Iron Sun

Sun with a major solar flare

Sun with a major solar flare

Original Image

An Iron Sun?

There are times that things make you think. Sometimes really hard. And at the end of the thinking, you still have no conclusions. Just more questions.

The “Iron Sun” theory puts me in that position.

I’m not ready to toss out the “Sun As I Know It”, but this paper by Oliver K. Manuel shows someone who has done some homework and has interesting different ideas about ‘Ol Sol.

The information from the title page:

Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor, Space and Nuclear Studies
University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401
Associate, Climate & Solar Science Institute
625 Broadway, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701

So we’ve got some credentials backing up this paper.

There is even a discussion of the thesis in Science Daily:

Manuel believes a supernova rocked our area of the Milky Way galaxy some five billion years ago, giving birth to all the heavenly bodies that populate the solar system. Analyses of meteorites reveal that all primordial helium is accompanied by “strange xenon,” he says, adding that both helium and strange xenon came from the outer layer of the supernova that created the solar system. Helium and strange xenon are also seen together in Jupiter.

Manuel has spent the better part of his 40-year scientific career trying to convince others of his hypothesis. Back in 1975, Manuel and another UMR researcher, Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu, first proposed that the solar system formed from the debris of a spinning star that exploded as a supernova. They based their claim on studies of meteorites and moon samples which showed traces of strange xenon.

Data from NASA’s Galileo probe of Jupiter’s helium-rich atmosphere in 1996 reveals traces of strange xenon gases — solid evidence against the conventional model of the solar system’s creation, Manuel says.

And that is one of the more compelling bits. The odd isotopes found laying about the solar system.

It’s not a particularly hard read, nor all that long (about 10 pages if you don’t count the references, of which there are about 3 1/2 pages.

The basic thesis is pretty simple. The sun is not a big ball of hydrogen with a bit of helium in it, but is a ball of material about like the rest of the solar system (including rocky and iron parts) and the hydrogen layer floats on top. A lot of what we see as energy from the sun is not from fusion (though a goodly chunk still is), but rather from neutron energy release as the neutrons find lower energy states, with a little bit more as some neutrons decay into hydrogen. The sun drives our climate more than anything else, and it is the planets stirring it around that causes it to cycle.

The idea is that the heavy stuff sinks to the center of the sun and the light stuff floats on top. Then the planetary gravity stirs the pot.

Some Thoughts

The first level of cross check that I do is to compare an assertion to what I know about normal processes and simple facts. A “sanity check”. Then I get into more details analysis. At the top level, things “fit”. (They also “fit” in the standard model, so don’t get too excited about a ‘fit’…)

We know that the solar system formed from the debris of a supernova, as we have elements here that can only be made that way. So why would the sun get only H and He? But we also know that the heavier a planet is, the more effectively it can hang on to light elements. Saturn and Jupiter are “gas giants” as a result while Mars, Mercury, Pluto (yes, it will always be a planet to me ;-) and even the Earth are “rocky”. The accepted thesis is that there is a stone / iron heart in Jupiter and Saturn if you dig deep enough. The article puts forward the idea that the sun formed formed when a supernova exploded leaving behind a neutron star core on which the rest condensed. So ashes of SOME supernova in the standard model, or ashes if ITSELF as a supernova…

So at that point I find it is becoming an argument about degree, not of kind. The sun DOES have iron in it (we can see it in the spectrum of the sun). The ‘hard bits’ are about how much, and is it compressed into a solid in the center of the sun. The center of the sun is incredibly dense with fantastic pressures applied. Perhaps even enough to squash the iron atoms together into a ball of neutrons. At that density, what is a solid is and interesting question in its own right.

At the end, I find myself thinking: Hmmm… I could see that working. But I could also see the standard model working.

There are assertions that the standard model ‘has issues’ that are not fully presented (hey, it’s only 10 pages, what do you suspect) and some of it is likely in the referenced pages. What is discussed is well supported. Toward the end, some jabs are taken at the IPCC. While I find these welcome, it also does not advance my understanding of the Iron Sun thesis. Perhaps that was not the major intent of the paper, though. At any rate, the paper is something that does make you think.

I’m still not sure where I stand on things, but I see nothing in the thesis that is obviously wrong. So it will go onto my ‘someday list’ of things to learn more about, once other things are done.

OK, enough of me, here are some sample bits:

2.3 The Puzzling Interior of the Sun

The average solar density does not falsify the analytical results shown in Figures 2 and 3. In fact, the probability is essentially zero (P < 2 x 10-33) [28] that the mass fractionation seen across isotopes in the solar wind would fortuitously identify the more abundant elements in meteorites [27] as the ones that are also more abundant in the Sun [24]. However, the average solar density and many other observations show that the internal structure of the Sun is indeed complicated. The Sun vibrates like a pulsar [29] and has rigid, iron-rich features beneath the photosphere [19]. G-waves from the solar core literally shake the planet Earth [22]. Densities within the Sun span many orders of magnitude. The average overall density of the Sun, which depends on both internal structure and composition, may be as meaningless as the average overall density in the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. More than that we cannot say, except that the internal structure of the Sun is unknown and appears to be very complex.

And I find my self agreeing that it must be very hard to see inside a sun…

So I suggest that you ‘give it a read’ even if all it does is make you think in a new way. It’s always nice to look at the box from outside every so often…

There are a couple of more interesting articles about The Iron Sun theory here:


Just barely posted and already an update… The URL from the comment by Oliver Manuel leads to a very interesting article. I’ve decided to add some of those bits here:

Vast Solar Eruption Shocks NASA and Raises Doubts on Sun Theory

Jan 3, 2011 John O’Sullivan

NASA reports an entire hemisphere of the sun has erupted. The U.S. space agency now admits the cataclysm puts existing solar theories in doubt.

We are forever being told that the sun is a vast gas ball of hydrogen and helium at the center of our solar system. But new evidence may help prove this isn’t the case after all, according to solar experts who say the sun has an iron core.

A stunned NASA admits, “Astronomers knew they had witnessed something big. It was so big, it may have shattered old ideas about solar activity.”

The vast global solar eruption covers ~10^9 km of the solar photosphere. The US space agency reports, “The whole solar hemisphere erupted simultaneously in an avalanche effect that had been triggered in the tiny solar core and propagated outwards” (NASA: Dec 13, 2010).


This unprecedented event is claimed to give support to an alternative theory long held by Professor Oliver K. Manuel, a Postdoctoral Fellow of the University of California, Berkeley.

Event believed to be a Self Organized Criticality

In a never seen before occurrence, an entire hemisphere of the sun erupted simultaneously in an avalanche effect triggered from inside the compact solar core and propagated outwards; scientists are describing the astonishing happening as like the sand pile effect in Self Organised Criticality.
Cliff Saunders, working for the Neutron-Repulsion Group, describes how our sun may now, in fact, be more like an atom rather than a huge gas ball. He explains, “In the atom, electrons occupy 99% of the volume and have less than 1% of the mass. In the Sun, the atmosphere and planets occupy 99% of the volume and may also have less than 1% of the mass.”

Evidence Proves Solar Theories May Need to be Re-written

Controversy about our understanding of the sun has been fomenting for years. In 1980, solar science researcher, Ralph E. Juergens lamented, “The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.”

The astrophysics establishment has long shunned the idea of the sun having any such iron core. But this momentous event is consistent with the theory that there is a tiny dense neutron core the size of a city powered by neutron repulsion. Professor Manuel believes there is a super-conducting iron-rich shell the size of a moon or small planet surrounding the neutron core.

Backing the theory is astrophysicist Carl A. Rouse, who calculated a tiny iron-rich solar core from helioseismology data, but he has also been ignored up until now.

