The Iron Sun, Pro Link and Anti Density

Folks who have been here a while will be very familiar with O. Manuel. He often pops up putting a comment about nuclear history with conspiratorial overtones to it on completely unrelated threads (though lately has been much more reserved about that and staying near or on topic for a thread – thanks!)

On another posting (about floods in California), he put up a comment:

omanuel says:
22 July 2015 at 3:17 am
Thanks to Climategate emails and the damning official responses, the Sun’s pulsar core is gaining traction:

Clicking through some links on it, I found another posting that claimed similar evidence for an Iron Sun

The first thing of interest was that “160 minute” oscillation of the Sun. A rather big thing that I’d never heard of before. The damn thing is ringing at 160 minutes period and nobody thinks that matters? Sheesh.

The article links to the wiki a few times, so here’s that link too:

The malagabay link is fairly interesting and basically makes the point that the sun might well have a dense rocky pulsar core hiding under the gassy outer layer. There are then a bunch of images purporting to be photos of that rocky surface using a “running difference” method that is not explained (a small “Dig Here!” for me to learn if that is just First Differences by another name, or something else altogether.) No real numbers given for how far down that “surface” was supposed to be, but the text implied not very far otherwise it wold be impossible to detect it.

They also have a chart toward the bottom purporting to show that the solar mean radius of the rocky part can be calculated by this 160 minute period of rotation and some kind of relationship of diameter to it… I think… maybe… (It isn’t exactly well explained and seems to presume you have already bought in to some relationship that is implied).

One of the reasons the “the mainstream scientific establishment had moved on” is because Kepler’s Third Law of Planetary Motion provides a formula that can be used to calculate the planetary [rocky] radius of the Sun based upon the assumption that the solar oscillation period of 160 minutes is the solar rotation period that is driving the rotation of the Solar System.

[ nice charts of data left out – hit the link…]

In astronomy, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are three scientific laws describing the motion of planets around the Sun.

1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.

2. A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.

3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

That’s where MalagaBay tends to lose my interest. Makes leaps that are somehow supposed to be obvious, and often with some work you can figure them out, but sometimes they don’t seem to connect right… so I often spend time elsewhere even though it looks interesting…

In that style, I looked elsewhere.

Folks are free to look at that chain of logic from oscillation to rotation to diameter and report back if they find something fishy in it, or not. I have other fish to fry right now.

But I did get to wondering:


This basic tussle is over the question of Hydrogen Sun as a gas giant vs Iron Sun as a rocky core with envelope of gas. If the Sun had an “iron surface” close enough to the top to be observed, then ought not most of the Sun be that rocky iron rich material? If so, then the basic density of the Sun ought to reflect that.

Basically, put it in a big bath tub and if it floats, it’s gassy, if it sinks, it’s an Iron Sun.

Mean Density of the Planets and the Sun

Rank	Name	Density (kg pr. cubic meter)
1	Earth	5515
2	Mercury	5427
3	Venus	5243
4	Mars	3933
5	Moon	3350
6	Pluto	1750
7	Neptune	1638
8	Sun	1408
9	Jupiter	1326
10	Uranus	1270
11	Saturn	687
Source: NASA

When I look at that, the mean density of Sun is rather like that of Neptune and Jupiter – Gas Giants. Rather far away from that of The Earth – an Iron Core planet.

The Earth is almost 4 times as dense. (3.917)

Whenever you see a word from statistics, it is important to cringe and swear at it. It means something is being hidden. Now that isn’t a bad thing all the time. We want to hide some of the trees so we can see the forest… But always ask “What does this obscure while shining the light off to stage right?”

In this case, it is the word “mean” in the “Mean Density”. That means average, and averages always hide the trees while illuminating a nice forest “over there”…

What his particular mean hides is that the average of a very low density gas layer with a very dense iron center can still be low density on average. So that raises the question: “What size must the iron core be to pass as, on average, a heavy gas giant?”

That’s a bit harder to figure than I’d like as you can’t just use the regular Specific Gravity kind of calculations on things as big as the Sun where pressures can crush atoms together. It gets worse with neutron stars where even atomic nuclei are crushed. But you can get a good guess out of it.

A single cc of water weighs 1 gram. A litre of water is 1000 cc and weighs 1000 grams. Iron is about 7.87 times that dense. Gasses vary greatly depending on pressure. Hydrogen at standard Earth pressure is 1/1000th that much, but rapidly gets more dense when compressed.

