How does the Sun hold together?

On a more serious note particle accelerators are known to have created anti-matter. *snort* What's that smell?? Oh Shyt it's the TGC!!

Dark Matter is not antimatter. Again, don't talk about things you don't understand.

I see that you haven't read my original post (or the name of this topic  ). Spectroscopy has shown that the Sun is made mostly of Hydrogen and Helium. Since hydrogen combines to form H₂, and Helium is a noble gas (this neutralizing their charges), the Sun can't be held together by electromagnetic forces. Hence the point of this thread was to ask FEers how they think the Sun is held together? The composition of the Sun is a well-known fact. So instead of inventing your own facts (i.e. the Sun is composed of quarks and anti-quarks) use the facts that are already accepted by 99.9999% of the population to formulate a sensical answer.

Spectroscopy can't show us what's inside the Sun, or RET would predict that we would see the energy emitted by nuclear fusion (and by the way, the hydrogen in the core of the Sun is not bound into H₂ molecules). All spectroscopy shows us is what's on the surface, and I have already stated that:

we would expect there to be a gaseous atomic coating of light elements around the outside, held in place by gravitation, which absorb and re-emit the light before we see it.

Now, do you have anything to say which is relevant to my last post? In particular, how does spectroscopy prove that the Sun generates power using nuclear fusion and is held together by gravitation?

So you don't actually have a mechanism for heat generation.
Your gaseous atomic coating would rapidly disperse and would need to be completely opaque. Considering the FE Sun is 32miles wide, it's ludicrous to suggest any coating at all could be opaque. Also ignoring x-ray imaging of the Sun. Sun spots, close up of solar cells

So you don't actually have a mechanism for heat generation.

Yes I do. Quark + antiquark = energy.

Your gaseous atomic coating would rapidly disperse and would need to be completely opaque.

Why would it disperse? And why would it need to be opaque?

Considering the FE Sun is 32miles wide, it's ludicrous to suggest any coating at all could be opaque. Also ignoring x-ray imaging of the Sun. Sun spots, close up of solar cells

Sunspots are pieces of the shadow object that have been torn off by tidal forces from the Sun and are orbiting it at close range. I don't see any reason why solar cells could not exist in this model.

Ok, you don't have any evidence for your heat generation mechanism. I don't believe quarks can exist outside nucleons. If you have evidence otherwise please let us know.
Opacity would be required in order for the spectral lines to match.
You mean that shadow object that isn't 100% opaque but appears so on the Sun's surface? You don't see a problem with the Sun swallowing pieces of the shadow object?
Is this an official flat earth position or just the most recent one to pop into your head?

As a side note RS, how is your physics course going? Have you managed to convince any of your lecturers of the errors of their ways? Discovered any evidence for your new laws of physics in the lab? Proved the existing laws wrong? Are you still enrolled?

Ok, you don't have any evidence for your heat generation mechanism. I don't believe quarks can exist outside nucleons. If you have evidence otherwise please let us know.
Opacity would be required in order for the spectral lines to match.

No, the Sun's spectrum contains absorption lines, not emission lines. The surrounding material would not need to be opaque.

You mean that shadow object that isn't 100% opaque but appears so on the Sun's surface? You don't see a problem with the Sun swallowing pieces of the shadow object?
Is this an official flat earth position or just the most recent one to pop into your head?

Why wouldn't the shadow object be 100% opaque?

As a side note RS, how is your physics course going? Have you managed to convince any of your lecturers of the errors of their ways? Discovered any evidence for your new laws of physics in the lab? Proved the existing laws wrong? Are you still enrolled?

1. Fine, thanks. Got an exam next week.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Yes.

Opacity is a problem with <<32miles of atomic gas when we have hundreds of kilometers molecular gas and dust between us and the sun and we can see it just fine.

The SO causes lunar phases and lunar eclipses. Lunar phases have a totally opaque SO and lunar eclipses have a partially opaque SO. Sunspots are totally opaque.

Got any info on quarks existing outside nucleons or as a mode of heat generation?

The SO causes lunar phases and lunar eclipses. Lunar phases have a totally opaque SO and lunar eclipses have a partially opaque SO. Sunspots are totally opaque.