There is more at the other end of the link. Well written piece that I’ve chopped little chunks out of, better if read directly and in full.

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Science Bits and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Iron Sun

  1. omanuel says:

    This news story would a good place to begin.

    John O’Sullivan, “Vast Solar Eruption Shocks NASA”

    I will respond to questions, if I’m not swamped.

    With kind regards.
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. Baa Humbug says:

    Professor Manuels passion is admirable.

    It would give me great pleasure to be still alive if/when the good professor is proved right.

    His ever politeness in the face of rude and deragotory commentors at various blogs speaks volumes.

    Good luck professor and keep the knowledge coming.

  3. John F. Hultquist says:

    Here is a link that says this:
    This means that the 3 main legs of the theory have all been discredited.

    Also, here is an exchange in the comments section between Fred Bortz and Oliver Manuel:

    Fred Bortz has a doctorate in Physics- see his “about” page.

    I’ll check back to see how the discussion goes.

  4. omanuel says:

    Thank you for your kindness, Baa Humbug!

    Science is about “truthing”, and knowing that you will never have the whole truth.

    I have enjoyed the journey since 1960.

    Here are a few of many sets of experimental data that are still widely ignored by consensus scientists:

  5. Ruhroh says:

    Glad to see this being covered at Cheifio’s “”Home for unpopular theories…”

    Probably WUWT will be a bit slow on this one…

  6. LGL says:

    On this page of the Solar dynamic Observatory,

    videos of the eruption are available.

  7. John F. Hultquist says:
  8. boballab says:


    Here is something else that might make you think:

    Newton’s Gravitational Constant (G) might not be constant:

    Published online 23 August 2010 | Nature 466, 1030 (2010) | doi:10.1038/4661030a
    G-whizzes disagree over gravity
    Recent measurements of gravitational constant increase uncertainty over accepted value.


    But the relentless honing of G may have hit a stumbling block. Two recent experiments are in striking disagreement with earlier findings, and the overall uncertainty in the value of the constant may be set to increase.

    Take a look at the graph and look at how much the "constant" has changed since 1973.

  9. Pascvaks says:

    Einstein was smart, but he was also lucky. Time will tell about Dr Manuel’s ideas, as it will about everything. One thing he has accomplished by his search has been to reinforce in a number of inquisitive minds the age old admonition: “Just because everyone says it’s so doesn’t make it so.” We once thought the Earth was flat, it ain’t. We once thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it ain’t. We once thought a lot of things were true that are no longer true. Yes! Einstein was smart, but he was also lucky to live when he did and know the people he knew.

  10. Malaga View says:

    Baa Humbug January 3, 2011 at 7:45 pm
    HEAR! HEAR! It would put a big smile on my face…

    Ruhroh January 3, 2011 at 8:19 pm
    It is always educational to read the Chiefio’s Reality Checks, thoughts and observations….

  11. Malaga View says:

    I am now waiting for the Galactic Gatekeeper to leaf through this posting and put us in our place regarding the sun… we shall see…

  12. David says:

    Professor Manuel, you provided some links. Some who disagree with you provide more recent studies. Is it possible to explain in layman terms how, why, the more recent papers do or do not contradict the older papers?

    Here are a few of many sets of experimental data that are still widely ignored by consensus scientists:

  13. I think all of you for your comments.

    If the top of Earth’s atmosphere emitted photons – like the Sun’s photosphere – blocking out vision of the clouds, water, and land below, what would outside observers think about planet Earth?

  14. E.M.Smith says:

    @John F. Hultquist:

    In comments in your second link I found this rather interesting video clip of the birth of a star, Cassiopeia A, and what it might imply about our sun. It includes a discussion of “strange xenon” (that they keep pronouncing zen-non but that I always thought was zee-non… but such is life with words you only read…)

    Oliver K. Manuel also had this link up:

    Click to access 1041.pdf

    it gives a ‘short form’ of the thesis.

    FWIW, one of the more compelling bits, for me, is the graph of the energy states of elements. There is a simple fact that the “curve of binding energy” (there’s a wonderful book by that title, too…) has a low spot at Iron. One would expect a large lump of iron to be the ‘left overs’ of stellar evolution. One would expect that a star formed 10 Billion years into a 15 Billion year history would have a load of supernova iron in it. It was one of those bothersome little ‘loose ends’ that the planets and meteors had iron cores, but the sun was somehow H and He, that I’d never followed up, yet this thesis explains.

    One of the other ‘loose ends’ was just “What happens to the iron as stellar mass gets high enough to compress it?” Basically, when does a neutron star form? And once you have one, why would it not be able to have a shell of lighter stuff around it? There always seemed to be a bit of ‘hand waving’ about that… While it ‘felt’ like there ought to be a layering of densities, I don’t have the needed math and physics to show it. i.e. it could well be that a neutron star is ‘just so’ dense that it will crush iron into neutrons but not collapse into a black hole. But it just ‘seems wrong’ that there would be that balance point. More “reasonable” would be a density where a large neutron lump forms, and can attract lighter materials. Layered from gasses at the top to iron at the bottom and, eventually, at a depth with sufficient pressures, crush those heavy elements into the neutron core. It just ‘seems more physical’. But lacking the tools to ‘compute it myself’ I’ve had to just accept the ‘standard model’ that said, basically, you get a neutron star in a supernova and it stays a neutron star. Stuff falling into it becomes neutrons.

    That always felt like either I’d got it a bit wrong (quite possible as the folks teaching it were not always the brightest bulbs… and often ‘simplified’ things, perhaps too much) or there was a whole list of ‘yes but’ that was missing.


    “Home for unpopular theories”… I like the sound of that!

    It often throws folks (from BOTH sides) that I’m quite comfortable entertaining unpopular and whacky theories, but at the same time have a high hurdle for accepting theories as truth. So I’m quite willing to look at CO2 as “causal” (and did) but found it very lacking. Just like I’m quite willing to look at “the planets did it” or even just “the sun isn’t what we think”. (Both of which look to have far more in their favor than CO2, that is now thought of as ‘mainstream’…).

    Basically, I am open to all ideas and accept that we’re pig ignorant about most of it and pretty stupid about what we do think we know, so best to inspect things closely….

    The history of science pretty much demonstrates that. The idea that “This time for sure!” we’ve got it right just doesn’t quite fit the history of the last dozen times science has said the same thing… then changed it’s mind…

    But back at “the Iron Sun”: I do find it tidies up some loose ends, and I can’t see any place where it is clearly wrong (or even has major ‘non-fit’ moments).


    Somewhere I have an interesting book about the constants of nature… I’ll have to dig it out and post some on it. Basically, it looks at most (if not all) the various key constants of nature and asks “what if this were different?”. It finds that life can only exist inside a particularly narrow range of values for those constants… then speculates a bit about ‘are the constants really constant?’…

    One of the potential ways out of some of the creation paradox problems is to have ‘variable constants’. No more nutty than ‘dark matter’ IMHO.

    @Malaga View:

    You caught me ;-) Yes, a lot of what I do is just that. A simple “reality check”. Things like asking: “If the curve of binding energy has a minima at iron, where’s the iron in the sun?” I’d asked that one a few decades back, but didn’t follow it any further. (Had 2 new kids ;-) I just went along with the assumption that either it was too young (that leaves the question of why the planets have iron and it “didn’t”…) or that the math on nuclear fusion required a bigger bang than our sun was providing so would stop at, oh, carbon or some such.

    But yes, I do a lot of those ‘reality checks’. Just can’t follow all of them to the end points.