Now a cubic meter of water is 100 x 100 x 100 cm or 1,000,000 cc or 1,000 kg or 1,000 litres. That makes the Sun average specific gravity to be about 1.4 while the Earth is about 5.5 As we have a load of silicates over our iron core, that makes sense. Quartz is about 2.65 sp. gr. as an example. So average a crust and mantle made with a lot of 2.65 in with a core of 7.87 and you get an average of 5.5 (from that chart above turning 5.5 metric tons/cubic-meter into grams/cc)

And that is where I’m running into a problem with the Iron Sun pages. The text implies that the “surface” is subject to imaging just a little ways down through the gassy layer on the outer edge of it all. Yet the density says that there must be a LOT of gassy layer and not too big an Iron Sun Core for that density to work out at 1.4 (again from the chart, turning 1,400 kg / meter^3 into grams/cc)

1,400 kg is 1,400,000 grams. 100 x 100 x 100 cm is 1,000,000 cc. 1,400,000/1,000,000 = 1.4 grams / cc.

That’s only 40% more dense than water. The Sun would sink in our hypothetical bathtub, but not very fast… That’s about as dense as PVC plastic used in plastic pipes.

Specific gravity (density) – PVC
The true specific gravity of PVC is about 1.4, which is comparatively heavy among plastics, as is the case for PET. This can be a disadvantage…
Search domain

Clicking the link got “no data” so I just pasted in the search return image…

So I have to wonder: Is it an Iron Sun, or more accurately a Plastic Sun?

In Conclusion

In reality, it will be layered in density shells. Everything else is. I don’t buy the notion that the Sun is a homogeneous mass of undifferentiated type. Density layering is a fairly uniform effect. Even our ocean has more dense layers at the bottom (colder and saline). But the mean density says that the Iron Sun portion must be fairly small. Then the Silicate and Carbon layers can be significantly large. Finally, the gassy layer can be quite large as well (though by that point the size is speculative depending on density and compression assumptions and assumptions of how much silicon and carbon are in layers).

At this point all I can do is leave you with questions.

How big can a hypothetical Iron Sun Core be before the density doesn’t work out?

How much might the Sun be a star made of Carbon (Diamond Sun anyone?) and / or Silicon?

Given the compression and densities, and the solubility of Hydrogen into all sorts of things, how much Hydrogen might be in those other layers, and how big could an outer gassy layer be? Does it “work” if that layer is thin enough to “see” through with a running differences image? Do those pictures really show an Iron Surface, or a Carbon one? Or perhaps gas compressed to the point of acting like fudge?

I don’t have the data to figure out those answers, and I have other things I must do today. But think of it as food for thought.

Folks wishing to talk about the Iron Sun, a Pulsar Core, a primordial Supernova right here in River City, this is the time and place to do it. Especially if that density issue can be resolved.

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.

39 Responses to The Iron Sun, Pro Link and Anti Density

  1. p.g.sharrow says:

    Back in January 2011 I did a evaluation of seismic data of the sun presented by a Wolff and Patrone paper posted by Roger Tattarshal at “Tallbloke’s Talk Shop” blog

    The speeds of wave travel through the solar medium gave indications of several layers that ranged from solid to gas at different distances above the center point. pg

  2. JBK says:

    Interestingly Ethan Siegal in his “Starts with a bang” blog just discussed when a star will have a iron core. For our star the answer is never, it isn’t massive enough. But for much more massive stars the iron core is the final step: burning silicon to iron takes one day followed by a core collapse supernova which occurs in a few minutes.

    Starts with a bang

  3. omanuel says:

    Here’s Peter Toth’s 1977 paper in Nature, “Is the Sun a pulsar?

    A few years back we submitted a paper to Nature, “Yes, the Sun is a pulsar” but the editor of Nature refused to send the paper out for review.

  4. Omanuel Perhaps you could answer the question posed by Chiefio. . If there is an iron core to the sun then what is the radius of that core that would match its bulk density as given by Chiefio above.?
    I have always seen this question as the biggest stumbling block to your other-wise stimulating theories.

  5. omanuel says:

    Most astronomers and astophysicists do not pretend to know the internal temperature profile and the internal structure of the Sun well enough to predict the Sun’s internal chemical composition on the basis of solar density.

