An estimate doesn't equate with just guesswork. They can estimate to within a few percent; that's far better than you and I can do and that certainly isn't just gueswork.
The estimate of the ...[text shortened]... now what you don't. [/quote]
Why not? Unsurprisingly, scientist do know many things we don't.
You have no idea how much iron is in the sun. Nobody does. There is too much nuclear activity for anybody to know for sure. It is guesswork and that is a fact you cannot admit because you resent me and are letting your ego get in the way of logic and even common sense.
Just try to [prove your false assertion so we can all get a good laugh from it.
Originally posted by @fabianfnas I will take you seriously when you try to learn. When you ranting about guesswork then I don't think you really want to learn. Just ask the right questions and we will happily provide the right answers.
But if you, despite the fact you are not interesting of answers because you know it all in your twisted ways, ask questions in an insulting ways, then ...[text shortened]... u're wrong.
[b]"Could it be more than just hydrogen fusing into helium?" Yes, of course.[/b]
Fine. Prove those 4 assertions you made. The last 2 contradict each other so I know you are full of it, but go ahead and make a fool of yourself. Try to prove me wrong if you want to risk the embarrassment.
Funny how all the GW alarmists are falsely claiming I am wrong when it is common sense you can't measure the amount of elements in the sun. It is impossible with today's technology.
Originally posted by @soothfast Fusion of iron and heavier elements absorbs energy, rather than releases it. A star therefore cannot live on iron: it is the release of energy through atomic fusion processes that keeps a star from collapsing under the force of gravity.
Elements heavier than iron are produced in the brief moment during a supernova event when a star at least a few t ...[text shortened]... s the sun's rotation and tilt approximately to the same degree as the sun's equator. Etc, etc...
Nothing you said contradicts any of my statements here on this thread.
Sonhouse posted this link on the expanding space thread. It suggests supernova are not the only process that creates the heavy elements. Neutron stars could be a source as well.
Originally posted by @metal-brain I know. Why are there so many morons on this science forum that assume I know less than they do?
You can't analyze fusion in the sun. Like you said, we can't take samples. Once again, I mentioned spectra in my OP. You don't read well either, do you?
Actually, that will not be true for much longer since there is a probe being built with 4 inch thick insulation that will allow the probe to get close enough to directly sample the corona even though subjected to heat on the order of a million watts per square meter. ( if it was on the 'surface' of the sun, it would be subjected to 57 MEGAWATTS of heat per square meter. It won't have to be subjected to that though and we don't have anything on the horizon that could ever live long enough even to take a quick dip in the sun at that heat load.
The Parker Solar Probe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Solar_Probe
To be launched in 2018, after a bunch of trips around Venus to pick up velocity, it will be the fastest man made object ever to fly in space, clipping past the sun at closest approach of around 120 miles per second, 3 times faster than anything else flown to date, arriving at the sun around year 2024.
Originally posted by @sonhouse Actually, that will not be true for much longer since there is a probe being built with 4 inch thick insulation that will allow the probe to get close enough to directly sample the corona even though subjected to heat on the order of a million watts per square meter. ( if it was on the 'surface' of the sun, it would be subjected to 57 MEGAWATTS of heat per ...[text shortened]... r second, 3 times faster than anything else flown to date, arriving at the sun around year 2024.
Nope. Not true.
Sampling the corona only tells what is in the corona, not the core. You can assume all elements from the core make it to the corona but that is merely an assumption. It could be the case but it may not be the case.
It is still impossible to prove, even with the Parker Solar Probe.
Originally posted by @metal-brain Nothing you said contradicts any of my statements here on this thread.
Sonhouse posted this link on the expanding space thread. It suggests supernova are not the only process that creates the heavy elements. Neutron stars could be a source as well.
You mused at the outset whether other elements besides hydrogen are fusing in the sun's core, so I thought that I might point out that fusion of elements from iron on up is an energy drain.
There is probably a little hydrogen-helium fusion going on in the sun, producing lithium. I would also speculate that the odd heavier-element fusion event occurs in the sun now and then just based on the staggering array of nonzero probabilities involved in the associated statistical mechanics. Two colliding lithium nuclei won't normally fuse at the temperatures and pressures found in the sun's core, but what's called "temperature" is just a mean kinetic energy figure. If the Li nuclei are both moving far faster than the average and happen to hit head on, I imagine a fusion could occur. Hell, those lithium atoms in your own medicine cabinet could be fusing right under your nose!
Originally posted by @metal-brain Sampling the corona only tells what is in the corona, not the core.
Totally False.
We know the Sun interior is highly turbulent with constant mixing thus we know the corona must have the same proportions (with extremely little measurable deviation if any) of each element as the core.