    And what I find interesting about the Iron Sun thesis is that I don’t see any ‘reality checks’ where it fails, but at the same time some loose ends are made tidy…

  15. Chief,

    Words cannot convey my appreciation for your insight and comments.

    Communications are one of my many weaknesses.

    We teach students about the nature of light, yet continue to follow our instinctive belief that what we see is “real”; what we don’t see doesn’t exist!

    Since we actually live on an iron-rich ball of dirt inside the outer layer of the Sun (the heliosphere) and assume that the Sun is the layer “up there” that is emitting photons (the photosphere), I asked for help from members of the Neutron Repulsion Group in communicating this illusion.

    One member suggested this TV screen metaphor:

    “Once the set is switched on, the entertaining images seen are those created by emitted photons and, of course, they hide what is really inside the television set (and only of interest to electronics specialists).”

    Comments would be appreciated.

  16. Gene Zeien says:

    This hypothesis fits better with the Oort Cloud. Always baffled me a bit, that debris from a nova would be spherical around some random point far outside the gravitational influence of the exploding star. Since the core of the nova is no longer in sight, the standard hypothesis assumes the core left “us” behind, or perhaps propelled the debris forward. Either way, why the spherical shape of flotsam barely within the solar system’s gravitational grasp?

  17. Of course this theory follows the logic of the accretion process, where, as when in a beaker react two reactants, giving as a result a third body, which usually “precipitates” ( becomes “weighty”). The accretion process proceeds because of polarity and a discrete force called “gravity”, which, btw, it is local and restricted force, which has two limits: One The sin of 79 degrees=0.981627183, and the second: The cosine of 11 degrees=0.981627183; thus making evident that when accretion reaches a maximum limit, it no longer can hold matter into place and begins disintegrating (radiation). (Did you notice that both legs of a square triangle can change without changing the square angle, which withholds electricity and magnetism and keeps them at 90 degrees?
    Up to here, just beautiful. But it is the way down, the way of the law of falling, the way of death.
    However, there is another path to reach higher energies or higher emission: Life. Life transforms substances to higher energy levels and it succeeds in counteracting entropy: using the “trick” of reproducing itself.
    Click on my name for more.

  18. George says:

    Since the core of the nova is no longer in sight, the standard hypothesis assumes the core left “us” behind, or perhaps propelled the debris forward.

    I believe most think the Sun was formed in a different location from where we are now and we were flung out of the nursery by gravitational interaction with other members. Most stars form in pairs or more and those groupings tend to be unstable. Stars don’t normally form singularly.

  19. omanuel says:

    To David (Jan 4, @ 5:08 am):

    Example I: At the birth of the solar system, ALL primordial Helium was labelled with excess Xe-136 from the r-process of nucleosynthesis:

    It was first seen in 1975:

    It was confirmed in numerous analyses of diverse meteorites:

    a.) “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende
    meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)

    b.) “The enigma of helium and anomalous xenon,” Icarus 41, 312-315 (1980)

    c.) “Noble gas anomalies and synthesis of the chemical
    elements”, Meteoritics 15, 117-138 (1980)

    Data from the 1995 Galileo probe of Jupiter confirmed: ALL primordial Helium was labelled with excess Xe-136, even across astronomical distances:

    Example II: Neutron repulsion contributes to the rest mass of every nucleus with two or more nucleons:

    This was first reported in 2001:

    “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

    a.) Neutron repulsion was independently confirmed in 2003:

    “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).

    b.) Neutron repulsion energizes every neutron in the Sun’s core by 10-22 MeV

    “The standard solar model versus experimental observations”,
    Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Beyond Standard Model Physics – BEYOND 2002 (IOP, Bristol, editor: H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus) pp. 307-316 (2003).

    c.) This video summarizes evidence that neutron powers fission, the Sun, supernovae, and galactic centers.

    It is my impression that the above two experimental observations are ignored by consensus scientists.

    Please, David, provide a reference where “more recent papers” discuss these experimental data.

  20. omanuel says:

    George (Jan 4 @12:07 pm)

    Look at the debris of Supernova 1987A. The remnant core in in the center.

  21. omanuel says:

    Gene Zeien (Jan 4 @ 11:46 am)

    Thanks, Gene, for your comment. I agree.

    Iron is most abundant in the inner part of the “flotsam.”

    Hydrogen are other light elements (H, He, C and N) are more abundant in the inner part of the “flotsam.”

    That part of “flotsam” contains excess Xe-136 (enriched by a factor of ~2) from the r-process (rapid neutron capture).

    Hence the correlation of ALL primordial helium with excess Xe-136, in tiny inclusions of meteorites separated by microns, and in planets separated by astronomical units.

  22. omanuel says:

    Pascvaks (Jan 4 @ 4:03 am)

    Thank you for your kind comments.

    Coincidence (Providence? Fate?) played a key role in my life and career. I now suspect that “Cause and Effect” controls essentially everything (me too) except my attitude toward “what is.”.

    In 1983 we predicted that the Galileo Mission to Jupiter would find excess Xe-136 there [“Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)].

    The probe entered Jupiter in 1995, measured xenon isotopes, observed excess Xe-136, but I was unable to access the data, until . . .

    I happened to be in the audience on 7 Jan 1998 when the NASA Administrator, Dr. Daniel Goldin gave a speech on the “Future of Space Science” that was video-taped by C-SPAN [Future of Space Science, Item 98526-1-DVD, C-SPAN Archives].

    At the end of his speech, while still “on camera”, Dr. Goldin asked for questions. I responded.

    That is how I got xenon data from the Galileo probe and was able to report that “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion” [Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, abstract 5011 (1998)]

    Again, I thank you for your kind comments. You can order the C-SPAN DVD for yourself from C-SPAN Archives: 1-877-ONCSPAN

  23. omanuel says:

    Malaga View (Jan 4 @ 4:30 am)

    Thank you for your kindness and you comments about the Galactic Gatekeeper.

    Escape from the ego cage is the goal of life, a major battle for each of us. If I worry about the Gatekeeper, I may become more like him myself.

    I have been there, and I do not want to return.

    Hang in there!

  24. omanuel says:

    John F. Hultquist (Jan 3 @ 8:11 pm)

    If you know Dr. Fred Bortz, a very talented physicist and communicator, please ask him to join us.

    I would appreciate his input.

  25. kuhnkat says:


    while you are checking reality, have you seen any interesting papers or information on the actuality of neutron stars? This is something claimed to be not possible by some. The only confirmation is assumption about astronomical observations.

    My understanding was that repulsion should prevent it, yet, the mathematical theorists give us math and claim it is a fact.

  26. Gene Zeien says:

    One more minor point, the standard model of the solar system, where planets are formed by accretion does not explain well the liquid/molten form of all the planets in the early phase. Cold rocky meteors colliding in a vacuum would shed the heat from impact very quickly. Would they get welded together? If not, the next high-energy impact would dislodge the previously acquired meteor.

    The “Iron Sun” model implies the planets were molten chunks spewn out mostly intact. At what temperature, 1M Kelvin? Only the surface would be cooling, and an impacting meteor would just need to crack the “skin” to be absorbed.

  27. John F. Hultquist says:

    If you know Dr. Fred Bortz,…

    No, sorry, I do not know him. My comments above were only to alert E.M. to a couple of leads to the “iron sun” topic insofar as his original post indicated he intended to follow up on it. I can’t contribute at your level to the problem but I do read some of the material and understand there is a great deal of discussion about this issue.

    The following is unrelated: Pascvaks writes “We once thought the Earth was flat . . .

    This and other ‘not quite right’ statements muddy the discourse. NASA inventing TANG (saw that just yesterday, again), Teflon, and Velcro (NASA invented none of these); or Jonestown and Kool-Aid (it was Flavor Aid); and others.
    From this book:
    Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea (by Garwood)
    Such storybook accounts would be quaint, were they not untrue and, more importantly, widely believed.