    That is why solar density is not mentioned on pages 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s 1 April 1994 autobiography, Home Is Where The Wind Blows.

    There, this well-known mathematician, astronomer, astrophysicist and cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle, tells how mainstream opinions on the internal composition of the Sun were abruptly and unanimously changed from:

    1. Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945, to
    2. Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946,

    without open discussion or debate.

  6. omanuel says:

    Overall solar density depends on the Sun’s structure, internal temperature profile, and composition. That is why overall a solar density was also not considered in the research papers by Dr. Carl A. Rouse, perhaps the most intellectually honest and certainly one of the most abused astrophysicists of the past century.

    He received a PhD in astrophysics from CalTech in the late 1950’s, lived in LaJolla, CA with his lovely wife, and spent his career pointing out errors in the Standard Solar Model of hydrogen-filled stars.

    Here are a few of his papers:

    1964: “Calculation of stellar structure using an ionization equilibrium equation of state,” University of California, UCRL Report 7820-T.

    1969: “Calculation of stellar structure”, in Progress in High Temperature Physics and Chemistry 2, ed. C.A. Rouse, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 97-126.

    1975: “A solar neutrino loophole: Standard solar models,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 44, 237-240.

    1983: “Calculation of stellar structure. III. Solar models that satisfy the necessary conditions for a unique solution to the stellar structure equations,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 126, 102-110.

    1985: “Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 149, 65-72.

    1987:“Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core,” Solar Physics (I will have to look up the link and the page numbers)

    1995: “Calculation of solar structure IV. Results using a detailed energy generation subroutine,” Astronomy and Astrophysics 304, 431-439.

    2000: “Inverse and forward helioseismology,” in Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations, ed. O. Manuel, Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, USA, pp. 317-344.

  7. omanuel says:

    1987: Carl A. Rouse, “Evidence for a small, high-Z, iron-like solar core,” Solar Physics 110 (1987) 211-235:

  8. omanuel says:

    This video may help readers remember the object being discussed:

  9. KuhnKat says:

    I think a better question is, do we know how to measure the density of a star from the observations we can make. Recently a certain probe had a bounce landing on an asteroid. It was claimed to be about the density of ice, yet, all the pictures and other data available show it to be rocky. Is this another problem for the consensus??

    Another possible direction is whether the electromagnetic interactions could make it appear to be less dense than it is. Again, we seem to have a poor understanding of what gravity is and how it works and what the real relation between density, mass, acceleration and velocity is.

  10. brantc says:

    Heres some of the work that I did on the idea of an iron sun… A lot of observations and looking at TRACE movies. I suspect that the sun is a hollow iron sphere that acts like an antenna(converter) and condenses “longitudinal EM” into a visible and kinetic(solar wind, photons etc) output..
    Right now I am working on a COMSOL simulation of the iron sun to see if anything drops out..

  11. omanuel .Surely ,given all the years you have worked on this you must at least have developed a plausible working hypothesis for solar composition which would be consistent with the accepted density ?

  12. Sera says:

    I’ll take a crack at it.

    The core is a white dwarf, about the size of the earth. The outer shell is a thin layer of hydrogen and helium with a whole lotta paramagnetic iron. Nothing in-between. The electromagnetic energy keeps the outer shell at bay, and the gravity field keeps it from escaping.

    This explains why the sun is round and does not bulge. It also explains the iron emissions (coming from the outer shell, not the core). It also explains the faint sun paradox (as the sun loses iron from its outer shell, it becomes brighter). It also explains the solar cycle (white dwarf eletromagnetic cycle). It explains the specific gravity of the sun. And, it might explain the 160 minute rotation.

    Another beer and I might come up with something completely different.

  13. Sera says:

    Forgot to add… It also explains sun spots.

    There is something else that I am forgetting- a little help here?

  14. Sera says:

    Correction (now that I read what I wrote): It explains the gravity (not specific gravity) of the sun. And the sun spots are caused by the electromagnetic properties of the core interacting with the iron (paramagnetic) in the outer shell.

    Note to self: Don’t drink and post this late at night.

