[dlorde]

... I do remember that 100 earths worth of hydrogen, have been converted to helium. This is a pretty large volume and would have some effect.

Is that 100 Earths worth by volume at STP? 

The sun is about 1.3 million times the volume of the Earth, so 100 Earth volumes is probably relatively insignificant...

[alan hess (OP)]

Yes, I believe it was volume. While it may not sound like a lot, the sun has an inner core of burnable fuel. In the 4.6 billion years of its existence it has burned up half of it's fuel, so I would say it's quite a bit. Also, it is gaining brightness and heat, in a billion years, the earth won't have any water left.

[yor_on]

Hard one to proof Alan. It's like Jeffery writes, we have no good historical observations to base the solar systems gravity on. "When the hydrogen fuel has all turned to helium, the stars begin to die and to produce a number of other different kinds: lower mass stars become giants, while those of higher mass (above roughly 8 or 9 solar masses) into supergiants. Giants then die as white dwarfs, while supergiants explode as supernovae. The whole process is commonly known as stellar evolution. Because higher mass stars use their hydrogen fuel much more quickly than lower mass stars, those of higher mass live shorter lives. The Sun has a 10 billion year main sequence lifetime (of which half is gone)." http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/star_intro.html

So how much mass has the sun lost?

"The mass of the Sun is indeed being reduced due to nuclear fusion processes in the Sun's core, which convert part of the mass into energy. (This energy is eventually radiated away in the form of light from the Sun's surface.) However, the effect on the orbits of the planets is very small and would not be measurable over any reasonable time period.

One way we can see that this must be a small effect is to look at the main fusion reactions which produce the Sun's energy, in which four hydrogen atoms are transformed into one helium atom. If you look at a periodic table, you will see that one helium atom has about 0.7% less mass than four hydrogen atoms combined -- this "missing mass" is what gets converted into energy. Therefore, at the absolute most, only 0.7% of the Sun's mass can get converted, and this takes place over the entire 10 billion year lifetime of the Sun. So it must be a very small effect. (In actuality, not all of the Sun's mass is hydrogen to start with, and only the mass in the inner core of the Sun gets hot enough to undergo fusion reactions, so we really only expect around 0.07% of the mass to get converted.)

It is also easy to directly calculate the rate at which the Sun converts mass to energy. Start with Einstein's famous formula:

E = M c2

where E is the energy produced, M is the mass that gets converted and c is the speed of light (3 x 108 meters/second). It is easy to extend this formula to find the rate at which energy is produced:

(rate at which E is produced) = (rate at which M disappears) x c2

The rate at which the Sun produces energy is equal to the rate at which it emits energy from its surface (its luminosity), which is around 3.8 x 1026 Watts -- this number can be determined from measurements of how bright the Sun appears from Earth as well as its distance from us. Plugging this into the above formula tells us that the Sun loses around 4,200,000,000 kilograms every second!

This sounds like a lot, but compared to the total mass of the Sun (2 x 1030 kilograms), it actually isn't that much. For example, let's say we want to measure the effect of this mass loss over 100 years. In that time, the Sun will have lost 1.3 x 1019 kilograms due to the fusion reactions, which is still a very tiny fraction of the Sun's total mass (6.6 x 10-12, or about 6.6 parts in a trillion!)."  http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=563

[alan hess (OP)]

I agree with you, it is very difficult to prove. I am not suggesting that the total gravitational factor of the sun is affecting the planetary orbits. The sun loses more mass by ejections than anything. What I am talking about is in the inner core of the sun, where fusion is taking place is an extremely balanced reaction, as fuel burns up more moves in to take it's place, if too much fuel is being burned radiation. Increases and prevents more fuel from coming in. My point is, if this gravitation increases in the center of the sun it will affect this reaction.

[alan hess (OP)]

It appears like you are trying to create a post on dark matter, dark energy, and spatial expansion. Personally I disagree with some of your statements # 1 photons are created by electrons jumping to a higher orbit and falling back to a lower orbit. Depending on which orbit. They jumped to and fallback from controls your spectrum I have never heard of photons being created without electrons being involved as far as gaps controlling wave and frequency # 1 a laser disproves that it is a coherent beam of light.# 2, a single photon through the double slit experiment has a wave and a particle property.

[alan hess (OP)]

Almost anything you can say on mass and energy is possible and not necessarily provable. On the subject of photons and gaps a photon is created one and electron jumps from a lower orbit to a higher orbit and then falls back to its proper orbit the orbit. It jumps to controls the color that it will have. One single photon can go through the double slit experiment in possess the properties of a particle and a wave. There will be no gaps in one photon. In the very early universe photons collided and formed electrons, electrons and positrons collided and formed photons, India very early universe. This is mostly radiation till things cooled. I see no basis for circles and stuff, but as I said, it's hard to prove one way or the other. As far as I know about the only experimental theater is to use a computer program your start parameters and let the program go to see how the universe turns out,(doesn't look like what we have?). If it doesn't, it's probably wrong.

[alan hess (OP)]

You hit on so many concepts, it's hard to answer them all. Electrons go around the atom in circles, these are called orbits. 90% of the atom is empty space, in a black hole. Matter is so dense it collapses these empty space areas. As far as flavors are concerned whatever discovers things gets to name them. Some of these things are kind of silly, but we didn't name them. My post is related to the 4 forces I am  trying to gravity in, my statement is the graviton travels with the photon, which is why the photon is affected by gravity.

