[acsinuk (OP)]

Well done Tommy, I think you are correct in your assumptions.  The sun/stars generate sunshine by nuclear fissioning of matter or anti-matter and over centuries lose weight and gradually fade to red dwarfs.  Where has all that energy gone?  Between the stars is a border where the incoming starlight balances the outgoing sunlight so in fact the energy must be going its own systems planets moons and asteroids of course.  So what are the planets doing with the energy ? Well we are not getting hotter so the inner core must be building up more complex molecules of matter and pushing them upwards into the lava which erupts in volcanoes and builds up the planet.

[TommySpitz]

Thank you acsinuk, for your post. This particular approach to energy applies to our own make-up. And everything else of course. Mankind's understanding of 'what is' is hampered by knowledge, knowledge itself being part of the energy system in constant change.

[chiralSPO]

Well done Tommy, I think you are correct in your assumptions.  The sun/stars generate sunshine by nuclear fissioning of matter or anti-matter and over centuries lose weight and gradually fade to red dwarfs.  Where has all that energy gone?  Between the stars is a border where the incoming starlight balances the outgoing sunlight so in fact the energy must be going its own systems planets moons and asteroids of course.  So what are the planets doing with the energy ? Well we are not getting hotter so the inner core must be building up more complex molecules of matter and pushing them upwards into the lava which erupts in volcanoes and builds up the planet.

No. So many errors here.
•Stars, in general produce energy during fusion processes, not fission (no antimatter involved, unless you count anti-neutrinos)
•There may well be a boundary where the flux of energy going each way is the same, but I think you should try thinking about where those boundaries are. For example, we are clearly much closer to the sun than the boundary is (we can tell because daylight is so much brighter than starlight--ie the amount of light reaching us from our nearest star is much more than from all other stars combined.) Even out as far as Pluto, the sun is several hundred times brighter than the rest of the stars combined. So the planets and asteroids are not being warmed up due to this proposed effect.
•Typically increasing temperature leads to smaller molecules, not larger ones.

[evan_au]

The sun/stars generate sunshine by nuclear fissioning of matter or anti-matter

no antimatter involved, unless you count anti-neutrinos

There are some steps in hydrogen fusion which produce positrons, which are antimatter.
- This occurs when a proton decays into a neutron, producing a positron and a neutrino.
- These positrons immediately react with nearby electrons to produce gamma rays...

See diagram at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Hydrogen_fusion

over centuries lose weight and gradually fade to red dwarfs.

Only about 0.1% of the mass is lost when fusing hydrogen to helium - and not much more in fusing helium to iron.

However, stars lose 50% or more of their mass than this when progressing through red giant phase and shrinking to a dwarf star.

This loss of mass does not come about from producing energy, but from more mundane causes like the stellar wind causing the outer fringes of their diffuse red-giant atmosphere to drift off into space, forming a "planetary nebula" (even though it has nothing to do with planets).

Larger stars undergo a more dramatic weight-loss process, the supernova...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula#Origins

[acsinuk (OP)]

Wiki quote "(nuclear fusion of four protons to form a helium-4 nucleus[18]) is the dominant process that generates energy in the cores of main-sequence stars."
But if the sun is made of anti-matter then the central H+ ions will be H- ions and these 4 negatrons will produce the anti-Helium which are surrounded by their positron shell enclosure.  Just hope Parker probe can identify the difference of matter in electron enclosures from anti-matter in positron enclosures.

[evan_au]

if the sun is made of anti-matter then...these 4 negatrons will produce the anti-Helium

It isn't, so it doesn't.
The solar wind represents the Sun shedding the outer part of its atmosphere - and the Parker Solar Probe is looking at the mechanisms propelling the solar wind, as it plunges deeper and deeper into the Sun's outer atmosphere.

If the Sun were made of anti-protons (or anti-helium), the Parker Solar Probe would be blasted by gamma rays as the antimatter annihilated with the normal matter of the space probe, frying the electronics and killing the mission.

But we didn't need to wait for the Parker solar probe to discover this - the solar wind is continually striking the Earth's atmosphere, producing the polar auroras. If the Sun were made of antimatter, the aurora would not be greens and reds, but gamma rays and X-Rays.

if the sun is made of anti-matter then the central H+ ions will be H- ions and these 4 negatrons will produce the anti-Helium which are surrounded by their positron shell enclosure.  Just hope Parker probe can identify the difference of matter in electron enclosures from anti-matter in positron enclosures.

The temperature of the Sun is over 5000C at the surface, and progressively hotter as you progress inwards, reaching somewhere around 15 million C in the core.

At these temperatures, hydrogen and helium do not form atoms, but form a plasma, where the electrons are not attached to any nucleus, but are all floating around freely. So the electrons/positrons do not form "enclosures" around the nucleus.

The Sun is made of "normal" matter, so there are no "negatrons"/anti-protons doing nuclear fusion. The proton-proton chain of nuclear fusion does produce anti-electrons/positrons in the core, but these are very ephemeral, immediately annihilating with electrons in the plasma, and producing gamma rays in the core. By the time this heat percolates to the surface of the Sun, most of the radiation is in infra-red, visible and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum.