  15. Andrew S says:

    Do you suppose it’s possible, given density layering, and the relatively cooler below photosphere conditions, that the purported ‘rocky surface’ is only a thin shell of Iron/Silica which is ephemeral – always being deposited on from the deeper denser Iron core, and always being eroded away and carried back to the depths, or blasted into space? Just a thought. There is also this to ponder:

  16. Sera says:

    The beer has worn off, lets try again…

    Our sun is a white dwarf (about the size of the Earth) with a thin (by comparison) outer layer of hydrogen, helium, and (paramagnetic) iron. The electromagnetic force/pressure of the white dwarf keeps the outer layer at bay/distance, while the gravitational force keeps it in check. After supernova, the outer planets formed from the lighter elements and gasses, while the inner planets formed from the heavier elements. The sun itself pulled any gasses left from the interior of the system, along with heavy metals from the birthing process. The sun continued to accumulate iron and gas during the solar systems evolution.

    With the outer layer being full of iron, the sun would not be as bright in the past as it is today. So, the ‘faint sun paradox’ is not really a paradox at all- just a misunderstanding. The iron in the outer shell is being ‘blown’ out by electromagnetic eruptions. This also explains the (type of) iron emissions observed.

    Because a white dwarf is a perfect sphere, I would expect its powerful gravitational force to produce a perfectly round outer layer that does not bulge (gravity being equal in all directions, and a thin outer layer with not enough material to bulge).

    This powerful (cycling) electromagnetic force would have an effect on the (paramagnetic) iron in the outer shell that could effectively be the cause of sunspots.

    A pulsating white dwarf could explain our suns ‘solar cycle’ of 9-13 years.

    I can not think of a reason why a white dwarf can not rotate every 160 minutes- it seems quite likely.


  17. Steve C says:

    Another thing about the Sun which jumps off the page at you is its spectrum. Something like 70 or 75 percent of the brightest lines in that spectrum are iron lines, which is a bit odd for an object we’re told “can’t have iron in it without immediately dying”.

  18. p.g.sharrow says:

    When I did the evaluation above, the hydrogen model was in mind. I had not heard of the “Iron Sun” model so I postulated how a hydrogen star could form in a nebula that resulted in iron cored planets! After much thought, a theory of gravity behavior in this nebula resulted to explain hydrogen migration to the center to form the star while the metal/stone material formed the planets. Well it worked but was unsatisfactory. Then O.Manuel showed up and presented his thoughts on the “Iron Sun” and I did a forehead slap, “of course!” Now the that graph of seismic data makes sense. Fusion/fission data makes sense. Spectrometric data makes sense. The Sun has a solid Iron/Nickle core, about 20% of it’s diameter. This transitions to a semi solid, almost quicksand like surface at 75% of apparent radius. The gas like atmosphere above makes up the rest of it’s apparent diameter. Above this “Troposphere” surface, we see an energy plasma envelope. pg

  19. omanuel says:

    Thanks, KuhnKat, we face the biggest criminal scam in history, as noted this morning on the Tony Heller’s Real Science blog:

    Stalin himself instigated this biggest criminal scam in history at the end of WWII, a scam that went undetected until Climategate emails surfaced in late November 2009:

    1. Formerly independent national academies of science were united into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” on 24 October 1945/.

    2. The integrity of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and solar physics were destroyed by abruptly changing the internal composition of the Sun and other ordinary stars from:
    _ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
    _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946, . . .
    without open discussion or debate of any kind.

    3. The integrity of theoretical nuclear physics and chemistry was destroyed to prevent public knowledge of the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – NEUTRON REPULSION – by falsely changing the textbook definition of nuclear stability from:
    _ a.) Lowest value of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction before WWI to
    _ b.) Highest value of Weizsacker’s average nuclear binding energy per nucleon after WWII

    1. Aston’s WARNING (12 December 1922); CHAOS and FEAR (August 1945)


  20. omanuel says:

    @ Dr Norman Page says: 23 July 2015 at 5:09 am
    Surely, given all the years you have worked on this you must at least have developed a plausible working hypothesis for solar composition which would be consistent with the accepted density ?

    We published the externally-reviewed paper in Meteoritics in 1983 showing

    1. The internal composition of the Sun is mostly Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca – just like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets near the Sun, and

    2. Giant H,He-rich planets like Jupiter should have excess Xe-136.

    The Galileo probe of Jupiter made measurements in 1995 that confirmed our 1983 prediction. NASA hid the data until 1998, as confirmed by a CSPAN news video I will post if you missed it earlier.

