach the surface of the Sun".
Do we really get all of those 3% Neutrinos from the total energy? Can you please show the article to support that indication?
Even if we detect this quantity, how do we know that all of them are due to our sun fusion activity?
6. It is stated: "The three known neutrino flavors are the only candidates for dark matter that are experimentally established elementary particles"
If the neutrino had been changed its flavors when it had been ejected from the Sun core, why other neutrino that had been ejected from the dark matter can't change its flavors?
In other words, could it be that the detected neutrinos are also due to dark matter?
After all of that, I would like to highlight why the Neutrons can't be used as en evidece for the fusion activity.
1. In the following article it is stated:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
"we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289x10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353x10^20 g every year to energy."
So how many Hydrogen atoms there are in one g of mass?
How many Neutrinos should be ejected due to this massive Hydrogen fusion activity in just one second?
Can we agree on Billions or even trillions per second?
Surprisingly we detect very few Neutrinos. (If I remember correctly the total number per day was just few hundreds).
So, how can you claim that we detect enough Neutrinos to justify the fusion imagination process?
2. How do we know that we detect this neglected Neutrinos from the Sun?
The quantity of Neutrinos that we detect in day time is identical to that in night time. Therefore, the detectors get the same quantity of neutrinos when they face the sun as they face the open space.
So, why we insist to reject the idea that the same quantity of Neutrinos comes could also come from the open space?
However, it could also come from the earth itself. In the following articale it is stated the the earth generates internal heat due to radioactive decay in the core:
https://www.britannica.com/science/dynamo-theory
Heat from radioactive decay in the core is thought to induce the convective motion.
https://www.britannica.com/science/radioactivity
The emissions of the most common forms of spontaneous radioactive decay are the alpha (α) particle, the beta (β) particle, the gamma (γ) ray, and the neutrino.
So why we refuse to accept the idea that we those neutrinos could also come from the Earth core and not from the Sun?
Why don't you ask to get citing from those scientists for their claim that the Neutrinos comes ONLY from the Sun?
Why they can't design their detectors to detect only neutrons that are coming from outside the planet. Once they do so, they will know exactly from where those few neutrons are coming (I can promise you that they will find that the sun isn't the source for those neutrons). However, they would never do so as the wish to protect the imagination that the Sun heat is due to that imagination Fusion activity.
3. Experimental evidence"
With all the above, how do they claim that they have "Experimental evidence of neutrinos produced in the CNO fusion cycle in the Sun":
So Dave is a fusion denialist as well? We know that fusion goes on inside of the Sun partly because of neutrinos: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2934-0
Where are all the billion Neutrinos?
How do they know for sure that the few detected neutrons are coming from the Sun and only from the sun?
Math approval for the 10^7 c internal temp core Tig -
Here is a paper describing the math involved in calculating the upper mass limit on brown dwarf stars (equivalent to the minimum mass needed to start the fusion processes needed for main sequence stars). Temperature is discussed as well. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.08575.pdf
Did you had a chance to read carefully this math?
Don't you agree that they have set a target of 10^7k and by using some basic math/ideas/assumptions they try to explain how a protostar could increase its internal heat from 1000K all the way to 10^7K.
It is stated:
"If the mass of the protostars is less than ∼ 0.08M , its temperature does not reach the threshold to fuse hydrogen into helium and instead of a star, a brown dwarf is formed"
Based on the calculation the Minimal mass of the star should be 0.016 sun mass in order to get the temp of Tig =10^7K:
"Mmin ∼ {h^2 * k / (G^2 * me * mp^8/3)}^3/4 * Tig ^ 3/4 ∼= 3.08 ? 1028kg ∼= 0.016M
where ~ = 1.05 ? 10^−34J ? s, k = 1.38 ? 10−^23J ? K−1, G = 6.67 ? 10^−11N ? m2? kg−2, me = 9.1 ? 10^−31kg, mp = 1.67 ? 10^−27kg, and Tig = 10^7K. We see that Mmin ∼ 0.016M is the same order of magnitude that accepted value, Mmin ≈ 0.08M, and therefore it is an excellent approximation".
So, they set almost a direct ratio between the star mass to Tig Temp.
However as at only 0.016 M we get that 10^7K, what is the expected temp at the sun (which is massive by 62 times)?
M / 0.016 M = 62
What might be the internal temp of the most massive star?
https://www.space.com/41313-most-massive-star.html
"the most massive known star in the sky is R136a1, a star more than 300 times as massive as our sun."
So, what could it be the internal temp in a star that is more massive by 18,600 (=300*62) then this 0.016M?
could it be over 10^10 or even 10^11?
Is it realistic?
Let's assume that you are not aware about that math and I will offer it to you.
Would you accept this kind of assumptions and calculations as real math?
How the Sun magnetic fields can be generated by the fusion activity.
It is stated:
http://ibex.swri.edu/students/How_does_the_Sun.shtml
They start with a perfect explanation:
"Magnetic fields are created by things that are magnetic (like iron magnets) or by moving charged particles. A magnetic field is the description of the force a magnetic object exerts in the space surrounding the magnetic object. A force is a push or pull."
This actually describe the magnetic creation on earth by its dynamo rotation.
The Erath has a dynamo which is made out of solid Iron core. The magnetic fields is created due to the rotation of that dynamo and therefore it has very clear north and south poles.
The Sun also has clear poles. Therefore, it is expected that the Sun would also have a rotational dynamo.
However, they don't say even one word about the sun dynamo although they admite that the Sun magnetic field is very strong:
" the Sun's magnetic field is also large. It influences the motion of charged particles well beyond the orbits of the known planets, to distances of around 75-100 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun."
So, "How does the Sun's magnetic field work?"
"The Sun's charged particles move in three ways due to the Sun's high temperatures and the movement of its axis, which influence each other to make the Sun's magnetic field complex:
1. The Sun's high temperatures cause the positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons that make up its plasma to move around a lot. The moving plasma creates many complicated magnetic fields that twist and turn.
2. The extremely hot plasma that blows off the Sun as the solar wind also causes a magnetic field.
3. The plasma in the Sun also rotates around the Sun's axis. The plasma near the poles rotates slower than the plasma at the equator causing twisting and stretching of magnetic fields, too."