    I’m not saying that someone, somewhere, did not or does not think Earth is flat. I’m saying only that almost as soon as someone seriously thought about this they soon realized the shape, if not the size, of Earth.

    At the present time my main concern is with the CAGW issue and there is much presented (both directions) that is meant to confuse rather than clarify the science. When someone perpetuates a small untruth the rest of their statements become, likewise, suspect.

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    @John N. Hultquist:

    On the “Flat Earth”… I’ve actually looked into it a little bit. Seems that the old Greeks and Minoans were pretty comfortable with a round earth, but sometime later (maybe in the Dark Ages) the flat earth idea took hold in parts of Europe.

    Basically, we’ve ALMOST re-learned what they new in 2000 BC. (On several fronts…) Sometimes it can beally depressing to know too much about the actual history…


    Oh, and I’ve always just assumed an Neutron Star could exist. Never had reason to doubt it. Maybe that means I need to doubt it ;-)

  29. kuhnkat says:

    E. M. Smith,

    standard cosmology and, I guess physics, says yes, neutron stars exist. Competing versions say they are playing games with physics and math. I am not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the claims so I ask others.

  30. intrepid_wanders says:

    John F. Hultquist,

    Come on, I know you want to join ;) Donate perhaps?

    (Just playing…)

  31. omanuel says:

    E. M. Smith (Jan 4 @ 4$05 pm) and Kuhnkat (Jan 4 @5:32 pm):

    I too “am not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the claims so I ask others.”

    Professor Barry Ninham, co-author on superfluidity in the iron-rich solar interior [1] directed us to two early papers [2,3] on neutron stars.

    1. O. K. Manuel, B. W. Ninham, and S. E. Friberg, “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) pp. 193-198.

    2. W. Baade and F. Zwicky, “Cosmic rays from super-novae”, Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 20 (1934) pp. 259-263.

    3. J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, “On massive neutron cores”, Physical Review 15 (1939) pp. 374-381.

  32. pyromancer76 says:

    E.M., I very much enjoyed your essay on “chasing the Greek foot”. I can only read this post and comments with my head spinning…pleasurably. Best wishes to Oliver K. Manuel and all others who want to question conventional wisdom with experimental data and who offer new ways to intrepret it.

  33. intrepid_wanders says:

    Okay, kidding aside.

    Where does the “standard model” state that our middle age sun is just a hydrogen/helium object (or did I miss something). I have a BASIC cosmology chain of events that have the Big Bang generating hydrogen and helium, ancient stars consisting of 75% hydrogen / 25% helium fusing this material a LONG time creating beryllium and the steady creation of “ash” that creates elements up to iron.

    Elements after iron can not be created in the normal fusion process and so after consuming elements up to carbon (or oxygen?) then collapse in a super-nova to “super-crunch” the heavier than iron elements into existence (stable and unstable). The explosion ejects all this out as stellar gas and dust.

    So, to my point, why would anyone think that the solar sun would not have heavier than helium elements; especially since the stellar system that our sun is part of is quite abundant in heavier than helium elements, not have any of this material?

    Ridiculous. Kind of like Einstein going through all the trouble of removing aether and 70 years later we re-introduce it with a friend with a new name (Dark Matter and Dark Energy). Don’t even get me started on the “Concordance Model”, the Climate Models use the same code.

    Anyhow, hat tip to E.M. Smith and Dr. Manuel.

  34. Fred Bortz says:

    Here’s a link to a straightforward Physics World article describing the phenomenon, which occurred on the surface of the sun.

    The Physics World article’s first paragraph is: “New findings from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) reveal that the Sun’s surface is an even more complicated web of physical and magnetic processes than previously thought. The finding was unveiled this week in San Francisco at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting and could lead to better forecasts of radiation levels experienced by satellites.”

    Note that there is nothing to suggest that our basic understanding of processes *inside the Sun* need to be changed.

    In contrast, the suite101 article is sensationalized and exaggerated, speaking of a “stunned” and shocked NASA. It probably resulted from Dr. Manuel’s PR efforts on behalf of his discredited theory (see John Hultquist’s first comment with a link to “This means that the 3 main legs of the theory have all been discredited” and to an article in my blog).

    Here’s how that article begins: “We are forever being told that the sun is a vast gas ball of hydrogen and helium at the center of our solar system. But new evidence may help prove this isn’t the case after all, according to solar experts who say the sun has an iron core.”

    I have nothing to add to the discussion, since if you follow Hultquist’s link to the comments in my blog article (, you will find why I assert that Manuel’s theory has run its course. I focus on one key “leg” of the theory, the once unsolved but now resolved (since 2002 with a Nobel Prize soon after) “missing solar neutrino problem.”

    If I know Dr. Manuel’s style, he will come in and dispute this. I don’t plan to respond or repeat the discussion here since my blog comments have it covered.

    Fred Bortz, author of science books for young readers and winner of the American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (

  35. omanuel says:

    To: pyromancer76 (Jan 4 @ 7:30 pm)

    Thank you for your kindness.

    Postscript to OKM Jan 4 @ 9:19 am:

    1. One member of the Neutron Repulsion Group suggested the TV screen metaphor to communicate that the glowing ball in the sky is not the Sun but an optical illusion:

    “Once the set is switched on, the entertaining images seen are those created by emitted photons and, of course, they hide what is really inside the television set.”

    2. Another member suggested the analogy of an ordinary frosted light bulb:

    “We see the globe’s frosted inner surface instead of the glowing metal filament.”


    Are there other analogies to communicate that the Sun does not stop at the edge of the photosphere, but continues outward and encompasses the Earth and all of the planets?

  36. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Dr. O. Manuel, glad to read your thoughts again. Your “Iron Sun” is a wonderful explanation of the suns make up and operation and is much closer to reality then the earlier “standard model”. Nuclear power is in neutron conversion and not hydrogen fusion, fusing is the last thing hydrogen wants to do. That a star is a hydrogen / helium forge and liberator is a giant leap forward in understanding.
    I would think that all lite stars have a neutron core of some amount as part of the process of fusion / fission that liberates hydrogen / helium and huge amounts of energies. pg

  37. John F. Hultquist says:

    Thanks for the link to /chasing-the-greek-foot/ — I wasn’t reading here when you did that.
    I’ve had an historical interest in the wine trade, and if you are curious, I suggest you follow the path back to pipes, tonnes, and hogsheads and others. Wikipedia has a start:

  38. kuhnkat says:

    Mr. Bortz,

    Your so-called settling of the neutrino issue is a pile of weak statistics. I will wait for a more realistic settlement thank you.

    With that out of the way, would you explain a couple of things to me?

    1) what caused the explosion(s)?

    2) how can a visual aid, magnetic lines of force, break, explode, and reconnect when magnetic fields are actually a continuous field like gravity???

  39. omanuel says:

    To P.G. Sharrow (Jan 4 @ 8:25 pm)

    Thank you, thank you for your kindness.

    I am also grateful to Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC for exposing the corrupt politicalization of science that kept the public in the dark since 1975 about hard experimental evidence of:

    a.) The Sun’s origin
    b.) The Sun’s composition
    c.) The Sun’s source of energy
    d.) The Sun’s influence on Earth’s changing climate

    Consensus science – directed by the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society and financed with tax funds – will not end until the Presidents of these groups step forward to address the flaws revealed by the Climategate scandal.

    What a coincidence, Pascvaks (Jan 4 @ 4:03 am), that Al Gore
    appeared on the scene at this time!