The Proton-Proton chain is the dominant source of power for the Sun. In larger stars, the alternative CNO cycle dominates, and this does not produce positrons as a byproduct.

Go back and reread this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Hydrogen_fusion

[acsinuk (OP)]

.  To balance the solar system should contains roughly equal amounts of positron enclosed anti-matter in the sun as there is electron enclosed planetary matter in the planets, moons and asteroids.  To stop electrostatic annihilation  the negative matter must be spun around its star magnetically.  These dark energy/matter forces are all electro-magnetic.  If Parker probe gets too near the sun it will be annihilated and not crash.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Well, in new theories I can at least link everyone to the magnoflux3d electric universe website " https://magnoflux3d.wordpress.com/ " so that you can see the images understand the logic behind having electrostatic dark energy repulsion of stars causing the universe to expand using and the electromagnetic magnoflux spin effect to provide the rotation of not only planets with a dark matter force but also to spin stars into spiral galaxies around a magnetic hub also known as a black hole.  I did put links in my answers on the other board but they were unfortunately removed..

[Kryptid]

No, the Sun is not made of antimatter. If it was, then the solar wind would be made of antimatter as well. But it isn't, as solar wind has been sampled and found to be made of normal matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(spacecraft)#Sample_extraction_and_results

[acsinuk (OP)]

The electric positive H+ ions in the solar wind are absolutely necessary to balance the negatron emission of magnoflux light that to us is sunshine and warms us up.  Everything must balance electrically for the magnoflux hypothesis to work.

[Bored chemist]

" Is the sun made of antimatter?"
No
Because science.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Because existing scientists see a stars absorption spectrum and claim it is an emission spectrum.  You cannot think of landing on a star as you will be annihilated.  When Parker does its final approach we will see whether it crashes or just disappears??
IMHO stars are definitely made of positive charged anti-matter, end of story!!

[Kryptid]

IMHO stars are definitely made of positive charged anti-matter, end of story!!

"IMHO" means "in my humble opinion". Opinions are weak in science. Evidence is far more preferable.

[Bored chemist]

IMHO stars are definitely made of positive charged anti-matter, end of story!!

If you opinion doesn't tally with the observed universe then
it's not a humble opinion and
it's not reality that has got it wrong.

You calso can't sensibly say

end of story!!

while explicitly waiting for (yet another) experiment to test the idea.

When Parker does its final approach we will see whether it crashes or just disappears??

(And, incidentally, that's not a question so it doesn't even need one question mark, never mind two.)

[Kryptid]

To balance the solar system should contains roughly equal amounts of positron enclosed anti-matter in the sun as there is electron enclosed planetary matter in the planets, moons and asteroids.

The stars and their accompanying planets must be made of the same kind of matter because they form from the same gas clouds. We can see via telescope protoplanetary disks surrounding some young stars. Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen have the same mass, same total charge, same radius, etc. There is therefore no reason for antimatter to conveniently clump in the middle while normal matter moves to the outer regions of the disk. Both matter and antimatter would react the same way to gravity and centrifugal forces.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Remember the WMAP results.The universe only contains 4.5% of the matter needed to balance and stabilize the galaxies.   Classic physics then dreams up dark energy and dark matter which astronomers can't find to explain the 95% error.
What I am explaining is that it will balance perfectly if you take the dark energy electrostatic repulsion force which is 23 times stronger than the gravity force and add to this the dark magnetic matter force; with its magnoflux spin force of 6.3 times gravity force at right angles then the universe is electro-magnetically balanced

[Bored chemist]

Remember the WMAP results.The universe only contains 4.5% of the matter needed to balance and stabilize the galaxies.   Classic physics then dreams up dark energy and dark matter which astronomers can't find to explain the 95% error.
What I am explaining is that it will balance perfectly if you take the dark energy electrostatic repulsion force which is 23 times stronger than the gravity force and add to this the dark magnetic matter force; with its magnoflux spin force of 6.3 times gravity force at right angles then the universe is electro-magnetically balanced

Whatever.
If your idea requires that the sun is antimatter then your idea is wrong.

[Kryptid]

What I am explaining is that it will balance perfectly if you take the dark energy electrostatic repulsion force which is 23 times stronger than the gravity force and add to this the dark magnetic matter force; with its magnoflux spin force of 6.3 times gravity force at right angles then the universe is electro-magnetically balanced

So what evidence do you have that there is some kind of "dark energy electrostatic repulsion force" that is 23 times stronger than gravity or a "magnoflux spin force" that is 6.3 times stronger than gravity?

[acsinuk (OP)]

The evidence is obvious that the stars and sun are showing an absorption spectrum.  The idea that this reversal is caused by the steam/gases in the corona has not been proven. 
It would be great if we could meet at a nearby university and check whether in fact the spectrum does reverse when we view a hot object through any gases of your choosing.  When and where can we meet??

[Kryptid]

The evidence is obvious that the stars and sun are showing an absorption spectrum.

Matter and antimatter have identical spectra (within experimental error): https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/alpha-observes-light-spectrum-antimatter-first-time

So what does the absorption spectrum have to do with evidence of antimatter in the Sun?