So, let's try to understand the meaning of that explanation:
1. The moving plasma creates many complicated magnetic fields"
Those complicated magnetic fields could cancel each other and surly can't explain the poles and the supper magnetic fields of the sun.
2. "The extremely hot plasma that blows off the Sun as the solar wind also causes a magnetic field".
This message is clearly wrong. The manganic fields is the source of the Hot plasma and not vice versa.
3. The plasma near the poles rotates slower than the plasma at the equator causing twisting and stretching of magnetic fields, too - Well if the plasma near the poles rotates slower than the plasma at the equator and the magnetic fields is twisting and stretching then how could it set so strong magnetic fields with clear north and south poles?
Again, not even one word about Dynamo.
Surprisingly, I have found the following article:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/sun-magnetism.html
"It is widely believed that the Sun's magnetic field is generated by electrical currents acting as a magnetic dynamo inside the Sun. These electrical currents are generated by the flow of hot, ionized gases in the Sun's convection zone."
Now they discuss about real science.
They even discuss about the magnetic poles:
"During the first half of the cycle, the Sun's magnetic north pole is in the northern hemisphere while the magnetic south pole is in the southern hemisphere. Right around the peak of the sunspot cycle (solar maximum), the magnetic poles flip or exchange places so that magnetic north is now located in the southern hemisphere. This flip occurs about every 11 years at solar maximum."
I hope that by now you all agree that the Sun magnetic fields is due to its dynamo.
So, how that Sun' dynamo could create any sort of magnetic fields by fusion activity/
The answer is already given.
The fusion activity can't really force the dynamo to rotate in one direction. It is a random activity. The internal heat by itself won't help the dynamo to spin.
Our scientists have some basic idea with regards to the Earth Dynamo:
https://www.britannica.com/science/dynamo-theory
"dynamo theory, geophysical theory that explains the origin of Earth?s main magnetic field in terms of a self-exciting (or self-sustaining) dynamo. In this dynamo mechanism, fluid motion in Earth?s outer core moves conducting material (liquid iron) across an already existing weak magnetic field and generates an electric current."
So, the idea is that the fluid motion in Earth?s outer core moves conducting material liquid iron (which is the dynamo) across an already existing weak magnetic field and generates an electric current.
So far so good.
It is also stated that the fuid motion is due to the "Heat from radioactive decay in the core is thought to induce the convective motion."
But that random Heat from radioactive decay can't explain why the fluid force the dynamo to rotate in one direction.
Therefore, I hope that by now we all agree that the Sun magnetic filds is due to internal dynamo but our scientists don't understand why it rotates in one direction.
-
Dynamo
Quote from: Dave Lev on 12/07/2023 14:16:46
However, in order for that solid core / dynamo to work, it must spin much faster than the self' object spin.
Give a citation for this claim as well.
1. Why dynamo:
https://www.britannica.com/science/dynamo-theory
The dynamo theory was proposed by the German-born American physicist Walter M. Elsasser and the British geophysicist Edward Bullard during the mid-1900s. Although various other mechanisms for generating the geomagnetic field have been proposed, only the dynamo concept is seriously considered today.
2. dynamo theory
"dynamo theory, geophysical theory that explains the origin of Earth?s main magnetic field in terms of a self-exciting (or self-sustaining) dynamo. In this dynamo mechanism, fluid motion in Earth?s outer core moves conducting material (liquid iron) across an already existing weak magnetic field and generates an electric current. (Heat from radioactive decay in the core is thought to induce the convective motion.)"
They actually claim that the dynamo motion is due to the fluid motion in Earth?s outer core.
This is my clear citation for the dynamo rotation.
In the article it is stated that the fluid motion is due to heat from radioactive decay in the core. However, that radioactive decay is random activity. Theoretically it can set fluid motion but in different directions. so how could this radioactive decay force the dynamo to rotate in a constant motion in one direction?
3. Dynamo - How it works?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/sun-magnetism.html
The Dynamo in the Earth and in the Sun converts mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy.
There are three requisites for a dynamo to operate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
"There are three requisites for a dynamo to operate:
1. An electrically conductive fluid medium
2. Kinetic energy provided by planetary rotation
3. An internal energy source to drive convective motions within the fluid.[10]"
Let's understand those requisites:
1. An electrically conductive fluid medium -
I hope that we all agree that the fluid medium is due to the internal heat.
You might think about fusion activity at the Sun or radiactivity decay at the Earth.
I think that there is no need for high energy to keep the core at An electrically conductive fluid medium. Therefore, tidal heat by itself (due to the horizontal tidal force) is good enough.
2. Kinetic energy provided by planetary rotation - This is the real meaning of the vertical tidal force.
The key question is - What is the source for the planetary rotation?
https://theconversation.com/why-does-the-earth-spin-198402
Why does the Earth spin?
"Most scientists now think its spin has been reversed over time by tidal forces involving the Sun and Venus? thick atmosphere."
"astronomers believe Earth spins because the entire solar system was already rotating when Earth formed ? but there are still a lot of questions about how planets? spins change over time, and how spin affects the evolution of life. With more than 5,000 planets now known beyond the solar system, future scientists are going to be busy exploring."
So, you all can believe that the Sun & the "Earth spin because the entire solar system was already rotating when Earth formed". However, that can't explain why the earth and the sun still spinning after so many billion years.
Please be aware that the Sun velocity at the equators is over than 7000Km/s.
I think that there is a reason for that rotation motion. It is called the vertical tidal force.
This force isn't a constant fixed force.
It is a changing force due to the orbital motion as you have just explained:
There are two things you are missing. One, Io has an eccentric orbit. That means that it is closer to Jupiter at some times and further away at other times. This therefore changes the size of the tidal bulge over time. This up-and-down flexing of the Moon generates heat. Two, as Halc stated, Io also receives tidal heating by interacting with Jupiter's other moons.
So, the eccentric orbit and the interacting force with nearby objects as Jupiter's other moons change the tidal force constantly the tidal force.
It effects the horizontal tidal force and the vertical tidal force.
Think about the earth as we press it in its poles again and again. Due to this press we provide the Kinetic energy that is needed for the dynamo to rotates. As the dynamo rotates at quite high velocity in the center of the planet, it also forces the entire planet to rotate.
Therefore, this vertical tidal force is the real source of the kinetic energy that spins the the earth and the sun.