  40. omanuel says:

    To Fred Bortz (Jan 4 @ 7:43 pm)

    Thank you for taking the time to comment. You are a talented author. I will respond, if you want, after I get another paper on neutron repulsion submitted.

    I respect your ability to communicate. Please, please take the time to look at the experimental data posted above and meditate on the findings.

    Then ask yourself if you are doing children a favor by telling them that the glowing ball in the sky is the Sun, instead of waste products from the neutron star that glow and block visibility of the material inside, like . . .

    a TV screen or the frosted globe of an incandescent light bulb.

    Again, Fred, I thank you for taking the time to comment.

    Oliver (

  41. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Has anyone looked up the works of Dr. Lino Daddi of the Italian Naval Academy in Livarno, Italy. His work on isotopes, neutronic fields in atoms and creation of the layout of neutrons and protons at the atom core is most elegant.
    I have not been able to relocate a link as of yet. pg

  42. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – John F. Hultquist January 4, 2011 at 2:56 pm
    “”Pascvaks writes “We once thought the Earth was flat . . . ”
    This and other ‘not quite right’ statements muddy the discourse…””

    My point exactly. We are a little above our cousin the pig. Oh how we love to wallow in the mud…, and the blood…, and the beer. How we invent, forget, and reinvent nearly everything, and only sometimes get it right, for a little while. I have no doubt that one day, perhaps sooner than later, we will once again be struck dumb and forget everything we have learned building our Tower to Heaven and once again believe that the Earth is flat and the center of all creation. (Especially if we have another Ice Age;-)

  43. We would be all dead with a Neutron Sun :-), however we could agree that according to Music theory :

     Note  (Hz) Wavelength (cm)
    DO C0 16.350 2100
    C#0/Db0 17.320 1990
    RE D0 18.350 1870
    D#0/Eb0 19.450 1770
    MI E0 20.600 1670
    FA F0 21.830 1580
    F#0/Gb0 23.120 1490
    SOL G0 24.500 1400
    G#0/Ab0 25.960 1320
    LA A0 27.500 1250
    A#0/Bb0 29.140 1180
    SI B0 30.870 1110
    DO C1 32.700 1050

    Ratio Do/Fa Wavelength
    Earth Diameter=12756.32 km.
    Sun´s Diameter=8477.30 km. (core)
    Could this be? :-)

  44. K. Margiani says:

    The iron Sun frightens mainstream scientists, but it has the simply nuclear explanation by the nuclear laws. In reality violent thermonuclear bombardment by alpha particles, protons and neutrons through shell produces nucleosynthesis reaction. In reality the shell is a cradle of nuclides, which is proved by many researches of Oliver Manuel and other intellectuals.
    – Now on iron. – “In fusion, the total binding energy for the lighter nuclei is greater than the binding energy for the resulting heavier nucleus, so the excess energy is released during the fusion reaction. An example is the fusion of four hydrogen nuclei into one helium nucleus in our Sun. In nuclear fission, the total atomic mass of the decay products is less than the total mass of the fuel, so the excess mass is converted into energy. Fusion can’t produce any elements with atomic numbers higher than iron because of the reason you mentioned – iron has the highest binding energy per nucleon. You can’t make iron out of lighter elements, because the total binding energy of the lighter elements would be lower than the binding energy of iron, so you would actually have to *add* energy to the reaction to make iron out of lighter elements.”
    Thus abundance of iron in the “supernova” debris, in reality within the injected nuclear clouds of the shell by died star can be explained by real nuclear laws.

    Kakha Margiani

  45. E.M.Smith says:


    I’m sorry, I’m not schooled in music; your last comment leaves me lost. I don’t see 8477 nor 12756 in the long list of numbers you posted.

    It’s also not clear to me if I ought to be doing transformations on the last line (DO C1) or the first line (DO C0) or what… I’m thinking DO, RE, MI, etc. are the notes in the kids song, and the stuff with a # I think? means “sharp”, but I’m not sure what they are doing here, and the second terms (like in A#0/Bb0 – the 0/Bb0 part) don’t speak to me at all… then there are two numbers. The ratio of the first DO first number to the last DO first number implies to me that these are some sort of frequency (but folks can’t hear 16.350 hz…) and you have the other labled wavelength. OK. the bottom one is 1/2 the top… that checks)

    But running with it… I made a quick Excel sheet and stuck in the DO/ FA numbers (using the last “DO”) and get
    0.667583 … not quite the number you give at the bottom, but close…

    The only numbers I find for the sun’s core diameter arange from about 347,500 to 386,160 km.

    So at this point I’m stuck.

    I *think* you are saying that the more dense inner core might be 8477? and in a harmonic relationsihp? But, frankly, at this point I’m guessing too much about what you intended to say…

    Perhaps a bit more elaboration?


    The Electric Universe… I know, not exactly “on topic”, but I’m curious to what extent the “Iron Sun” theory has overlap / intersection with the “electric universe” theories.

    I’ve been wandering on this page:

    and while nobody seems to say it, the impression I get is that an “electric universe” model would work better with an “iron sun” than with a fusion H/He sun….

    So, is there mutual support here? Or are they orthogonal?

  46. Dear Professor: We could say that philosophically you are enamored of the way of accretion (gravity). As you know accretion follows the Fibonacci spiral, but way down, while life follows the same Fibonacci curve but the way up. Thus, you tell us that the hell it is not in some place downwards but instead in that round thing up we call Sun. :-)
    Nevertheless, as you know too, accretion and expansion have limits, and the natural accretion limit, seeing it in a Mendeleev table, we find it at the Uranium level. Then you say, we can push a lot more of little “pebbles” in as to make it explode and consequently expand, however that would not start with iron, as far as I know…
    You know that elements “die” (caput mortum) as stable oxides, and , in the case of Iron, its stable forms are Fe2O3 and Fe3O4.
    Well, we can agree on magnetite, and the core’s size, as it makes an excellent probe/core to act as a cathode for the interstellar plasma field. (You could try this at a lab), the rest you can google it.

  47. @E.M.Smith
    I will clarify for you those numbers. If you write me (my email is at my web page) I will send you the spreadsheet. But the ratio between “wavelengths I used it to find Sun’s “wavelength”(diameter).As for the Do Re Mi,etc.: that’s the notation used in Spanish speaking countries. (And for us it is troublesome to “digest” your notation).
    You say it right with respect to Iron Sun-Electric Universe, that’s the core we use everywhere in electric/electronic circuits….and, last but not the least, in our body circuit too. (This is why our Hemoglobin goes from Fe+2 to Fe+3, when we breath).

  48. Fred Bortz says:

    kuhncat asserts, “Your so-called settling of the neutrino issue is a pile of weak statistics.”

    I suggest you take up that argument with most solar physicists and the Nobel Prize committee, which considered the data sufficient to award the Prize for the work. I don’t claim expertise in this area, but I put more stock in the Nobel Prize committee than I do in Dr. Manuel’s insistence that nearly everyone else is wrong.

    As I note in my blog, there is no shame when new data refutes a hypothesis, but it is sad to see a once reputable scientist like Dr. Manuel denying that data in order to cling to a hypothesis that has lost observational support and is thus no longer credible.

    See these two blog entries where Dr. Manuel and I discussed his iron sun hypothesis:

    Now I’m outta here for the duration of this thread.

  49. I am also unable to grasp Adolfo Giurfa post, but I agree that “consensus astronomy” largely ignored the importance of electric and magnetic fields.

    We published a paper a few years ago showing that particle acceleration in solar surface fields may generate products of the CNO cycle.