  21. DocMartyn says:

    If the power source is at the center and surrounded by an iron shell then how come we have a steady stream of solar neutrons, and bursts of neutrons from fusion sources during storms?

  22. Sera says:

    @ DocMartyn:

    Maybe they are thermal neutrons?

    I’m sure that one hundred years from now everyone will be laughing at our silly theories. Someone will build an instument that will discover some previously unknown charicteristic of the sun that will make us all look foolish- that’s the way it works.

  23. PeterMG says:

    So much new information is coming back from our probes that everyone is having to modify their ideas of what the Sun is. That it has some sort of solid core I think makes more sense than it being a hydrogen fusion reactor. I like the Electric Universe theories of how everything is electrically powered and connected. Again it just makes more sense and gels with what we observe. If we start to observer something else then we can change our views, but the establishment model is not supported by what we can actually see and view.

    For those trying to work out where the surface of the Sun is I have this thought. It has been established that gravity cannot hold the solar system together, let alone the Milky Way or our local cluster of Galaxies without the help of either dark energy or dark matter, two inventions of theoretical cosmologists. Without a better understanding of what gravity is, and it definitely has nothing to do with a boson, we can’t begin to calculate where a theoretical surface of the sun may be. Certainly without bringing into play electric charge, and understanding that mass is but one property of matter and not interchangeable words, can we begin to make any real sense of all that we observe.

    Our technology is advancing to the point where it is collecting data that makes no sense, and this is because our understanding is stuck back in the 1900’s. Perhaps those that say the moneymen control science are right, and they use science just as another way to make money, and that fake science is easier to make money from than real science. I am optimistic that the data is now coming in so fast that they will lose control of the situation. We see it now with the fake science of climate change where Canada, Australia and now the UK have slashed the renewable energy gravy train as cost run out of control.

  24. omanuel Presumably you think the sun is layered – with something like a mantle and iron core.
    What diameter iron core would be compatible with its measured overall density?

  25. omanuel says:

    Dr. Norman Page,

    We know with great confidence the interior of the Sun is mostly iron (Fe), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), nickel (Ni) and sulfur (S) from precise and totally independent measurements of

    1. Mass-fractionation of isotopes in the solar wind
    2. Neutron-capture cross sections and abundances of s-products in the photosphere

    Those measurements do not yield quantitative information on the diameter of the iron-rich region.

    Dr. Carl A. Rouse independently used helioseismic data on g-waves to predict the presence of a small compact, iron-rich solar core.

  26. omanuel says:

    @Sera & Doc Martyn

    Neutrons are ejected from the Sun’s pulsar and decay to hydrogen. Some hydrogen may fuse into helium, before the mix of H/He waste products passes through the iron-rich region of the Sun selectively carrying lightweight atoms up to the top of the photosphere.

    Arcs of electrical discharge at the solar “surface” (top of the photosphere) also generate neutrons and induce the CNO cycle of hydrogen fusion. Empirical evidence of this process was reported by Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe and me in 2006.

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

  27. omanuel says:

    Dr. Norman Page,

    You may want to review evidence Professor Stig Friberg and I presented on the “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios” at the SOHO 12/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology: The Present and the Future, on 27 Oct – 1 Nov 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA

    The paper was published as ESA SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste) pp. 345-348 (2003): or

  28. Sera says:

    I used to believe in the standard solar theory, and then Omanuel showed up and pointed out the inconsistencies and produced alternative explanations. So, full credit to him for that (although he is hard to miss).

    @ Omanuel:

    If it were a neutron star, it would be at the very limit of minimum size possible to match the mass of our sun. On the other hand, white dwarfs of this mass are quite common. I was just trying to think of a way to produce the iron emissions without having to make them from scratch. Honestly- I am interested in this. Very much so. Thanks.

  29. p.g.sharrow says:

    Before you postulate on the suns construction at least look up some hints of it’s cross sectional density.
    see representation at;

    This was created to give a better visual of the changes in relative speed of seismic wave traveling through the solar body as a hint as to it’s composition. pg.

  30. omanuel says:


    There is much that we do not know about. Some is in my mentor’s autobiography:

  31. omanuel says:

    @ Sera

    I also believed in the Standard Solar Model for many years, although we had data it did not explain.

    Fred Hoyle and Paul K. Kuroda deserve credit for changing my opinion.