As all the moons around Io moon have a tidal impact on Io moon, then all the stars around the Sun have also some tidal impact on the sun.
That tidal force doesn't need to be very strong.
The vertical tidal force is needed to keep the Sun core in An electrically conductive fluid medium.
However, the kinetic vertical force is directly transformed into electromagnetic energy.
Actually, the changes in that vertical kinetic tidal force is more important than its total force.
As there are millions of stars around the Sun each one contributes some minor tidal change. All together they set significant cycles/changes in this vertical force that cause the Sun internal dynamo to rotate at quite high velocity and produce ultra-high magnetic fields that "influences the motion of charged particles well beyond the orbits of the known planets, to distances of around 75-100 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun."
Conclusion:
I have offered real physical source for the kinetic energy that is needed for the proper operation of the dynamo.
That physical force is called - the vertical tidal force. This kinetic force is the ultimate source for the electromagnetic energy of the Sun as well as the source for its constant spinning momentum. The vertical tidal force is real and I have proved it.
Unfortunately, the science community totally ignore that kinetic force and don't understand its significant impact. They just hope that the initial spin of the objects could give the sun the ability to generate so strong magnetic fields for several billions of years and still spin at high velocity even today.
Why don't you ask them to Give a citation for this imagination?
It is quite expected that you all would continue to support the current wrong fusion idea.
However, just before you band the thread, I would mostly appreciate to get Halc' reply with regards to the Dynamo' requested kinetic energy
-
Deleted.
-
Another utterly pointless thread. When a poster has a very poor grasp of basic physics and does not want to learn, one is on futile mission. As is said, one can bring a horse to the river but one cannot make it drink( or words to that effect ).
-
There is a lot I could say about you post, Dave, but I feel it would be wise to focus on one issue at a time. Here is what I want to focus on right now: your claim that a dynamo requires a solid core. So give us a reputable source which states that a solid core is required or admit that you are mistaken. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you made a mistake. I would not make fun of you for it. Rather, I would applaud you.
I owned up to it when you pointed out that I used radius in an equation where I should have used diameter and thus corrected myself. If I can do it, so can you.
Based on your following message and the clear requirements from BC and Orion to band the thread it seems to me that this might be my last reply in this thread.
I won't need to lock the thread if you can provide an appropriate citation for your "solid core" claim. So whether or not this thread gets locked is entirely up to you. So please supply an authoritative source supporting your claim that a solid core is needed for a dynamo to work. Make sure that's what the source actually says, too. Read it carefully. Do not "quote mine" it. Please don't rely on arguing that it is simply "logical" or "it just makes sense" or some related thing. If a dynamo requiring a solid core really was so logical, then there would be a lot of other scientists and engineers who realized this same thing and thus would write it into books, papers, science websites, etc. Then you, in turn, would be able to cite it as an authoritative source to support your assertion.
So, can you do that?
-
clear requirements from BC and Orion to band the thread
Just to be clear.
I'm not just saying I think we should end this thread (though we should).
I'm saying we should ban Dave from posting on this forum.
And his latest posting here illustrate my reasons for saying that.
His response to being told that his nonsense will get his thread closed is to post more nonsense in the thread.
In what way does anyone benefit from allowing him to continue?
-
So, why we insist to reject the idea that the same quantity of Neutrinos comes could also come from the open space?
Some do, and we know about them.
https://theconversation.com/an-antarctic-neutrino-telescope-has-detected-a-signal-from-the-heart-of-a-nearby-active-galaxy-193845
But we see lots coming from the sun.
Your question is as stupid as asking why we think light comes from the sun.
Why did you not know that?
-
The quantity of Neutrinos that we detect in day time is identical to that in night time.
No; that's just something you made up- or you read one of the "lies we tell to children" and thought it told the whole story.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/24
-
I know I wasn't focusing on neutrinos right now, but I remembered something I saw a long time ago that was relevant: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Image-of-the-sun-as-observed-with-neutrinos-ushering-in-the-multi-messenger-era-in_fig19_301842001
That is an image taken of the Sun using neutrinos instead of photons. So yes, we know for a fact that the Sun emits neutrinos. There isn't any debate about it.
-
There isn't any debate about it.
There isn't any informed debate about it.
Dave will continue to be wrong about it because he refuses to learn.
-
The quantity of Neutrinos that we detect in day time is identical to that in night time.
No; that's just something you made up- or you read one of the "lies we tell to children" and thought it told the whole story.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/24
Dear BC
Did you had the chance to read the article that you had offered?
It is stated:
"the interactions are so rare that Super-K only detects one or two solar neutrinos per day."
So, the Super-K only detects one or two neutrinos per day.
There is a confirmation (in this article and others) for a higher solar neutrino flux at night than during the day:
"The Super-K experiment (shown here empty of water) has observed slightly more neutrinos at night than during the day."
https://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~ynakano_s/presentation/NNN2013_poster_final.pdf
"◆Asymmetry in Day/Night flux SK confirms a higher solar neutrino flux at night than during the day."
So, why the science community are so sure that the detected single neutrino in the night and less than that in the day is due to the solar radiation?
Let's assume that we don't know anything about the fusion idea.
How can we explain that observation of one neutrino during the night time and less than that during the day time?
Won't you agree that those neutrinos flow must come from the open space while the Sun cause some interruption in this flow and therefore, we detect less notorious per day?
Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos that comes behind the sun in the direction of the earth, and maybe some just coliid with the sun and miss the earth.
So, the simple understanding should be that we won't get those few neutrinos from the sun but from the open space.
However, that clear observation could kill the fusion idea.
So, as usual the science community has no intention to confuse themselves with the meaning of this real observation.
Therefore, they have the following brilliant idea:
" The result agrees with theoretical predictions that a fraction of the neutrinos passing through the Earth convert into the electron flavor, the neutrino type to which Super-K is most sensitive"
In other words, all the neutrino that we detect must come from the sun even if it should cross the earth from side to side.
Is it real???
Dear Kryptid
Do you agree that based on the following article, the Sun should generate billions or trillions neutrinos per second.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
"we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289x10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353x10^20 g every year to energy."
So how just many Hydrogen atoms there are in one g of mass?
How many Neutrinos should be ejected due to this massive Hydrogen fusion activity in just one second?
Can we agree on Billions or even trillions per second?