    See “On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars,” Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114:

    I urge Adolfo Giurfa and other proponents of the Electric Universe to:

    a.) Offer quantitative explanations for waste products [H, He, v (neutrinos) and Luminosity] pouring from the photosphere,


    b.) Avoid gibberish and acknowledge the evidence of neutron repulsion that is recorded in nuclear rest mass data of every known nucleus with two or more neutrons.

  50. kuhnkat says:

    Fred Bortz,

    I would also like to take up a number of Nobel Peace and other Prizes with the Nobel committee, but, they do not accept my input for some strange reason.

    Would you like to try something other than argument from authority to back up your neutrino “science”?

    In my limited comprehension I have read the different experiments that are alledged to have proven the neutrino theory of the sun. That is why I asked for something that isn’t a pile of flimsy statistics. The number of actual observations upon which the conclusion is based should make you ashamed to claim the issue is settled!!

  51. kuhnkat says:

    E. M. Smith,

    gives a short bit on Neutron stars in which they claim that the electric repulsion at atomic level is 39 times greater than gravitational attraction and should easily prevent the collapse hypothesized. I only vaguely know about the other nuclear forces so do not know how they would affect the issue.

    Basically I see the issue as a problem in engineering similar to creating a fusion weapon. How the heck can a force be created that can overcome the repulsion to force the particles together. Any slight fault in the globular field would allow a spurt preventing the needed pressure.

    The real issue isn’t even which theories are correct. It is that in spite of so many holes in the theories being known for decades so many reputable scientists treat those theories as if they were absolute fact and spend enormous amounts of time and money trying to plug the holes rather than following the observations and other possibilities!!

  52. David says:

    Regarding omanuel
    To David (Jan 4, @ 5:08 am):
    “It is my impression that the above two experimental observations are ignored by consensus scientists.

    Please, David, provide a reference where “more recent papers” discuss these experimental data.”

    I was referring to this comment to you …”Fred Bortz March 24, 2010 at 11:21 am # Articles from 1986, 1988, and 1991 do not refute the results from 1998, 2001, and 2002, which Davis cites in his Nobel Prize lecture, as noted in our earlier exchange.

    Citing old articles to refute new ones is the mark of a person who refuses to accept evidence that contradicts his previous thinking.

    There’s no shame in having an interesting hypothesis disproved. But refusing to accept the evidence that disproves it diminishes any respect that might have been due for proposing it.”

    I do not see how the age of a citation affects its veracity and as Mr Bortz post does not explain this I find it unconvincing. This field is new to me and I am not a scientist. I have become more scientific through study of CAGW. First I must get a basic idea of the standard model and its lose ends, then folllows a basic understanding of your ideas and observations, then follows a basic comprehesion of how these “new”studies
    contradict previous ones. When I say basic here I mean very basic. It has taken me over 1200 hours to begin to understand the complexities of climate science. I am working my way throug your citations with help from wiki, I have no idea what the main criticisms of your thoughts are.

    Thanks for your time.

  53. Bob Ashworth says:

    I would say that Dr. Manuel is correct based on scientific investigations that show the earth, mars, mercury and our moon have iron cores and the fact that we are not being bombarded by neutrinos (no fusion in the sun). It is very logical that all of the matter in the universe (stars, planets, and moons) would all be made of the same stuff. The larger the body, the greater the gravity and stars are large enough that they give off radiant energy that you can see and feel. The molten iron in all heavenly bodies is created by that body’s gravity.

    I am an old chemical engineer and have found out over time that everything you want to know about the universe is basically simple and staring you in the face. I always say that if you cannot explain something to a fourth grader in a way they can readily understand it, you don’t understand it yourself.

    I believe Dr. Manuel has found that simplicity. A great sage once said, “Simplicity and profundity are one!”
    I agree with that wholeheartedly!

  54. r.l. dwyer says:

    I beg to differ. To assume unequivocally that a supernova gave “birth to all the heavenly bodies that populate the solar system” would lead to supernovas being the cause of all Sun births in the Universe. That cannot be by sheer mathematics.

    Dwyer’s Sun Creation Theory states that Suns birth Suns, Suns birth Planets, and Planets birth Moons. When a Sun reaches its maximum unsustainable size, it will naturally eject/birth a portion of itself INTACT. This core entity would naturally contain hydrogen, helium, and of course up to iron.

    The accretion theory of Suns and Planets forming out of a cloud of gas and dust is absolutely without merit. It can never be shown as a “sequence of events” because it can’t happen that way. The gas cloud nebula is simply the “afterbirth” of a Sun producing a Sun. When a Sun, like ours, has completed its birthing phase, if any, then it is relegated to producing only Solar Flares.

    The core, the heart of a Sun, will simply be a dynamic center of a concentration of those ejected elements coming off from a Parent Sun. There is no need to conjure up explosions for the excuse of Suns being born. There is a natural process to the Universe. New thinking is required. Suns will birth Suns ad infinitum.

  55. jim hardy says:

    this is more of a character reference than a scientific comment.

    Dr Manuel was my freshman chemistry professor in 1964.
    His explanations of complex things were a joy to behold, seems like every day was an AHA! experience. His teaching ability is par with Isaac Asimov.

    The last lecture of the course was a digression. He introduced us kids to the”Curve of Binding Energy” and the “Chart of the Nuclides”l. He explained ‘magic numbers’, fission, fusion, and relative abundance of isotopes in the universe. All in one fascinating hour.
    It was clear that nuclear chemistry was his first love.

    That lecture sparked in me an interest that determined my career choice.

    Dr Manuel is a genuine thinker. Do not dismiss him lightly.

    old jim hardy, retired nuclear power plant engineer

  56. jim hardy says:

    Climate science is indeed complex if one attacks it by finite element analysis of the atmosphere one cubic foot at a time.
    I guess that’s why weather service is Cray’s best customer.

    Willis Eschenbach has taken an interesting systems approach to the problem. He understands control theory i think better than most of the climate model computer programmers.

    As a guy who spent years maintaining feedback control systems in industry i believe Eschenbach’s beautifully simple approach deserves attention. Further it is based on real observations not computer codes.

    Here it is.

    Based on Mother Nature’s well known love of a balance, it’s just too simple to be not almost right.

    old jim hardy

  57. brant says:

    “Citing old articles to refute new ones is the mark of a person who refuses to accept evidence that contradicts his previous thinking”

    If the problem is never correctly solved by a misinterpretation of the old problem, then old articles are still valid.

    I read old articles and then read new ones to see if the problem is solved. Many times the problem is just swept under the rug.

    Take diffraction limiting in optical microscopes. That problem was solved 50 years ago yet the principles are not in use to make live virus capable optical microscopes. They kill them and use an electron microscope.

    You cant currently watch the life cycle of a virus under a microscope because of this failure in technology(money wins).

  58. omanuel says:

    To Jim Hardy (Jan 5 @ 12:38 pm)

    Thank you Jim, for your kind comments and for bringing back memories of my first year as a faculty member, when I was 27 years old!

    In graduate school, I became fascinated with nuclear binding energy in 1960-1963 after seeing numerous mistakes and misstatements in nuclear physics textbooks because the “zero point” for nuclear binding energy was defined as zero (BE = 0) for both the Hydrogen atom (H-1) and the neutron.

    That puzzling unease in the early 1960s proved to be the key in 2000 to understanding why solar energy, solar neutrinos, and solar wind H & He poured forth from an Iron Sun!

    [Another fortunate, fortuitous coincidence, Pascvaks?]

    I hope that you have time to read a recent paper dedicated to another freshman student, James-Alan Holt Powers , who was
    captivated by the information in the “Cradle of the Nuclides.”