[jccc]

F=m1m2/r^2 for gravity, F= q1q2 /r^2 for electromagnetic force. m1=q1, m2=q2.

The attraction force between mass 1 and mass 2 as we called gravity is nothing but the four forces net sum:

1. all positive charges in mass 1 attract all negative charges in mass 2.

2. all positive charges in mass 2 attract all negative charges in mass 1.

3. all positive charges in mass 1 repell all postive charges in mass 2.

4. all negative charges in mass 1 repell all negative charges in mass 2.

Because my math sucks, I can't prove it yet. But I prove my weed is good.

[alan hess (OP)]

Of your 4 statements these are proven rules of magnetism like charges repel opposite charges attract, gravity attracts all

[alan hess (OP)]

In saying that the graviton travels with photon, there is no interaction just for example, the photon travels. It has no interaction with anything unless it hits something, the same with the graviton unless it hits something is neither absorbed were repelled. When a laser is passed through a superconductor there is graviton activity, say the photon is releasing the graviton in the low temperatures.

[alan hess (OP)]

The force carrier of gravity is the boson(graviton), which to date has never been detected

[alan hess (OP)]

Gravity is what attracts particles to each other for example Suns and planets attract each other. The statement on lasers and superconductors is as follows. I think that at extremely low temperatures. The graviton will separate from the photon, which is displayed by passing a laser through a superconductor. Current theory is that this is detecting gravity waves I disagree. In the very early universe. The 4 forces were one, strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity. Gravity separated 1st at extremely high temperatures, then the electromagnetic spectrum, strong and weak separated and we have the current standard model. It has been proven that at higher temperatures, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic are one. Gravity existed in the universe before there was any matter with which to work.

[alan hess (OP)]

As far as mass and energy are concerned mass is energy, energy is mass. In the very early universe the electron and positron collided and formed photons of extremely high-energy, which collided and formed electrons. This continued until the universe cooled and cannot form high-energy photons anymore. The same thing happened with quarks. It was 380,000 years before the 1st atoms were formed and able to exist due to the high heat of the early universe

[alan hess (OP)]

I am not trying to be argumentative,I understand the relationship of mass and energy, in your theory of circles causing universal expansion. I honestly can't say, although it is illogical to me. Dark matter has properties that have been calculated by the spin of our galaxy and the amount of visible matter. Dark energy is then calculated by the expansion of the universe. As I said you are proposing an alternate theory the only method I know of proving it is to generate a computer model and letting it run to current times and comparing the result.These Planck scale circles of yours must have the same mass as dark matter has or it's invalid

[alan hess (OP)]

I am not calling your proposal wrong, all I am saying is that it needs to take into account all current known facts. The biggest problem I have with planks circles is there needs to be mass associated with them to equal the amount of dark matter and from your description, I don't see where that's at. As far as the simulator program is concerned, I have never looked for it so I honestly don't know where it's at.My best suggestion would be to open a form describing your thoughts and ask if anyone is familiar with the computer programs. As I have told you, and you can read from my post I am in disagreement with some of the early models, but they still runs close to standard.

[alan hess (OP)]

The graviton is listed in the standard model, it is the exchange particle for gravity. Large bodies attract smaller bodies to them, i.e. the planet Earth and us, there must be a force at work to do this I believe this is the graviton.My only problem with this is there must be a balancing feature to keep everything in harmony, so my theory runs that the graviton travels with the photon, which allows balancing of gravity between different bodies. An example is the sun there is a nuclear reaction going on in the core, which converts hydrogen into helium, with a loss of mass. This would cause the gravity of the suns core to increase, and change the dynamics of the reaction. For example, if the gravity increases it should burn more fuel as time goes on. Our son is a main sequence star and fuel consumption is consistent so therefore, something must be balancing out the gravitational forces. The only thing to leave the center of the sun is photons as radiation, heat, and light.

[alan hess (OP)]

Gravity is a known fact, general relativity and the math Therein do a very good job of explaining all phenomena. The problem I have is one in the beginning of the universe. Gravity was in existence, matter didn't come into existence for 380,000 years. During this time you look at it from the point of gravity curving space all matter should have accumulated in one spot, It spread out throughout the universe, also the sun creates a problem for me with the gravity, I realize her sons is a smaller star, but there are larger main sequence stars. They all continue to consume their fuel at a set rate, something must be balancing out the gravity.And yes I do realize some of your theories are in conflict with mine, I am trying to get a grasp on your theory so that we can discuss it.

[alan hess (OP)]

Collider experiments prove the existence quarks they are particles and have properties. If this free energy existed in the atom. It would show itself in these collider experiments when the atom is broken apart. I have never heard of any such free energy showning itself.

[alan hess (OP)]

As far as the CMB is concerned from what I understand the original universe was extremely hot, as it cools, it left the CMB footprint, which is the temperature of the universe today. I have never heard of any free energy associated with the CMB?

[alan hess (OP)]

I agree with you to the extent that mass and energy are the same mass is energy. Energy is mass. They're just different forms of the same thing. I don't know that I agree that mass can be free energy is seems to me when it is mass, it's mass, when it's energy is energy. What I see of your thinking. If you was to open up and get a bucket of space, you would have a bucket of energy. I don't see it that way. It does however take energy to hold the mass together if that's what you're referring to and I say, okay.