Would you kindly explain how a detection of a single neutrino is called "flux" and how based on that imagination flux it is feasible to draw that wonderful solar neutrinos stream?
Posted by: Kryptid
? on: Today at 00:04:59 ?Quote (selected)
I know I wasn't focusing on neutrinos right now, but I remembered something I saw a long time ago that was relevant: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Image-of-the-sun-as-observed-with-neutrinos-ushering-in-the-multi-messenger-era-in_fig19_301842001
That is an image taken of the Sun using neutrinos instead of photons. So yes, we know for a fact that the Sun emits neutrinos. There isn't any debate about it.
How can you call the detection of just one neutrino per night and less than that during the day as "fact that the Sun emits neutrinos"?
Don't you agree that in real science it is expected to adjust the theory to the observation and not vice versa?
There is a lot I could say about you post, Dave, but I feel it would be wise to focus on one issue at a time. Here is what I want to focus on right now: your claim that a dynamo requires a solid core. So give us a reputable source which states that a solid core is required or admit that you are mistaken. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you made a mistake. I would not make fun of you for it. Rather, I would applaud you.
The idea of a solid dynamo isn't mine.
Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.
Don't you agree that Iron at 5000 c temp can't be solid. So why the science insist that it is solid?
I had considered this question for some time and found the answer.
Please look at the following image:
https://www.britannica.com/summary/geomagnetic-field
"magnetic field of a bar magnet
The magnetic field of a bar magnet has a simple configuration known as a dipole field. Close to Earth's surface this field is a reasonable approximation of the actual field."
So, in order to set the magnetic field with clear North and south poles, we need to use a Bar magnet.
Please be aware that the earth pole would be north next to the south Bar pole and vice versa on the other side.
Therefore, a solid bar is needed.
Hence, solid dynamo isn't base on a personal imagination. it is based on real science explanation.
However, if you think that a fluid bar without clear poles can be good enough than please show the article that could support this claim.
Never the less, the next question should be - why the Dynamo/magnet bar is solid?
Please remember, the deeper we go inwards into the earth, the gravity is increasing but also the temp is increasing.
Based on the math which you had offered that temp is directly related to gravity force.
So, technically, if the gravity force is strong enough to convert the liquid core to a solid dynamo, why it can't also convert the whole earth to be a solid ball?
I have an answer for that.
Based on self-gravity the earth core and the sun core should be at hot liquid mode.
So, extra force is needed to transform the liquid core to a solid bar.
That force is called - the vertical tidal force.
In other words, if you take out the tidal impact, then the earth (or the sun) dynamo should be liquid.
Their self-gravity with related to the internal heat can't transform the high temp liquid core into solid object.
However, when we add the extra force of the vertical tidal force, it helps to convert this core to solid bar/dynamo.
Therefore, the vertical tidal force has two key functions.
1. It adds the force that is needed to transform a liquid hot core to solid bar.
2. The changes in this force contributes the kinetic energy that is needed for the bar/dynamo to rotate at high velocity in order to generate the electromagnetic fields at earth and at the sun.
-
So, why the science community are so sure that the detected single neutrino in the night and less than that in the day is due to the solar radiation?
Other than in zoos, I have only seen about 6 owls in my life.
But I saw all of them after dusk and before dawn.
Even though I only saw, on average, about 0.00288 owls in any 24 hour period, I'm pretty sure they hunt at night.
Did you think you had a point?
Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos
Thing about neutrinos is that they are neutral.
So they are not affected by magnets.
Did you not realise that?
Won't you agree that those neutrinos flow must come from the open space while the Sun cause some interruption in this flow and therefore, we detect less notorious per day?
Next time the sun is visible in the sky (like it is for me here at the moment), put your hand up at arm's length and see if you can cover up the sun with the tip of your smallest finger. You should find that you can.
Then look at how big the rest of the sky is.
And try to understand that the sun could only directly block out a tiny fraction of the sky- less than 0.01%
Then compare that to how big the observed change in neutron flux is.
Then go back in time and stop yourself posting your embarrassingly stupid idea.
Would you kindly explain how a detection of a single neutrino is called "flux"
We know that the detector doesn't see many of the neutrinos.
We can calibrate the detectors by building one near a nuclear reactor- where we know the rate of production.
https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/sources/reactor-neutrinos/
https://www.energy.gov/science/np/articles/detecting-neutrinos-nuclear-reactors-water#:~:text=Detecting%20the%20tiny%20signals%20from,tiny%20signals%20in%20the%20detector.
Now a flux is a number of crossings per area per unit time.
One neutrino event per square km per day is a flux.
Did you not know that?
Of course, the actual flux is much bigger- we miss most of them.
Don't you agree that Iron at 5000 c temp can't be solid.
Unless it's under enough pressure that all the atoms stay squashed together in a crystal.
Did you not realise that?
So why the science insist that it is solid?
Because that's what the seismic evidence says.
Why does Dave Lev insist that the evidence is wrong?
So, in order to set the magnetic field with clear North and south poles, we need to use a Bar magnet.
No.
We could obviously use an electromagnet
Or, as experiments have shown, we could use a spinning sphere of molten sodium.
Again- why are you pretending that you know more than reality and that the evidence is wrong?
-
However, if you think that a fluid bar without clear poles...
The north and south poles of the earth are pretty clear to everyone except you.
-
Please remember, the deeper we go inwards into the earth, the gravity is increasing
No. Gravity decreases as you go down. It's zero at the centre. (Because, obviously, there's s much above you pulling up as there is below you pulling down. So the effects cancel.
The force gets bigger as you go down.
-
The idea of a solid dynamo isn't mine.
The claim that a dynamo has to have a solid core in order to function is your idea. Feel free to prove me wrong by finding a reputable scientific source that says the same thing.
Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.
Provide a citation for this. Last I checked, the fluid outer core is where the geodynamo is located, not the solid inner core: https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
These observations argue for a mechanism within the Earth's interior that continually generates the geomagnetic field. It has long been speculated that this mechanism is a convective dynamo operating in the Earth's fluid outer core, which surrounds its solid inner core, both being mainly composed of iron.
"magnetic field of a bar magnet
The magnetic field of a bar magnet has a simple configuration known as a dipole field. Close to Earth's surface this field is a reasonable approximation of the actual field."
