From Spaceweather.com
The sun is showing signs of life. There are no fewer than five active regions on the sun’s surface, shown here in an extreme ultraviolet photo taken this morning by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO):
Each circle contains a sunspot or proto-sunspot belonging to new Solar Cycle 24. After two years of record-low sunspot numbers and many month-long stretches of utter quiet, this is a notable outbreak. Whether it heralds a genuine trend or merely marks a temporary, statistical uptick in activity remains to be seen.
The “sun is a clothed neutron star” is surely one of those embarrassing paranoias that should be gently escorted off this site along with ideas such as that 911 was a CIA plot, aliens landed in area 51 and Barak Obama is a nazi etc. Many such posts are just warmists in drag trying to discredit the site. How “on earth” could life survive for 4 billion years close to such a variable object – where is the huge gravity, magnetic jet, milli-second rotational frequency, x-ray bursts etc. that would characterise such an object?
Oliver K. Manuel (15:42:43) :
Could I invite him to address the experimental data published in: “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”
Isotopes of Kr, Te, and Xe that were made by slow neutron capture (the s-process) were enriched in silicon carbide (SiC) inclusions of a meteorite.
Isotopes of Kr, Te, and Xe that were made by rapid neutron capture (the r-process) were enriched in diamond (C) inclusions of the same meteorite, together with all of its primordial He.
[“Isotopic abundance anomalies and the early solar system”
All material heaver than Helium was produced by nucleosynthesis [mainly in supernovae], so there is no doubt [and you don’t need to waste our time on that] that supernovae were involved. But it does not follow from that the supernova was within the solar system or the sun. You have not presented ANY evidence or explanation [try to explain it here instead of referring to obscure papers]. A good test of either your understanding of an idea and/or the viability of it, is that you can in a single paragraph explain [not just state] the basic physics. So, now is your chance.
Let me throw in a request for you to explain the presence of Deuterium in the solar system.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (16:14:22) :
“1. All material heaver than Helium was produced by nucleosynthesis [mainly in supernovae], . . .
2. But it does not follow from that the supernova was within the solar system or the sun.
3. A good test of either your understanding of an idea and/or the viability of it, is that you can in a single paragraph explain [not just state] the basic physics. So, now is your chance.”
– – – – – – – – – –
3. Leif used no paragraphs – no, not even a single word – to address years of precise experimental data published in Nature 277 (1979) 615-620
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277615a0.html
Clever debate technique; very poor science.
2. Of course the supernova was in the solar system. The enrichment of lightweight isotopes MEASURED in the solar wind, the enrichment of lightweight s-products MEASURED in the solar photosphere, and the chemical composition MEASURED for meteorites and planets show that the Sun, the rocky planet that Leif rides on, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same five elements from the deep interior of the supernova: Fe, O, Ni, Si, and S. The probability of this agreement being fortuitous is >0.0000000000000000000000000000001 [“Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios”, European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) 345-348] http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1 [“Solar abundance of the elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, 36th Lunar Science Conference (2005) 1033] http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/LunarAbstract.pdf
1. All Helium was trapped in meteorite inclusions (made mostly of carbon) together with isotopes of heavy elements that were made by the r-process. If a nearby supernova injected the excess r-products OBSERVED in Kr, Te, Xe, Ba, Nd and Sm, the same supernova would also have to be the source of all Helium in the solar system.
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
When isotope data from the 1996 Galileo probe into Jupiter were finally released in 1998, the MEASUREMENTS showed that the Helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter also contains excess Xe-136 from the r-process [“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998) A97, abstract 5011 (1998)].
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
Hundreds of measurements since 1960 have falsified the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun. The data have been manipulated like global temperature data.
Climategate is but the tip of a very dirty iceberg!
Still out of public view is NASA-gate: Hiding isotope data from the 1996 Galileo probe of Jupiter that would have confirmed the 1983 paper showing that the Sun is a ball of iron [“Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209–222].
Purdue University has the C-SPAN tape recording of NASA Administrator Dr. Daniel S. Goldin ordering the release of the critical isotope data on January 7, 1998 at the end of his address on the “Future of Space Science” at the AAS meeting in Washington DC (C-SPAN Tape 98-01-07-22-1).
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
REPLY: I’ve reviewed your data and links, and I don’t see much there that is convincing. Particularly unconvincing is the claim about meteorites having that same composition as the sun, and that is what makes the sun’s process “iron based”. Well, it is obvious that the sun contains most of the mass of the solar system, which evolved from the primordial mix of the original gas and dust accretion, thus it more closely approximates the accretion composition than does any other component of the solar system. asteroids, and other strange and poorly understood facets of our solar system. To say that because meteorites match the sun’s composition and therefore the sun’s process are not hydrogen fusion based is an exponential leap of logic. It makes about as much sense as saying because you find traces of iron in automobile exhaust (like you do in the solar wind) that the engine that drives the car is somehow iron combustion process based rather than hydrocarbon combustion based. Like with an automobile engine, I have no doubt the sun has lots of iron in it, and many other elements, as would be expected in a second generation star, which is why see traces of iron and other heavy elements in solar wind. But I have no reason to believe it points to iron as the process driver. The iron core wobble theory based on planetary motion fails on simple Newtonian math related to mass of the planets orbiting at distance. There’s just not enough mass out there to make much of a difference.
The arguments just don’t pass the Occam’s Razor test, IMHO. Sure we can argue these ad infinitum, and many do.