    After WWII, World leaders tried to hide NEUTRON REPULSION, the energy source in cores of:

    _ a.) Heavy atoms like Uranium
    _ b.) Some planets, like Jupiter
    _ c.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
    _ d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way
    _ e.) The now expanding Universe

    If neutron repulsion causes neutron emission from neutron stars, then these “evaporate away” and have no minimum size.

  32. omanuel says:

    @ Sera

    I forgot to include this link to empirical evidence of neutron repulsion:

    I also forgot to mention that the force of neutron repulsion was:

    1. Obvious in values of Francis William Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction” before WWII, but

    2. Hidden in values of Carl von Weizsacker’s “average nuclear binding energy per nucleon that replaced Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction” in textbooks after WWII.

    Carl von Weizersacker had been the theoretical nuclear physicist that advised Hitler’s unsuccessful effort to build an atomic bomb during WWII.

  33. omanuel says:

    The pulsar core of the iron Sun offers assurance that humanity will survive the 70-year voyage on a ship of fools guided by incompetent world leaders.

    The 2009 Climategate emails and six years of official excuses for deception disguised as 97% consensus science have conclusively shown that all humanity is now captive passengers on Spaceship Earth, guided by world leaders who have completely lost contact with reality!

    Fortunately for humanity, Nobel Laureate Max Planck recognized a “conscious and intelligent Mind” directing the force that creates and sustains atoms, lives and planets in the solar system, . . .

    the same force that endowed humans with inalienable rights to self-governance in order to insure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

  34. Chris in Calgary says:

    Many/Most neutron stars have a mass of 1.4 Solar masses or larger. A few have a mass of less than one solar mass.

    The point being, a conventionally formed neutron star, if it were at the core of the Sun, would consume almost all of the Sun’s mass with a small 12-mile-wide core. The extra hydrogen piled on top could constitute at most an additional 0.1 or 0.2 solar masses worth of Hydrogen. The Sun’s radius would have to be much smaller than it currently is for this to be true.

    The only way for the Sun to have a neutron star at its core would be for that neutron star to be tiny, say consisting of 0.1 solar masses or smaller. Given that neutron stars form from supernovas, there’s no way for a neutron star of that low a mass to form conventionally.

    So how would such a mini-pulsar form?

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, my ‘take’ on all the above comments is that the sun likely has a “small dense rocky core” but that it is about the size of a large planet, far smaller than the solar diameter (or the density doesn’t work out) and can’t be a neutron star as those sizes are very wrong.


    That there’s the possiblity of a small neutron star being form and then losing a lot of mass (somehow) leaving a tiny neutron core… but that doesn’t seem to fit the density profile from the sonograms…

    So it looks to me like the “nova happened” theory has legs, but the neutron star core is hard to make work, and the “sun as layered complex object with small rocky / iron core” fits best.


  36. JBK says:

    Just what type of rock exists at 27,000,000 degrees and at the pressure of 340,000,000,000 atmospheres?

  37. E.M.Smith says:


    “Rocky” meaning made with silicon, oxygen, and metals in whatever phase state.

  38. Larry Ledwick says:

    I would think Jupiter would be a good analog of the sun’s structure minus the heat a star generates. In fact you could probably scale up Jupiter to sun size and get a good first order estimate of the probably structure of the sun and answer to the question about probable size of a rocky/iron-nickle core.

  39. omanuel says:

    @Chris in Calgary and E. M. Smith

    We need to focus on the experimental measurements and observations we have instead of focusing on questions the measurements and observations have not yet answered. I.e., can we agree that NEUTRON REPULSION causes neutron-emissionfrom the Sun’s pulsar core? If true, then the mass of the pulsar today is less than the mass of the pulsar 5 Ga ago at the birth of the solar system.

    1. The pulsar in the core of the Sun is the remains of the supernova that made our elements and birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago.

    2. Neutron repulsion causes heavy atoms and stars to fragment by fission.

    3. Stars generate heat and light and neutrinos and they discard hydrogen in the solar (stellar) wind.

    Empirical facts #1, #2 and #3 are not debatable, unless we have other viable explanations for the experimental data summarized in the above manuscript.

    4. The amount of heat, light and neutrinos emitted by the Sun are consistent with the hypothesis that neutron repulsion causes the pulsar core of the Sun to emit neutrons that decay to hydrogen atoms in ~15 minutes.

Comments are closed.