So, in order to set the magnetic field with clear North and south poles, we need to use a Bar magnet.
Please be aware that the earth pole would be north next to the south Bar pole and vice versa on the other side.
Therefore, a solid bar is needed.
A bar magnet is not a dynamo. Do you know what a dynamo is, Dave?
Hence, solid dynamo isn't base on a personal imagination. it is based on real science explanation.
Then provide a reputable source that states this clearly and unambiguously. So far, you have not.
However, if you think that a fluid bar without clear poles can be good enough than please show the article that could support this claim.
There isn't a fluid "bar" inside the Earth.
Never the less, the next question should be - why the Dynamo/magnet bar is solid?
It isn't.
Dave, you have failed to provide a reputable source that clearly states that a dynamo requires a solid core in order to function. That is strike one. After three strikes, this thread will be locked for trolling/spamming. So please, provide a reputable scientific source that states plainly, unambiguously and clearly that a dynamo must absolutely have a solid core in order to work. Don't give me a source that you are merely inferring that a solid core is needed from. I want a direct quote from a website that states it with the same level of certainty that you yourself have. I want either that or an admission that you were wrong.
Again, it's entirely up to you whether or not this thread gets locked. Back up your claim and it can stay open. Continue to dodge and it gets closed. If you are correct, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find the source I'm asking for.
-
The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core.
So no reputable source can show that you do need a solid core.
So you might as well close the thread now.
And then Dave will have to think up some new trolling to do... unless he's banned.
-
The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core.
So no reputable source can show that you do need a solid core.
So you might as well close the thread now.
I'm trying to give him a fair chance to admit that he's mistaken.
And then Dave will have to think up some new trolling to do... unless he's banned.
I have decided that I'm going to give all of his future threads the same level of scrutiny that I am now giving this one. Since he is such a repeat offender of making false claims of "science says x", then I'm going to make him start citing his references. If he can't do it, the thread will be locked for trolling or spam. I feel that this is a fair way of dealing with the problem, as it offers him a reasonable way to keep his threads open. All he has to do is either properly cite his evidence or accept correction. Either one of those things would be of benefit to him.
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34
Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos
Thing about neutrinos is that they are neutral.
So they are not affected by magnets.
Did you not realise that?
Sorry, you are wrong
magnetic field can indirectly affect neutrino properties
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0212118
"Neutrinos have no electric charge, but a magnetic field can indirectly affect neutrino properties and interactions through its effect on charged particles. After a brief field-theoretic discussion of charged particles in magnetic fields, we discuss two broad kinds of magnetic field effects on neutrinos. First, effects which come through virtual charged particles and alter neutrino properties. Second, effects which alter neutrino interactions through charged particles in the initial or final state. We end with some discussion about possible physical implications of these effects."
Therefore, there is a possibility for magnetic field to effect on neutrinos.
So, why we insist to reject the idea that the same quantity of Neutrinos comes could also come from the open space?
Some do, and we know about them.
https://theconversation.com/an-antarctic-neutrino-telescope-has-detected-a-signal-from-the-heart-of-a-nearby-active-galaxy-193845
But we see lots coming from the sun.
Your question is as stupid as asking why we think light comes from the sun.
Why did you not know that?
In this article it is stated clearly:
"Where do neutrinos come from?
They appear to come fairly uniformly from all directions, without any obvious bright spots showing up. This means there must be a lot of sources of neutrinos out there."
So, even in the article which you have offered it is fully confirmed that neutrinos come fairly uniformly from all directions.
What else is needed for you to accept this clear message?
Hence, neutrinos come fairly uniformly from all directions. Some of them could be affected by the Sun magnetic fields and shifted away from the Earth. Therefore, we get less neutrinos while we face the Sun.
It any case, how can we accept the logic that as we get less neutrinos while we face the Sun then it proves that the neutrinos had been generated by the Sun.
Sorry, this logic is clearly incorrect.
The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core.
So no reputable source can show that you do need a solid core.
Would you kindly try from time to time to read and understand the articles that you offer before getting into wrong conclusions?
liquid sodium
https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st3
"A tank of stirred liquid sodium generates a magnetic field even though it?s highly turbulent?a condition closer to real dynamos in planets, stars, and galaxies, but harder to simulate in the lab."
"They placed disks, equipped with curved vanes, at each end of a half-meter long cylindrical tank filled with liquid sodium. Rotation of these ?propellers? in opposite directions at up to 26 revolutions per second created a turbulent flow that generated a magnetic field. The field only appeared when the propellers were made of iron, which modifies the field near its surface."
Please read again the last message:
"The field only appeared when the propellers were made of iron"
If you don't understand it yet, please read it again and again.
In other words, only when disks with iron propellers have been used, the magnetic fields appeared.
Therefore, it isn't about tank of stirred liquid sodium that generates magnetic field due to turbulent or heat.
It is due to those propellers iron discs that revolve 26 times per second.
It is stated: "They placed disks, equipped with curved vanes, at each end of a half-meter long cylindrical tank", Therefore, there must be full correlation between the location of the discs that revolve at 26 times per seconds to the size of the tank in order for them to work in harmony. Without it, they could eliminate the magnetic fields of each other.
Hence, your statement that: "The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core." is totally wrong.
Take out the solid iron discs from the molten sodium tank and you have no magnetic fields at all.
The claim that a dynamo has to have a solid core in order to function is your idea.
Feel free to prove me wrong by finding a reputable scientific source that says the same thing.
I have already proved it.
The science claim for the solid inner iron core at the Earth dynamo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-inner-core-may-have-an-inner-core/
"Earth's core consists of a solid iron-nickel ball rotating within a layer of liquid metal."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core#/media/File:Earth_poster.svg)
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34
Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.
Provide a citation for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core
"Earth's inner core is the innermost geologic layer of planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth's radius or 70% of the Moon's radius.[1][2]
The temperature at the inner core's surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K"
Do you need some more citations?
If so, please read the following:
https://www.universetoday.com/160317/the-earth-has-an-even-more-inner-core-and-its-a-ball-of-solid-metal/
"In a paper that appeared in Nature Communications, the team reports finding evidence for another distinct layer (a solid metal ball) in the center of Earth?s inner core"
Do you think that when this team reports finding evidence for a solid metal ball in the center of Earth?s inner core, they just lie to all of us?