The shadow object does not cause lunar phases, only eclipses. I would say that the shadow object is actually fully opaque, and the light we see reflected off the moon during an eclipse originates on Earth - for lunar eclipses will always be visible from some part of Earth that is experiencing night, and we can expect any built up areas to be lit up at this time.

Got any info on quarks existing outside nucleons or as a mode of heat generation?

Quarks have been observed outside of nucleons many times. As far as heat generation goes, I think it was Einstein who told us that E=mc².

FAQ states SO causing phase  and eclipses.

Detection of created quarks. Quarks don't occur naturally. If your sun was composed of quarks the union would be rapid and total. E=MC2 does not describe a mechanism of heat generation. Please link any supporting evidence or please explain how you arrived at your chosen mechanism.

But I am talking of a system which is fundamentally made up of roughly equal numbers of quarks and antiquarks, with no leptons thrown into the mix. Just free quarks and antiquarks, held together by the strong force.

This one is very amusing. Of course, you know how to keep all those quarks and antiquarks from touching all at once, making a supernova look like candlelight. You could share your knowledge with someone, Maybe in the inside of the Sun there is one of these:



For those who do not follow the Star Trek series, this is a matter-antimatter reactor.

Even you could have seen that I was talking about anti-matter the whole time, and my 1 reference to dark matter was a simple absent-minded typing mistake

It is my view that the Sun is made up of quarks and antiquarks in a high energy state, and is thereby held together by the strong force.

So, you're ignoring all that spectroscopy stuff that suggests the involvement of electrons? And surely any matter-antimatter reaction would exhaust itself in no time. Can somebody with more knowledge of particle physics than me please work out how much energy would be given out by a quark-antiquark reaction. Are we talking up, down, strange, charm, top or bottom quarks here, anyway?

Quarks have been observed outside of nucleons many times. As far as heat generation goes, I think it was Einstein who told us that E=mc².

BULLSHIT ALERT! BULLSHIT ALERT!

As far as I am aware, free quarks have never been observed, merely hypothesized. Show me any experiment where quarks are not part of a hadron.

So, you're ignoring all that spectroscopy stuff that suggests the involvement of electrons?

No.

Are we talking up, down, strange, charm, top or bottom quarks here, anyway?

Probably a combination of all six.

BULLSHIT ALERT! BULLSHIT ALERT!

As far as I am aware, free quarks have never been observed, merely hypothesized. Show me any experiment where quarks are not part of a hadron.

I said they had been observed outside of nucleons many times. Nucleons, not hadrons.

Quote from: Redingold on June 19, 2009, 01:57:59 AM

BULLSHIT ALERT! BULLSHIT ALERT!

As far as I am aware, free quarks have never been observed, merely hypothesized. Show me any experiment where quarks are not part of a hadron.

I said they had been observed outside of nucleons many times. Nucleons, not hadrons.

Steve, are you referring to free range quarks or quarks that have been liberated by means of a particle accelerator?

Quote from: Robosteve on June 16, 2009, 11:13:25 PM

It is my view that the Sun is made up of quarks and antiquarks in a high energy state, and is thereby held together by the strong force.

So, you're ignoring all that spectroscopy stuff that suggests the involvement of electrons? And surely any matter-antimatter reaction would exhaust itself in no time. Can somebody with more knowledge of particle physics than me please work out how much energy would be given out by a quark-antiquark reaction. Are we talking up, down, strange, charm, top or bottom quarks here, anyway?

The quark-antiquark reaction is a lot more "efficient" than the hydrogen fusion of our Sun: all of the mass of the quark and the anti-quark instantly become energy, while the hydrogen fusion reaction is just 3% efficient.

But the worst problem with this idea is that the fusion between quarks and anti-quarks is far too effective to get the slow burn we see in the Sun: every hydrogen nucleus that is accelerated against others has just an infinitesimal chance to smash exactly against another nucleus, so the Sun does not just explode in an instant. By contrast, every anti-quark ever made by man has existed for just a few nanoseconds or so; in that time it comes close enough to matter to instantly self-destruct.