    Click to access jfe-neutronrep.pdf

    The “Cradle of the Nuclides” first exposed neutron repulsion as a powerful source of energy in 2000:

    Like you, Holt, changed his major to “Nuclear Engineering” but died suddenly soon after his 17th birthday as a senior in
    Nuclear Engineering.

    Again, Jim, I thank you for your kindness. You bring tears of joy to an old man!

  59. K. Margiani says:

    I could not find any spectral data on solar explosion that occurred on August 1, 2010. Yes it is “unprecedented in recorded history and caused filaments of magnetism to snap and explode creating enormous shock waves that raced across the stellar surface. This caused billion-ton clouds of hot gas to billow out into space…”
    Disappearance of the spectral data gives greatest suspect. We know that the selective observation with disappearance of the unacceptable data is a modern scientific rule.
    Usually mainstream scientists can investigate injections from the distant stars much easy by comparison the Sun. Thus in the injected shell of distant star HH 46/47 is raveled enormous amount planetary elements and admixtures.
    1. water ice
    2. Methyl Alcohol
    3. Methane Gas
    4. Silicates
    5. Carbon dioxide ice
    6. …etc.

    We can observe even fiery embryonic planets – “Hotspots” – HH 47A, HH 47C.

    Click to access 21963.web.pdf

    Thus publication the ground breaking spectral data of the explosion that occurred on August 1, 2010 is prohibited. Of course the data of the solar interior fully contradicts to standard solar model that is the “hydrogen helium ball”. Discovery of the planetary admixtures in the solar spectrum is prohibited. Why? Professor Oliver Manuel and his team have known long ago that the shell of Sun is a cradle of nuclides, because of violent thermonuclear bombardment by alpha particles, protons and neutrons from the energetic core.

  60. Baa Humbug says:

    r.l. dwyer says..

    “I beg to differ. To assume unequivocally that a supernova gave “birth to all the heavenly bodies that populate the solar system” would lead to supernovas being the cause of all Sun births in the Universe. That cannot be by sheer mathematics.”

    I also beg to differ. Why would this lead to supernovas being the cause of ALL sun births?
    Why wouldn’t there be more than one way a star is born?

  61. K. Margiani (Jan 5 @ 11:10 pm)

    NASA is now running scared, after having been exposed by the climate scandal.

    NASA successfully manipulated, distorted or hid observations and data that would have destroyed the illusion that the Sun is a glowing ball of waste products (H and He) that shines like the frosted bulb of an incandescent light bulb.

    The neutron core is like the filament – as my new-found friend from 1964 (old jim hardy) suggested.

    Trace elements carried upward with the waste products (H and He) from the neutron star passed through the Sun’s iron-rich mantle on the journey:

    Click to access 3a.pdf

    The mantle is made of the same elements as rocky planets and ordinary meteorites: Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and S. Hence the name IRON SUN.

    The probability is zero (P = 0.0000000) that this agreement is fortuitous!

    See: “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios,” Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO 12/ GONG + 2002 Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology: The Present and Future, European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348

    Hang in there. “Interesting times” are ahead.

    The word-wide mess in science – where government science became a tool of government propaganda – will be cleaned up or constitutional government “by the people” will vanish.

  62. @r.l. dwyer
    The accretion theory of Suns and Planets forming out of a cloud of gas and dust is absolutely without merit.
    However what does it happen with all those pesky protons (90% of GCR) that fall on the earth.?…they are tiny but little by little…..and also UV when synthesizing glucose or cellulose in plants, they will end in our belly, growing us fat. Is it not “accretion” ? :-)

  63. Stop eating junk food in order to stop the Earth growing fat! :-)

  64. To r.l. dwyer (Jan 5 @ 10:47 am)

    “To assume unequivocally that a supernova gave “birth to all the heavenly bodies that populate the solar system” would lead to supernovas being the cause of all Sun births in the Universe. That cannot be by sheer mathematics.”

    Observations and measurements suggest that nuclear matter here (The Solar System and the Milky Way) fragments:

    Neutron star =(N-emission)=> Neutrons =(N-decay)=> Hydrogen

    Astronomers thought nuclear matter was fusing:

    H =(fusion)=> He =(fusion)=> C =(fusion)=> O =(fusion)=>
    Ne =(fusion)=> Mg =(fusion)=> Si =(fusion)=> S =(fusion)=>
    . . . Fe =(fusion)=> Neutron star

    Nuclear reactions are the source of energy that sustains life, powers the Sun, and the cosmos, but . . .

    Fragmentation is the process! It also fills interstellar space with H and He.

  65. Adolfo Giurfa (6 Jan @7:45 am & 7:47 am) has it backwards!

    Fragmentation, driven by neutron repulsion, is the key

  66. Oliver K. Manuel
    No, if there is repulsion then there is no such neutral things: Absolute neutrality doesn’t exist.
    It is not the solution but the growth to higher orders of complexity: Life.
    Philosophically there are two ways, the way down and the way up, to higher frequencies, this necessarily involves the intervention of life.

  67. E.M.Smith says:

    I’ve heard that there are expected islands of stability in the atomic series as you go to very very high masses. Things like “double lead” might exist. (The problem is getting over the energy hump to reach them without having so much retained energy as to fly apart again…)

    I’m left with a ‘whacky speculation’ that perhaps with enough gravity you can make a very large nucleus. Then the question becomes “How large is the limit?” Could it be the size of a solar core? If so, then would not a ‘sun birthing a sun’ simply be the same thing that happens when a U atom splits? Two smaller atoms and a load of energy?

    This would make solar life cycles an extreme extension of nuclear chemistry. Odd thought, that…

    Just where is the ultimate limit of the size of a ‘nucleus’? …

    This has a secondary ripple in that “Spin / Orbit Coupling” is accepted at the atomic particle level, yet ignored at the scale of stars and planets. All while the earth LOD changes in what looks like a ‘spin / orbit couple’ with the Sun…

    Well, but I have some Freeze Level data to search for… so I think my speculation will need to run that way for a few hours.

  68. E.M. Smith (Jan 6 @ 12:23)

    Yes, fragmentation appears to be ongoing in the cosmos.

    I suspect AGN fragmentation produced the cluster of nuclei of stars in each galaxy.

    My friend, Wilbur Brown, of Los Alamos wrote several papers on this subject.

  69. Dear E.M.Smith:
    I have sent to your email the spreadsheet I promised you.

  70. kuhnkat says:

    E M. Smith,

    Wouldn’t electromagnetic attraction and compression work better than gravity??

  71. E.M.Smith says:

    @Adolfo: Thanks! Looks like my DSL has started working again (I guess it just needed a rest ;-) though the speed is slow. It will likely ramp up over the (typical) 10 day training time. So I’ll likely get the email sometime tomorrow….


    I’m not sure what would dominate. At normal particle physics sizes, the electroweak is pretty well understood (though I don’t think anyone has looked at “Atomic Number 2 Trillion” ;-) for stability islands…

    I postulate gravity as the ‘helper’ simply to get over the known replusion limits. But who knows what it would really take.

    @Oliver K. Manuel:

    Part of what I find attractive about all this is based on the speculation that all matter is just “condensed photons”. We can “spall off” photons from just about any particle. This implies that the limit case is a whole bunch of photons glued together with some force or other into a particle.

    Then we get this zoo of “particles” as different fragments get spalled off.

    Now take that supermassive ball of “particles” and start crushing them into each other… and I’d expect random instabilities to ‘spall’ off photons and the occasional ‘small particles’. And what do we see coming from the sun?…

    If a particle really is just a ‘stability well’ in a collection of photons, crushing that well could let you spit out all sorts of things. Literally….