It is not assumption or simulation. They claim for - Evidence.
Last I checked, the fluid outer core is where the geodynamo is located, not the solid inner core: https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
Thanks for that great article.
It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"It has long been speculated that this mechanism is a convective dynamo operating in the Earth's fluid outer core, which surrounds its solid inner core, both being mainly composed of iron. The solid inner core is roughly the size of the moon but at the temperature of the surface of the sun."
Hence, even in this article they discuss about solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
"Large zonal? exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
I'm trying to give him a fair chance to admit that he's mistaken.
Are you sure that we discuss about fair chance?
Why all of those clear messages including the "evidence" which proves that the inner core must be solid aren't good enough for you?
Since he is such a repeat offender of making false claims of "science says x", then I'm going to make him start citing his references. If he can't do it, the thread will be locked for trolling or spam.
How can you consider all of those explanations and evidence as spam?
So far you and BC have totally failed to offer even a single article to support the imagination of none solid inner core in a dynamo.
-
Please also be aware that in the Article that you have offered they also discuss about dipole dominated structure.
" The simulated magnetic field has an intensity and a dipole dominated structure"
Hence, based on their understanding the inner core has a solid dipole tangent cylinder shape.
This is very interesting as it fully meets my understanding about the shape of the inner solid core.
Please look again on the following image of tidal force and focus on the vertical tidal force.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/demonstrations/TidalForces-source.nb
How can you ignore this supper critical force?
We clearly see that due to the extra force of the vertical tidal force the liquid inner core would be transformed into solid dipole tangent cylinder shape.
There is also other key message in that article
It is stated that if the earth magnetic field is not continually being generated, it would decay away in only about 20,000 years:
"based on the size and electrical conductivity of the Earth's core, the field, if it were not continually being generated, would decay away in only about 20,000 years since the temperature of the core is too high to sustain permanent magnetism"
In other words - the idea that the earth can generate a constant magnetic fields for very long time without external force isn't realistic.
In order to overcome this key problem, they have offered the idea of about the convection in the fluid outer core that twists and shears magnetic field, generating new magnetic field to replace that which diffuses away:
"The convection in the fluid outer core is thought to be driven by both thermal and compositional buoyancy sources at the inner core boundary that are produced as the Earth slowly cools and iron in the iron-rich fluid alloy solidifies onto the inner core giving off latent heat and the light constituent of the alloy. These buoyancy forces cause fluid to rise and the Coriolis forces, due to the Earth's rotation, cause the fluid flows to be helical. Presumably this fluid motion twists and shears magnetic field, generating new magnetic field to replace that which diffuses away."
Is it a realistic idea?
By twisting and shearing the magnetic fields, the earth could lose its natural protection against the solar wind. That could destroy the atmosphere on earth.
Surprisingly, the atmosphere is there for several billions of years.
Therefore, there is no way that the Earth magnetic fields had been twisted and sheared.
There must be some other way to prevent from the solid dipole tangent cylinder shape to diffuse away its magnetic field.
Only the vertical tidal force that works externally on the "dipole tangent cylinder" can keep it solid and fully charged without any need to warry about magnetic fields that diffuses away.
It is also stated that " the dipole polarity of the geomagnetic field has reversed many times in the past"
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
In addition, paleomagnetic records show that the dipole polarity of the geomagnetic field has reversed many times in the past, the mean time between reversals being roughly 200,000 years with individual reversal events taking only a couple thousand years.
"In addition, about 36,000 years into the simulation the magnetic field underwent a reversal of its dipole moment (Figure 3), over a period of a little more than a thousand years."
So, based on their simulation it could take the dipole several thousand years to for the dipole to reverse its polarity.
Again, if that was the case, then after several thousands of years without magnetic fields, the solar wind would completely destroy the earth atmosphere.
Therefore, that by itself proves that those scientists don't have a clue how the Earth dynamo and its solid inner core really works.
As I have stated it is all about the Vertical tidal force.
If a massive object would come close enough to the earth it would generate ultra high tidal force.
That strong tidal force could easily flip the internal dipole in just few days.
Therefore, any reversal polarity of the internal dipole is an indication for a massive object that pass near the earth.
That massive object doesn't need to coliid with the earth. All is needed to flip the dipole is that it would cross close enough.
Same activity takes place also at the Sun.
If a star would cross close enough to the Sun, it could flip its dipole polarity.
Therefore, the earth and the Sun magnetic fields is ONLY due to their vertical tidal force.
If after all of that explanations, articles, evidences... you would continue to reject the real meaning of tidal vertical force, then I would like to end this discussion.
Thank you all for your great support.
I couldn't get into this deep understanding without your excellent support.
-
They appear to come fairly uniformly from all directions,
You missed a bit.
-
I have already proved it.
The science claim for the solid inner iron core at the Earth dynamo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-inner-core-may-have-an-inner-core/
"Earth's core consists of a solid iron-nickel ball rotating within a layer of liquid metal."
No.
You have not.
There is a difference between proving that a meal can include bread and proving that all meals must include bread.
-
So far you and BC have totally failed to offer even a single article to support the imagination of none solid inner core in a dynamo.
Are you a liar or an idiot?
I did provide evidence.
Here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000
-
Hence, based on their understanding the inner core has a solid dipole tangent cylinder shape.
What do you believe the word "hence" means?
-
I have already proved it.
The science claim for the solid inner iron core at the Earth dynamo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-inner-core-may-have-an-inner-core/
"Earth's core consists of a solid iron-nickel ball rotating within a layer of liquid metal."
The quote that you have provided states that there is a solid core within the layer of liquid metal. What your quote does not say is that the solid core is an essential part of the dynamo. Therefore, this quote does not meet my requirement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core
"Earth's inner core is the innermost geologic layer of planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth's radius or 70% of the Moon's radius.[1][2]
The temperature at the inner core's surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K"
Do you need some more citations?
If so, please read the following:
https://www.universetoday.com/160317/the-earth-has-an-even-more-inner-core-and-its-a-ball-of-solid-metal/
"In a paper that appeared in Nature Communications, the team reports finding evidence for another distinct layer (a solid metal ball) in the center of Earth?s inner core"
Do you think that when this team reports finding evidence for a solid metal ball in the center of Earth?s inner core, they just lie to all of us?