If a 50 kilometer sphere of 50% quarks and 50% anti-quarks were ever made, it would instantly convert into energy, destroying Earth. To even suggest the possibility of such a sphere you would at least have to explain how that sphere can keep two reservoirs, one of matter and one of anti-matter, separate and with a dosage system that mixes small quantities of both in a controlled manner.

Steve, are you referring to free range quarks or quarks that have been liberated by means of a particle accelerator?

I am referring to quarks in hadrons which are not nucleons.

The quark-antiquark reaction is a lot more "efficient" than the hydrogen fusion of our Sun: all of the mass of the quark and the anti-quark instantly become energy, while the hydrogen fusion reaction is just 3% efficient.

But the worst problem with this idea is that the fusion between quarks and anti-quarks is far too effective to get the slow burn we see in the Sun: every hydrogen nucleus that is accelerated against others has just an infinitesimal chance to smash exactly against another nucleus, so the Sun does not just explode in an instant. By contrast, every anti-quark ever made by man has existed for just a few nanoseconds or so; in that time it comes close enough to matter to instantly self-destruct.

If a 50 kilometer sphere of 50% quarks and 50% anti-quarks were ever made, it would instantly convert into energy, destroying Earth. To even suggest the possibility of such a sphere you would at least have to explain how that sphere can keep two reservoirs, one of matter and one of anti-matter, separate and with a dosage system that mixes small quantities of both in a controlled manner.

I feel that the strong force's repulsive nature at close range would be enough to keep the majority of the quarks and antiquarks separated. In particular, the mean distance between quarks would settle to the bottom of the potential well caused by said force (over small distances, the electromagnetic force becomes negligible, and over large distances the charges tend to cancel out), so if one quark got too close to another it would also be pulled back by the quarks in the opposite direction.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 06:25:22 AM

Steve, are you referring to free range quarks or quarks that have been liberated by means of a particle accelerator?

I am referring to quarks in hadrons which are not nucleons.

So you're talking about quarks that are in a bound state, correct?

So you're talking about quarks that are in a bound state, correct?

Yes. You claimed that quarks had never been observed outside of nucleons, I was simply correcting you.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 05:02:37 PM

So you're talking about quarks that are in a bound state, correct?

Yes. You claimed that quarks had never been observed outside of nucleons, I was simply correcting you.

I don't believe that I ever made that claim.  However, I might contend that quarks don't generally last more than a few nanoseconds in an unbound state.

I don't believe that I ever made that claim.  However, I might contend that quarks don't generally last more than a few nanoseconds in an unbound state.

Sorry, that was dyno who asked for information on quarks outside of nucleons. I was providing that information.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 05:33:18 PM

I don't believe that I ever made that claim.  However, I might contend that quarks don't generally last more than a few nanoseconds in an unbound state.

Sorry, that was dyno who asked for information on quarks outside of nucleons. I was providing that information.

No problem.  BTW, just to back track a bit:

Quote from: dyno on June 18, 2009, 04:46:48 AM

So you don't actually have a mechanism for heat generation.

Yes I do. Quark + antiquark = energy.

I did a bit of research and I think that you have that equation wrong.  As near as I can figure, Quark + anti-quark = Meson.

Any particle containing quarks is termed a Hadron, however quarks do not ever exist on their own but bound into quark-antiquark pairs or triplets by the strong force. This is known as quark confinement.

In a triplet there will be three quarks (q q q) or three antiquarks (qqq) but never a mixture, for example a proton consists of two up quarks and a down quark, these are called Baryons. In a pair there will always be one quark and one antiquark (q q )but never two quarks or two antiquarks, an example of this is the Pion, these are caled Mesons.

Do you know something that these folks don't?

Do you know something that these folks don't?

A meson is a quark and an antiquark bound together in a stable state; energy is released if a quark and an antiquark annihilate each other in a matter-antimatter reaction.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 07:06:58 PM

Do you know something that these folks don't?

A meson is a quark and an antiquark bound together in a stable state; energy is released if a quark and an antiquark annihilate each other in a matter-antimatter reaction.

Wouldn't quark-antiquark annihilations require quarks and antiquarks in an unbound state?  Has quark-antiquark (or any other matter-antimatter) annihilation ever been demonstrated to be a viable long term energy source under laboratory conditions?