You really should bother to STUDY and LEARN SOMETHING about a science before forming ANY opinion on it let alone commenting about it else you wouldn't know what you are talking about and, as here, it will show.
Originally posted by @humy Totally False.
We know the Sun interior is highly turbulent with constant mixing thus we know the corona must have the same proportions (with extremely little measurable deviation if any) of each element as the core.
You really should bother to STUDY and LEARN SOMETHING about a science before forming ANY opinion on it let alone commenting about it else you wouldn't know what you are talking about and, as here, it will show.
Prove it, since you are being so arrogant.
What is your source of information?
Originally posted by @humy Science and people smarter than us that have spend years researching it and have thus come to know many things about it we don't. Start here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Just admit you have no proof of your assertion. Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information that is unacceptable and even if it wasn't it doesn't say what you claim. Even if you were able to prove what you claim it would contradict PBS' Nova. They got their info from the same scientists you claim are right about everything they say.
Originally posted by @metal-brain Just admit you have no proof of your assertion. Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information that is unacceptable and even if it wasn't it doesn't say what you claim. Even if you were able to prove what you claim it would contradict PBS' Nova. They got their info from the same scientists you claim are right about everything they say.
http://www.p ...[text shortened]... america.html
I am growing tired of you constantly lying and hoping nobody but me will notice.
Just admit you have no proof of your assertion.
The proof isn't sources from me but science and I never claimed the contrary.
Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information
you always say that when it says anything that contradicts your opinion (which, unsurprisingly given you delusional arrogance behind your opinions, is extremely often) and yet you hypocritically use wiki whenever you think (usually erroneously) it supports your opinion. Wiki is reliable enough for information on most science info as that is generally edited by the scientists themselves. If something is edited in that the scientists reading it notice is clearly wrong, the scientists would usually re-edit it to correct that error; -that's just the way wiki works and why it is usually reliable enough most of the time. Thus if wiki says something is true (in science), the rational default assumption should always be it is almost certainly is until if or when you have sufficient reason to believe the contrary.
Even if you were able to prove what you claim it would contradict PBS' Nova ...
The proof isn't sources from me but science and I never claimed the contrary.
Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information
you always say that when it says anything that contradicts your opinion and yet you hypocritically use wiki whenever you think (often ...[text shortened]... va/space/eclipse-over-america.html [/quote]
how "contradict PBS' Nova"? You make no sense.
I saw nothing in the wikipedia link to confirm your claim. Can't you find any other source of info? If you can't you have failed.
The Nova program states that only iron plasma was detected in the corona from spectrum color analysis. You should watch it instead of pretending you did. You might learn something and it might help you avoid making a fool of yourself.
Originally posted by @metal-brain I saw nothing in the wikipedia link to confirm your claim.
that is purely because you are far too stupid to understand the science even though it is explained there in a language most people have no difficulty understanding.
Can't you find any other source of info?
I won't waste my time; if you are too stupid to understand info in one link then you are too stupid to understand info in any link.
Originally posted by @humy Totally False.
We know the Sun interior is highly turbulent with constant mixing thus we know the corona must have the same proportions (with extremely little measurable deviation if any) of each element as the core.
I don't think it's known whether the sun's chemical composition is approximately uniform. Just the abstract of the following paper seems to suggest that astronomers are open to the possibility that the metallicity of the sun's core is significantly different from that of the photosphere:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0605647.pdf
EDIT: Actually it seems widely accepted that the helium concentration is significantly greater at the sun's core than in the higher layers, but I'm focusing on the metallicity question. Astronomers call all elements heavier than H and He "metals."
Another Edit: a newer paper is https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06331.pdf. On page 7 there's a discussion of the "Puzzle on solar abundances," with hypothesized metallicity concentrations as a function of depth in a figure on page 8. Bottom of page 12: "Central values are reported using two different inputs for solar core metallicity."
Originally posted by @soothfast I don't think it's known whether the sun's chemical composition is approximately uniform. Just the abstract of the following paper seems to suggest that astronomers are open to the possibility that the metallicity of the sun's core is significantly different from that of the photosphere:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0605647.pdf
EDIT: Actually it ...[text shortened]... f page 12: "Central values are reported using two different inputs for solar core metallicity."
The sun has a convective layer, where one would expect mixing, and a layer where heat is transferred radiatively below the convective layer, inside that is the core. One might expect lighter elements to tend to be pushed outwards more in the radiative layer, so heavier elements might be more abundant at the bottom of the radiative layer. So it's plausible to me that the composition of the core could have a higher metallicity than the surface.
Iron in the sun
21 Sep '17 19:06
Back to Top