It is not assumption or simulation. They claim for - Evidence.
There you go again misrepresenting what I asked for. I didn't ask you for a quote about the Earth's inner core being solid. We already knew that. What I asked for was a quote that the dynamo is solid. That is a very different question. Are you sure that you are fully reading my sentences and properly comprehending them? If not, then please try to remedy that in the future. This is yet another case of your failing to provide the needed quote.
Thanks for that great article.
It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"It has long been speculated that this mechanism is a convective dynamo operating in the Earth's fluid outer core, which surrounds its solid inner core, both being mainly composed of iron. The solid inner core is roughly the size of the moon but at the temperature of the surface of the sun."
Hence, even in this article they discuss about solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
"Large zonal? exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
Yes, it states that the inner core is solid. We already knew that. That isn't what we are debating here. What we are debating is whether a solid core is needed for there to be a dynamo.
Are you sure that we discuss about fair chance?
Yes. Three chances to cite a proper source is plenty fair.
Why all of those clear messages including the "evidence" which proves that the inner core must be solid aren't good enough for you?
Because that's not what I'm asking for. I'm not asking for evidence that the inner core is solid. Again, we already knew that. What I'm asking for is a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field (which is relevant because the Sun doesn't have a solid core despite having a dynamo).
So that's strike two.
Now, let me try again to spell this out as thoroughly as I can so that you can hopefully understand what I'm actually asking you for. This is your last chance to get it right, so pay close attention. Make sure you read what I have to say with your full attention.
Provide us with a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is absolutely necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field. The quote you provide must have some word like "necessary", "essential", "requires", "must", or some other equal phrasing in it. If the quote doesn't contain such a thing, then please, don't bother posting it because it's not what I asked for. Now, here are some hypothetical examples of quotes that would satisfy me:
"In order for the dynamo to function, a solid core is required."
"A working dynamo must have a solid core."
"A solid core is a necessary component of the dynamo."
"A magnetic field cannot be generated without a solid core."
If you can grant me a source that says something like that, then I will accept it. Here are some examples of what I am not looking for:
"The dynamo contains a solid core."
"The Earth has a solid core."
"The core is made of solid iron."
"This dynamo has a solid core in it."
The problem with these quotes is that they do not affirm that the solid core is essential to the functioning of the dynamo. Merely having a solid core is not enough to say that the solid core is needed.
So, again, here are your two options:
(1) Supply the needed quote from a good source, or
(2) Admit that you are mistaken.
Do you care about keeping your thread open, Dave? If so, then you will comply. This is your last chance.
-
So far you and BC have totally failed to offer even a single article to support the imagination of none solid inner core in a dynamo.
Are you a liar or an idiot?
I did provide evidence.
Here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000
Dear BC
You didn't not.
I refuse to call anyone as liar or idiot, but this video fully supports my claim.
Please look (for the first time?) at this video clip.
1. At 1:44 - Internal image of that demo. It has a 1 meter solid inner sphere and a 3 meter outer sphere that is full with liquid sodium. How could you miss that image?
2. At 1:15 - The Solid inner core is vital for the evolvement of magnetic fields while this magnetic fields evolve around the solid inner core. Hence, without a solid inner core, there is no magnetic fields!
This is a very important information. Please Keep it in your mind!
3. At 1:33 - The magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere around the solid inner core.
4. at 4:55 - This demo can't generate any magnetic field by itself due to the dynamo minimal dynamic thresholds. Therefore, an external electromagnet disc had been added to overcome this thresholds of the dynamo.
5. The outer sphere must spin 4 times per second. Hence, its surface orbital velocity is 130 Km/s.
6. It is also stated that in this demo they transfer the mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy.
Conclusion:
In this demo they are using a solid core. without a solid core there is no magnetic fields.
In order to gain the magnetic fields they have to add external EM disc and invest mechanical energy to spin the sphere.
In other words. the magnetic fields energy is there due to the spinning outer sphere energy.
Cut off the spinning mechanical energy and there is no magnetic fields energy.
Hence, if the Earth' Dynamo has to generate its magnetic fields by its natural spinning energy, it could lose most of its spinning energy after relatively short time.
The idea that the Earth spines for more than 4 Billion years and still spinning by its first natural spinning is just imagination!!!
Only the vertical tidal force can force the Earth to spin for so long time while it maintains its electromagnetic fields.
The quote that you have provided states that there is a solid core within the layer of liquid metal. What your quote does not say is that the solid core is an essential part of the dynamo. Therefore, this quote does not meet my requirement.
Yes, the Solid inner core is essential part of the dynamo!
Without it, there is no dynamo.
We clearly see it in the article which BC had offered and also in the one that you had offered.
It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"Large zonal exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
Hence, It is expected that in any Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of outer fluid core.
Last I checked, the fluid outer core is where the geodynamo is located, not the solid inner core: https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
Well, it was already explained in the following video clip (offered by BC) that the fluid outer core is where the Electromagnetic is generated.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000
At 1:33 - The magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.
Yes, it states that the inner core is solid. We already knew that. That isn't what we are debating here. What we are debating is whether a solid core is needed for there to be a dynamo.
Yes, it is a mandatory request!
In any real Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core, while the magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.
So simple and clear.
Yes. Three chances to cite a proper source is plenty fair.
Sorry, till this moment, you all didn't cite even one single article to support the imagination of geodynamo that can work properly without solid inner core!
I'm not asking for evidence that the inner core is solid. Again, we already knew that. What I'm asking for is a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field (which is relevant because the Sun doesn't have a solid core despite having a dynamo).
Sorry, you have a severe mistake with regards the Sun.
Take out the solid core from the Sun, and it would stop immediately to generate its magnetic fields.
Therefore, the sun MUST have solid inner core for its ability to generate magnetic fields!
Provide us with a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is absolutely necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field.
Please provide one real article (ONLY ONE) where it is explained how a geodynamo can generate magnetic fields without solid inner core.
Do you care about keeping your thread open, Dave?
Do you care about real science?
You all have totally failed to show that a geodynamo can work without solid inner core and you refuse to accept the clear explanation from all the articles which you have offered so far.
The fusion activity could increase the heat at the core to over than 10^7k.
At that temp, nothing could be solid. Even the vertical tidal force won't help the sun to regain its solid inner core.
