Here's some interesting, somewhat related material on the sun by Harold Aspden, from: http://www.energyscience.org.uk/le/le03.htm
COSMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
We know that stars like the Sun are composed mainly of hydrogen and that they radiate heat and light because they are hot enough to be ionized. This means that the hydrogen is monatomic and that some of the atoms have shed an electron. It means that there are free electrons and free protons being jostled around at the Sun's surface, because the hydrogen atom is nothing other than a proton with a satellite electron and ionization means their separation. Were it not for the effect of gravity, the deployment of charge in the resulting body of stellar plasma would find equilibrium with virtually zero electric potential appropriate to an electrically neutral charge distribution. However, we know that gravitation acts between two bodies with a force proportional to the product of their masses. Therefore the mutual gravitational acceleration between protons, which have 1836 times the mass of electrons, must distort this charge distribution.
It means that the Sun must have a positive electric potential, just as it has a negative gravitational potential. Matter, when free to move under the influence of gravitational forces, seeks a state of lower potential, but in the stellar plasma that means a commensurate increase in electric potential. How does Nature cope with this dilemma? The answer can be worked out as a simple mathematical exercise which any high school physics student should be able to perform. Nature allows gravity to bring just enough hydrogen atoms into close ionizing encounters to free enough protons to account for a positive electric charge density equal to the mass density of the hydrogen gas multiplied by the square root of G, the constant of gravitation. [The detailed analysis is in Appendix I of my book 'Physics Unified' ISBN 0 85056 009 8].
In other words, the maximum mass density of a hydrogen star can be little different from that calculable from compacting rigid spheres, each having the mass of the hydrogen atom and the radius of the electron's K-shell orbit around its proton nucleus. Furthermore, there will be a distributed uniform positive charge density throughout the body of the star, neutralized by an enclosing ionospheric surface sphere formed by an electron gas.
The high school physics student who has been introduced to Bohr's theory of the hydrogen atom will know that the relevant radius is 5.29 billionths of centimetre. Standard physics data sources show that it takes 0.67x1024 hydrogen atoms to sum to one gram. From these data, that physics student, if reasonably astute is estimating how small spheres pack together to fill a space cube, can work out the mass density of that star.
The cosmological question this poses is "How does that theoretical mass density compare with the known mean mass density, 1.41 gm/cc of the Sun?" When you work out the answer to this question you will see reason for asking why what has just been described is not mentioned in textbooks on astronomy. You may further wonder what governs the temperature of the Sun and you should be puzzled by the following questions.
"If the Sun has a uniform mass density throughout its whole body, owing to the perfect balance of gravitational pressure and electrostatic repulsion, then its pressure is uniform throughout its whole body as contained within the bounding ionospherical electron shell. Is this statement true or false?" "If true, then is it not likely that the interior of the Sun has a temperature little different from that at its surface?" "In that case, how can we ever even begin to believe that the energy source which sustains the sun is of nuclear origin, unless we accept the possibility of cold fusion?" "If the statement is untrue then where is the flaw in the argument developed above?" "Ought we not to see this question discussed in textbooks on astrophysics?"
I'm not kidding about the bagel universe btw😉
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/december8/lindeadv-1208.html
You've heard about the Big Bang—but what about the Big Bagel? Physics Professor Andrei Linde will give cosmology buffs something new to chew on at a free public lecture about the origin and the fate of the universe. Linde's lecture, scheduled for Dec. 15 at 8 p.m. in Kresge Auditorium, is part of the 22nd Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, to be held on campus Dec. 13-17 but initially launched from the Lone Star State. About 500 physicists will attend to discuss cosmology, gravitation, particle physics and more.
"There are three standard textbook models of the universe—a homogeneous closed universe, looking like a sphere of a finite size, an infinite open universe and an infinite flat universe," Linde wrote in an e-mail. "I will argue, however, that it is rather unlikely that our universe is described by any of these models. The reason is that typically it requires a lot of energy to create a homogeneous, spherically symmetric universe, but it is relatively easy to create a topologically nontrivial universe looking like a bagel. In a certain sense, one can say that spheres are expensive but bagels are free."
Originally posted by Mangy Moooseeat more chicken??
In San Joaquin Valley, Cows Pass Cars as Polluters
Air district says bovines on the region's booming dairy farms are
the biggest single source of smog-forming gases. The industry
takes issue.
By Miguel Bustillo
LA Times Staff Writer
August 2, 2005
Got smog?
California's San Joaquin Valley for some time has had the dirtiest air
in th ...[text shortened]... ated in the past, but
times are changing. Our lungs will not become an agricultural
subsidy."
Originally posted by RingtailhunterBecause coffee starts out warm, and beer starts out cold. *shrugs* They both get closer to the temperature of their environment the longer they are exposed to it. But coffee usually starts out hotter than its environment, and beer starts out colder. ???😉
I am still trying to figure out why coffee gits cold, and beer gits warm?
Any insight would be most helpfull.
RTh
Originally posted by ark13I can see you also ruining Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first" bit in a matter of seconds...
Because coffee starts out warm, and beer starts out cold. *shrugs* They both get closer to the temperature of their environment the longer they are exposed to it. But coffee usually starts out hotter than its environment, and beer starts out colder. ???😉
ark13: No! The guy playing first's name IS WHO!!!!
P-
Originally posted by ark13Ya but coffee will feel cool on the lips when sipped. Beer feels warm. I wonder if it has something to do with better heat transfer or something?
Because coffee starts out warm, and beer starts out cold. *shrugs* They both get closer to the temperature of their environment the longer they are exposed to it. But coffee usually starts out hotter than its environment, and beer starts out colder. ???😉
Originally posted by RingtailhunterI think that's because the beer is usually cold when it first touches your lips. When it warms up on your lips because of your body temperature, you feel as if your lips are getting warmer because the beer isn't cooling them as much. They're still colder than when you took the first sip of beer, but it's the difference you notice.
Ya but coffee will feel cool on the lips when sipped. Beer feels warm. I wonder if it has something to do with better heat transfer or something?
Originally posted by PhlabibitGoddman! You guys are idiots! If one of you'd just explained things so that the other would understand, you'd have 5, less than precious, minutes of your useless lives back!😛
I can see you also ruining Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first" bit in a matter of seconds...
ark13: No! The guy playing first's name IS WHO!!!!
P-
Taking things literally on purpose is fun, because it ruins everyone else's fun. That's just the kind of guy I am. I suck enjoyment from other's misery.
Hey, you know what else is fun? Adding, "If you know what I mean" to the end of your sentences. It completely changes the meaning of almost everything. And the things it doesn't change the meaning of is simply because it doesn't make sense. But you can still do it to those as well, because instead of people telling you that it doesn't make any sense, they'll just think it's a sexual inuendo that they don't get, and will be too embarrassed to mention it.