I will say that I’m really not interested in discussing the iron sun theory here on WUWT, nor the electric universe theory, nor barycentrism. The reason is that all of these discussions turn nasty. WUWT has enough fights breaking out over climate issues, we don’t need this one to add to the foray. I grow tired of moderating them, and frankly I just don’t need the extra work.
So please take it elsewhere rather than trying to turn every and any solar discussion here into one of these other topics. If you can’t, don’t complain if shut it down. – Anthony Watts
Anthony
So basically we have the Babcock-Leighton theory of all things solar and nothing else. With its extremely poor record and no understanding of the current grand minimum you are going out on a limb.
Your censorship may well be termed AnthonyGate in the future.
[Reply: There is no “censorship” of opposing views here. Certain topics may be off limits for the reasons given. ~dbstealey, moderator]
REPLY2: Geoff, you have your own blog on these subjects at http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/ which is linked to your name in every post you make here.
Explain why you can’t discuss these in detail there, but instead have to inject the topics of your own blog into almost every discussion pertaining to the sun here at WUWT. I’m really not fond of your accusations. I don’t tell you how to run your own blog, or what you should/should not discuss there, so please stop telling me what I can and cannot do on my own, and in the process suggesting that because I want to run my own blog in my own way, which is my right, that it is “censorship”.
I don’t want to discuss here the topics you raise, simple as that. I also don’t want to discuss Nazism, the 9/11 truther movement, and chemtrails – though many have tried. Will deferring these also be labeled “AnthonyGate”? One can only hope.
Anthony
Anthony
The iron core wobble theory based on planetary motion fails on simple Newtonian math related to mass of the planets orbiting at distance. There’s just not enough mass out there to make much of a difference.
Even Leif will tell you that you are wrong on this one, its not about tides…you are not qualified to make judgment in this area. Based on JPL we know the Sun’s path around the Solar System Centre is greatly manipulated by the gravity of the solar system planets. The Suns velocity around the Centre increases by 100% every 2nd solar cycle, this is indisputable.
The Suns path currently is very different to its “normal” path, this altered path also occurred during SC20 and before that during the Dalton. Before that it occurred during the Maunder, Sporer and Wolf. It didnt happen in between these events.
You are making a gross error by not allowing debate on this issue.
Thanks Anthony, for allowing our data and links to be posted and for taking the time to review them yourself.
You have performed a great service for all mankind in exposing Climategate, the tip of a very dirty iceberg.
I will honor your decision to keep this site focused on the deceit of global warming.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Geoff Sharp (04:57:55) :
Anthony,
you are not qualified to make judgment in this area.
Neither are you, being seeming ignorant of celestial mechanics and basic physics.
Leif Svalgaard (14:52:04) :
Neither are you, being seeming ignorant of celestial mechanics and basic physics.
Meteorology is Anthony’s expertise, at least what drives the Sun is a research area for me. My statement on the Suns orbit path and velocity that is a direct result of planetary gravity cannot be faulted.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/carsten.jpg
There is only one person initiating the “nasty” comments, which would not be returned if the ad homs didn’t start in the first place. While I value your scientific comment on solar measurements, it was certainly more civil around here during your hiatus.
Anthony, Geoff, and Leif,
The Sun orbits the center-of-mass of the solar system, and the Sun’s wobble is linked with solar cycles and with Earth’s cycles of warming and cooling [ J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006) 280-282].
To visualize this, see the figure, “Motion of Barycenter of solar system relative to the Sun” on this Wikipedia web site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Geoff Sharp (18:16:49) :
My statement on the Suns orbit path and velocity that is a direct result of planetary gravity cannot be faulted.
That is not the issue. The Sun and the planets are in free fall in their combined gravitational field and thus feel no forces and angular momentum cannot be transferred without a couple, so the Sun’s velocity has no bearing on solar activity. This has been explained to you repeatedly. I fail to see how pointing out that your view lacks scientific basis can be ad-hom and ‘nasty’. This could well be a failing of mine, but so be it.
Oliver K. Manuel (19:04:04) :
J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling,”
In the paper Shirley shows that there is no physical basis for the various correlations. He points out that: “The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem (yet another example is found in Section 2 of De Jager & Versteegh 2005). The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type. The principal stumbling block for dynamical spin–orbit coupling hypotheses evidently lies in our identification of the solar motion as a state of free fall. To be successful, future solar spin–orbit coupling hypotheses must address and overcome this obstacle.”
Leif,
Do you agree that the Sun moves around the center-of-mass of the solar system?
Do you agree that a compact, energetic solar core that is:
a.) ~1,000,000,000,000,000 more dense than ordinary matter.
b.) Highly energized by repulsive forces between neutrons.
c.) Highly magnetic with a field of ~1,000,000,000,000 Gauss
Would not necessarily stay centered and might wobble around inside the Sun to produce solar cycles of deep-seated magnetic fields protruding through the photosphere as sunspots?
Thanks, Anthony, for letting Leif respond here.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Future spin orbit coupling exercises have already been undertaken since Shirley decided to play the NASA game.
My work with Gerry shows missing angular momentum between the Sun & Planets which could result in a trade off of AM.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79
The evidence continues to build, this is no time to stymie debate.
REPLY: Feel free to discuss it all you want on your own blog at http://landscheidt.wordpress.com or at http://landscheidt.info
Since my preferences continue to be ignored on this issue, (see above replies) I’m closing this thread. – Anthony