Wouldn't quark-antiquark annihilations require quarks and antiquarks in an unbound state?  Has quark-antiquark (or any other matter-antimatter) annihilation ever been demonstrated to be a viable long term energy source under laboratory conditions?

Most of the time, when antiparticles are produced in a particle accelerator (with the exception of antineutrinos), they last a fraction of a second before they meet a particle and release energy. Thus it is logical to conclude that this process does indeed continue releasing energy until all the antimatter or matter is expended (whichever happens first).

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 07:33:18 PM

Wouldn't quark-antiquark annihilations require quarks and antiquarks in an unbound state?  Has quark-antiquark (or any other matter-antimatter) annihilation ever been demonstrated to be a viable long term energy source under laboratory conditions?

Most of the time, when antiparticles are produced in a particle accelerator (with the exception of antineutrinos), they last a fraction of a second before they meet a particle and release energy. Thus it is logical to conclude that this process does indeed continue releasing energy until all the antimatter or matter is expended (whichever happens first).

Have any of these reactions produced more energy than is required to initiate said reaction?  In other words, has it been demonstrated under laboratory conditions to be a viable source of energy?

Have any of these reactions produced more energy than is required to initiate said reaction?  In other words, has it been demonstrated under laboratory conditions to be a viable source of energy?

Yes, once the antimatter has been produced. The energy required to produce antimatter is not a factor in this equation because the Sun would already contain the antimatter it needs to produce the energy it does.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 08:05:36 PM

Have any of these reactions produced more energy than is required to initiate said reaction?  In other words, has it been demonstrated under laboratory conditions to be a viable source of energy?

Yes, once the antimatter has been produced.

But does the matter-antimatter reaction release more energy than is required to produce the antimatter in the first place?

The energy required to produce antimatter is not a factor in this equation because the Sun would already contain the antimatter it needs to produce the energy it does.

But wouldn't that require the quarks and antiquarks to exist in an unbound state for far longer than has ever been observed under laboratory conditions?

But does the matter-antimatter reaction release more energy than is required to produce the antimatter in the first place?

Irrelevant.

But wouldn't that require the quarks and antiquarks to exist in an unbound state for far longer than has ever been observed under laboratory conditions?

Yes.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 08:38:40 PM

But does the matter-antimatter reaction release more energy than is required to produce the antimatter in the first place?

Irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 08:38:40 PM

But wouldn't that require the quarks and antiquarks to exist in an unbound state for far longer than has ever been observed under laboratory conditions?

Yes.

If sustained hydrogen-hydrogen fusion has never been demonstrated to be a viable energy source in the lab, then why should we believe that sustained quark=antiquark annihilation is any more viable (let alone plausible) if it has never been demonstrated in the lab either?

Quote from: Robosteve on June 19, 2009, 09:01:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 08:38:40 PM

But does the matter-antimatter reaction release more energy than is required to produce the antimatter in the first place?

Irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 08:38:40 PM

But wouldn't that require the quarks and antiquarks to exist in an unbound state for far longer than has ever been observed under laboratory conditions?

Yes.

If sustained hydrogen-hydrogen fusion has never been demonstrated to be a viable energy source in the lab, then why should we believe that sustained quark=antiquark annihilation is any more viable (let alone plausible) if it has never been demonstrated in the lab either?

The problem with Robosteve's idea (it does not quite classify as hypothesis) is not that the reaction is hard to start, as the hydrogen fusion is, but the contrary: quarks and anti-quarks will annihilate each other just by contact, so his Sun model (if you can call it so) would self destruct in a matter of a small fraction of a second (and, by the way, would destroy Earth and all of FE's Cosmos).

By contrast, a hydrogen nucleus has to smash at a very high speed against another to start the fusion process. It is so hard to achieve that even inside the real Sun only a slow burn happens.

The only place where unbound quarks and anti-quarks coexist without annihilating each other is in Robosteve's head. Nobody has ever proposed a set of conditions where this is even remotely possible. The closest thing to it happened during the first fractions of a second of the universe according to the Big Bang theory, and all the anti-matter got annihilated in fractions of a second, and the resulting universe only has matter in a stable state. And not even then does somebody propose a stable object made of unbound quarks and anti-quarks.