  72. kuhnkat says:

    “Now take that supermassive ball of “particles” and start crushing them into each other… and I’d expect random instabilities to ‘spall’ off photons and the occasional ‘small particles’. And what do we see coming from the sun?… ”

    Well, when we look through a sunspot we see a lot cooler area than above it!!

  73. To E.M.Smith (6 Jan @ 7:22 pm)

    For me, it is important to remember that I will never have the complete answer. Living a creative life of continuous discovery is its own reward.

    The “classical radius” of the electron, calculated by assuming the entire rest mass of the electron is generated by compressing the negative charge into a volume with a radius of ~ 1 x 10^-13 cm [as I recall], led me to try to figure out the “origin” of particles in my youth.

    Now I am content to know that I may be able to contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of nuclear and atomic particles and life on Earth, but I do not understand the origin of nuclear or atomic particles or life on Earth.

    SUMMARY: Over the past 5 Gyr (5,000,000,000 years) as nuclear matter became atomic matter via:

    a.) Neutron emission from the solar core, and
    b.) Neutron decay to atomic matter

    The volume of the particles expanded by about a factor of ~1,000,000,000,000,000 and life evolved on the third ball of dirt nearby.

    I do not understand pretend to understand the origin of the neutron or the origin of life.

    With kind regards,

  74. omanuel says:

    A new paper in Science Express, “Gamma-Ray Flares from the Crab Nebula,”

    Click to access Science-2011-Abdo-science.1199705.pdf

    Acknowledges that neutron stars are powerful sources of energy but overlooks neutron repulsion.

    Neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and sustains life on Earth:

    With kind regards,

  75. K. Margiani says:

    Proof on iron Sun.

    An excellent research proves on iron (Fe) outflow from the injected shell of the star HH 46/47

    The spectrum of HH 47A is dominated by bright
    atomic/ionic forbidden emission lines between 25 and 37 _m,
    with peak intensities ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 Jy (e.g., [Fe II]
    24.51 _m, [Fe II] 25.98 _m, [S III ] 33.5 _m, [Si II] 34.8 _m, and
    [Fe II] 35.35 _m).

    Click to access 04-2153.pdf

    In reality we have a greatest proof on formation planemoes (interstellar planetary mass objects).
    We can observe even fiery embryonic gaseous objects injected from the central star. Fiery concentrations of the planetary elements and admixtures – the galactic planetforming regions – “Hotspots” – HH 47A, HH 47C. Thus we have an amazing proof on planets and planemoes.
    Cosmogeological axiom: Each planet or planemo had been injected by the parent star. Source of the planetary elements is a shell of the star, interior of the shell – cradle of nuclides, because of violent thermonuclear bombardment from the energetic core.

    Click to access 21963.web.pdf

    K. Margiani
    Founder new field of science Cosmogeology

  76. omanuel says:

    E. M. Smith et al:

    Please, please read and understand the importance of this new paper:

    1. A. A. Abdo et al. (~168 co-authors), “Gamma-ray flares form the Crab Nebula,” Science, (ScienceXPress) Published online 6 January 2011, [DOI:10.1126/science.1199705]

    Click to access Science-2011-Abdo-science.1199705.pdf

    It [1] is obviously “official” Big Brother science, with 168 co-authors from the world’s leading research institutions.

    It [1] reverses decades of false Big Brother certainty that neutron stars are dead nuclear embers of stars, e.g.:

    2. H. Heiselberg, “Neutron Star Masses, Radii and Equation of State”, in Proceedings of the Conference on Compact Stars in the QCD Phase Diagram, eConf C010815, edited by R. Ouyed and F. Sannion, Copenhagen, Denmark, Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics (2002) pp. 3-16.

    It [1] admits that the pulsar in the Crab Nebula is a source of great energy!

    Although neutron repulsion is not yet acknowledged as the energy source, that empirical fact – recorded in nuclear rest mass data of every nucleus with two or more neutrons [3] – cannot be long denied.

    3. O. Manuel, C. Bolon, A. Katragada and M. Insall, “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy,” Journal of Fusion Energy, vol. 19, March 2000, pp. 93-98.

    Click to access jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

    Thus, paper [1] is a necessary first step if “official” Big Brother science is to correct decades of false information about:

    a.) The Sun’s origin
    b.) The Sun’s composition
    c.) The Sun’s source of energy, and
    d.) The Sun’s dominant influence on Earth’s climate.

    That is why I urge everyone to read [1].

    With kind regards,

  77. racookpe1978 says:

    I challenge the assumptions of classic nucleus-buildup-by-fusion-and-exchange via supernova ejection.

    Fundamentally, there is not enough “time” for all the reactions to take place, and all the multiple supernova chains to exchange matter (all in a greatly expanding universe!) between the theoretical 14 billion year Big Bang, and the “isolation” of our solar system 10 billion years ago.

    From Avagodro’s number and the known mass of the heavy isotopes of just our solar system – forgetting any other solar systems in the universe – we would need over 10^40 supernova’s per year for 3 billion years (3×10^9) to get the higher metal isotopes from simple fusion-fusion collisions.

    And every atom of every isotope created would have to be perfectly ejected from every supernova and get re-acquired for the next reaction. This allows no losses to “space” between adjacent supernovas.

    Note: There are almost an infinite number of possible combination of fusion collisions to make the heaviest atoms, but I am assuming the least-number method. (Not the 1p + 1p + 1p …. but C12 + He4. of course, this requires three previous He fusions first so you still need 4 fusions to create simple light material.) .

    The problem is not completely solved by assuming supernova burning of stars through the helium, carbon, neon, silicon, etc stages, because then you have to exchange material from that original supernova “shell” to the next star to the next star to the final solar dust cloud. Our own star is not a supernova remnant, so everything we have in the system had to be created before that dust cloud began to accumulate. Every exchange stage requires millions of years, since the exploding dust is not relativistic, but only a fraction of the speed of light.

    Now a supernova from multi-stage burning could create some of the elements we know exist. But each supernova blasts its core and cloud radially in all directions – they don’t go in one direction into the next star. So each supernova exploding after its multi-stage cycle would need to to be “paralleled” many times over, each throwing atoms out randomly often enough that the final dust cloud (our pre-solar origin according to conventional wisdom) could get the elements from all directions.

    We know absolutely that the isotopes exist in our solar system. We k now that fusion “works”. We know that fission “works.” Now, we need to figure out how they all got here in those few years between the Big Bang and the start of the solar system. We know that no new material has been added to the solar system since the sun separated from the nearest star.

  78. omanuel says:

    The new paper in Sciencexpress, “Gamma-Ray Flares from the Crab Nebula,” shows the demise of B-BS – Big Brother Science and raises hope for future reliable information on the origin of the solar system and its elements.

    B-BS (Big Brother Science) grew out of sight, like a malignant tumor for ~30-50 years, until the release of e-mails on 17 November 2009 exposed manipulation of climate data:

    The new paper in Sciencexpress is remarkably candid in admitting that, “The Crab Nebula is powered by the central neutron star . . .”

    A few months after we reported in 2001 that a neutron star powers the Sun and solves the long-standing solar neutrino puzzle [The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy: ],

    One hundred and seventy-eight (178) co-authors claimed to have discovered that solar neutrinos simply oscillate away [“Measurement of Charged Current Interactions Reduced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,” Physical Review Letters 87 (2001): 71301]

    Efforts by leaders of world governments and of the scientific community to dismiss evidence of data manipulation in the Climategate scandal, and the Nobel Prizes given to Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC, and an army of government-funded scientists, almost destroyed public confidence in the scientific community.

    The new paper in Sciencexpress, “Gamma-Ray Flares from the Crab Nebula,” is encouraging news for the future of science and constitutional government.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

Comments are closed.