Therefore, just in order to support the fusion imagination, you hope that somehow the Sun can generate magnetic fields without a solid inner core.
Would you kindly explain why it is so important to you to support the fusion imagination than to accept the clear explanation for how the geodynamo really works?
This is your last chance.
Dear Kryptid
I have high appreciation for the excellent support that I have got so far.
Unfortunately, it seems that I would continue to accept the explanation which had been given by all the articles (which fully support a solid inner core), while you wouldn't accept the explanation by those articles as it would kill the idea of fusion activity at the Sun.
There is no need to argue on something that is so clear in all the articles.
As the master of this forum, you have the freedom to ignore the articles and decide that Geodynamo should work without solid inner core and close the thread.
So, thanks again for all your efforts.
-
Conclusion:
The conclusion is that you cannot find a source that will backup your incorrect claim.
Take out the solid core from the Sun
The sun does not have a solid core. The sun does have a magnetic field.
-
Yes, the Solid inner core is essential part of the dynamo!
Without it, there is no dynamo.
Then why haven't you been able to give me a source which states so?
It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"Large zonal exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
First of all, you misquoted. What it actually said is: "Large zonal flows (eastward near the inner core and westward near the mantle) exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core." Secondly, it says that the zonal flows are caused in part by the presence of the solid inner core. It doesn't say that the magnetic fields are caused by the solid inner core.
Hence, It is expected that in any Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of outer fluid core.
Except that's not what the source actually said.
Well, it was already explained in the following video clip (offered by BC) that the fluid outer core is where the Electromagnetic is generated.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000
At 1:33 - The magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.
Exactly. The outer core. Which is fluid. Not the solid, inner core.
Yes, it is a mandatory request!
In any real Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core, while the magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.
So simple and clear.
Then why have you been unable to give me a source which states so? Your say-so isn't good enough.
Sorry, till this moment, you all didn't cite even one single article to support the imagination of geodynamo that can work properly without solid inner core!
This fallacious reasoning is known as "shifting the burden of proof": https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
You cannot reasonably expect a reputable source to list what isn't necessary for a dynamo to work. If they did, then the list would have to include things like cake icing, mustaches and report cards.
Sorry, you have a severe mistake with regards the Sun.
Take out the solid core from the Sun, and it would stop immediately to generate its magnetic fields.
Therefore, the sun MUST have solid inner core for its ability to generate magnetic fields!
This is a claim, not a source supporting the claim. I asked for a source.
Please provide one real article (ONLY ONE) where it is explained how a geodynamo can generate magnetic fields without solid inner core.
Please see my previous reply about "shifting the burden of proof".
Do you care about real science?
Yes, which is why I'm asking you to supply references. If I didn't care, then I wouldn't want a reference.
You all have totally failed to show that a geodynamo can work without solid inner core and you refuse to accept the clear explanation from all the articles which you have offered so far.
Shifting the burden of proof again.
The fusion activity could increase the heat at the core to over than 10^7k.
Yes.
At that temp, nothing could be solid.
Correct. Well, nothing made of normal matter anyway.
Even the vertical tidal force won't help the sun to regain its solid inner core.
Therefore, just in order to support the fusion imagination, you hope that somehow the Sun can generate magnetic fields without a solid inner core.
I'm not just hoping it. The evidence supports it. Moving electric charges generate magnetic fields: https://www.nde-ed.org/Physics/Magnetism/fieldcreation.xhtml#:~:text=As%20Ampere%20suggested%2C%20a%20magnetic,current%20flowing%20through%20a%20wire.
A magnetic field is produced whenever an electrical charge is in motion.
Plasma is a fluid that contains freely moving electric charges: https://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/SciTechBook/series1/Goebel_03_Chap3_plasphys.pdf
Plasma is then a collection of the various charged particles that are free to move in response to fields they generate or fields that are applied to the collection and, on the average, is almost electrically neutral.
Plasma can make magnetic fields: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10993/chapter/4
Magnetic fields are generated by the convective motions of conducting materials: plasma in most of the universe and conducting liquids in the case of planetary objects.
The Sun is made of plasma: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/overview/#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20the%20Sun's,different%20parts%20of%20the%20Sun.
This is because the Sun?s surface isn't solid like Earth's. Instead, the Sun is made of super-hot, electrically charged gas called plasma.
So there you have it.
Unfortunately, it seems that I would continue to accept the explanation which had been given by all the articles (which fully support a solid inner core), while you wouldn't accept the explanation by those articles as it would kill the idea of fusion activity at the Sun.
Not a single one of the articles you cited stated that a solid core is necessary for a magnetic dynamo to work. You need to ask yourself why you were unable to find a source that stated so. If you were correct, then finding such a source shouldn't have been difficult.
There is no need to argue on something that is so clear in all the articles.
Again, none of the articles you posted stated that a solid core was necessary. I even gave you the keywords to look for and you couldn't do that. Why is that? Here is another thing for you to consider: if it really was true that scientific experts on electromagnetism knew that a dynamo-driven magnetic field needed a solid core, then don't you think those same scientists would have corrected astrophysicists when they posited that such a mechanism was what made the Sun's magnetic field work with a gaseous core? If you were correct, then it would still be considered a mystery to this day how the Sun generates its magnetic field. Instead, the dynamo explanation is the widely-accepted one in modern science. So you should ask yourself: which is more likely, that all of these scientists are mistaken, or are you mistaken? Which is more likely?
As the master of this forum, you have the freedom to ignore the articles and decide that Geodynamo should work without solid inner core and close the thread.
I'm not "the master of this forum". I'm a moderator who is trying to clamp down on the nonsense that you have endlessly filled this place with for years and years. Keep in mind that I am going to do the exact same thing with all of your future threads, so be ready to cite your sources.
I gave you the opportunity to keep this thread open. I gave you crystal clear requirements for what a supporting reference would look like. If you were unable to find one (and indeed, you couldn't), I gave you another out by allowing you to admit that you were mistaken. You did neither of these things and instead doubled-down on your misunderstandings. I cannot understand why you would do this.
Still, I will give you a chance to reopen the thread. Send me a link to the required reputable source in a personal message any time in the future that you want to and I'll open the thread back up. But it had better meet the requirements I've set. Alternatively, admitting that you were mistaken to me will also prompt me to reopen the thread.