Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476558 > unrolled thread

what is the Sun?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-08 09:46 -0800
    Re:what is the Sun? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-08 19:02 +0100
      Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-08 10:27 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-08 19:36 +0100
          Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-08 11:02 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 19:40 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 19:45 -0800
          Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-10 07:22 -0800
            Re: what is the Sun? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 17:59 -0800
              Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-12 12:47 -0800
    Re: what is the Sun? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-09 10:08 -0600
      Re: what is the Sun? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-09 10:00 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-09 13:24 -0800
          Re: what is the Sun? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-10 11:31 -0800
            Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-11 08:44 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-12 11:14 -0600
          Re: what is the Sun? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-12 11:24 -0800
      Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-09 10:02 -0800
    Re: what is the Sun? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 08:28 -0800
    Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-09 11:10 -0800
      Re: what is the Sun? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 18:04 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-12 12:51 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-12 13:46 -0800
    Re: what is the Sun? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 15:34 -0800
      Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-11 16:49 -0800
        Re: what is the Sun? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 16:53 -0800
          Re: what is the Sun? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-11 17:57 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#476558 — what is the Sun?

The radius of the hydrogen atom: r_H = 5.29e-11 m,

so when we pack the hydrogen atoms extremely,
then we will get the distance between the atoms:

a = 2 * r_H = 1.058e-10 m

Thus, the density of such 'ultra compressed' hydrogen is:

rho_H = m_H/a^3 = 1.67e-27 / (1.058e-10)^3 = 1410.13 kg/m3

which is perfectly compatible with the density of the Sun!

So the sun is probably an homogeneous sphere, of extremely compacted hydrogen.
--------------------------------


I have the one very interesting additional question in this subject:
what is a speed of sound in such extremely compacted hydrogen?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#476560

alsor@interia.pl Wrote in message:
> The radius of the hydrogen atom: r_H = 5.29e-11 m,so when we pack the hydrogen atoms extremely,then we will get the distance between the atoms:a = 2 * r_H = 1.058e-10 m.


> Thus, the density of such 'ultra compressed' hydrogen is:rho_H = m_H/a^3 = 1.67e-27 / (1.058e-10)^3 = 1410.13 kg/m3which is perfectly compatible with the density of the Sun!So the sun is probably an homogeneous sphere, of extremely compacted hydrogen.--------------------------------I have the one very interesting additional question in this subject:what is a speed of sound in such extremely compacted hydrogen?

This is not a extremely packed hydrogen. 
It is just mechanical application of simple geometry
without any consideration of behaviour of matter.
Like: 
1/ reaction 2 H <-> H_2
2/ ionisation H -> p + e
3/ denegeration of electron quantum states 
4/ hydrogen atoms nor protons and electrons are not cubes.
You did not consider the tightest packing of classical  solid
 spheres set .

So no perfect fitting.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476562

W dniu czwartek, 8 listopada 2018 19:02:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Libor Striz napisał:
> alsor@interia.pl Wrote in message:
> > The radius of the hydrogen atom: r_H = 5.29e-11 m,so when we pack the hydrogen atoms extremely,then we will get the distance between the atoms:a = 2 * r_H = 1.058e-10 m.
> 
> 
> > Thus, the density of such 'ultra compressed' hydrogen is:rho_H = m_H/a^3 = 1.67e-27 / (1.058e-10)^3 = 1410.13 kg/m3which is perfectly compatible with the density of the Sun!So the sun is probably an homogeneous sphere, of extremely compacted hydrogen.--------------------------------I have the one very interesting additional question in this subject:what is a speed of sound in such extremely compacted hydrogen?
> 
> This is not a extremely packed hydrogen. 
> It is just mechanical application of simple geometry
> without any consideration of behaviour of matter.
> Like: 
> 1/ reaction 2 H <-> H_2
> 2/ ionisation H -> p + e
> 3/ denegeration of electron quantum states 
> 4/ hydrogen atoms nor protons and electrons are not cubes.
> You did not consider the tightest packing of classical  solid
>  spheres set .
> 
> So no perfect fitting.

The optimal sphere packing is rather incompatible
with the packing of real atoms.

And it's sufficiently perfect number: 1.41 g/cm3,
which is just an official density of the sun up to: 3 digits,
thus an error is 0.001 at most, only.

So the fantastic coincidence is quite impossible in any reality!

But I still propose additional tests.

For example:
what is the measured/detected speed of sonic waves inside the sun,

and what is the sonic speed in the extremely compressed hydrogen?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476563

alsor@interia.pl Wrote in message:

The optimal sphere packing is rather incompatiblewith the packing
 of real atoms.

Of course it is incompatible,
as real atoms are very rare minority in the Sun. It is a plasma of
 3/4 of hydrogen and 1/4 of helium.

Where is helium bin your perfect fit?
Where are proton, alpha particles and electrons?

Where is temperature and pressure dependence of plasma density ?

You have not calculated properly  the volume for the particles, so
  calculation from wrong nunbers can orofuce anything.

And  yes, it is pure coincicence.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476570

W dniu czwartek, 8 listopada 2018 19:36:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Libor Striz napisał:
> alsor@interia.pl Wrote in message:
> 
> The optimal sphere packing is rather incompatiblewith the packing
>  of real atoms.
> 
> Of course it is incompatible,
> as real atoms are very rare minority in the Sun. It is a plasma of
>  3/4 of hydrogen and 1/4 of helium.

I don't need any stable atoms at all:
we assume there is in the sun a mix of protons and electrons.

> Where is helium bin your perfect fit?
> Where are proton, alpha particles and electrons?

This is simple: the helium and other elements,
which are observed in the sun, are detected on the surface in fact only,
not inside the sun, thus it's irrelevant in this problem.
 
> Where is temperature and pressure dependence of plasma density ?

This is simple too: just compute these dependencies and check the result -
compare with the 'super compacted hydrogen' properties.
 
> You have not calculated properly  the volume for the particles, so
>   calculation from wrong nunbers can orofuce anything.
> 
> And  yes, it is pure coincicence.

Nonsense:
no coincidence exist in physics.
Every such 'coincidence' is just a problem to resolve.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476691

This is numerology, and the fact that your number agrees with average-reality to two digits is pure chance.

You are calculating the density of your have H spheres in cubical boxes which have edges 2R where R is the Bohr radius. But of course a sphere in a box takes up only pi/6 = .52.36.% of the volume of the box. And real spheres, even marbles, don't pack head to toe that way. It's been known since Gauss that the most efficiency packing of spheres, as in bubble gum machine or in certain solids, takes up 74% of the volume (this is close to "hexagonal close-packing" in solids). The Gauss limit, which again we see in real materials quite often, is exactly square-root-2 = 1.414 times better than your sphere-in-box number and would give a density of 1.4 x 1.4 = 1.96 that of water. Not even close to your number, which is why you don't use it. You just noticed that the unnatural sphere in box with no spheres nesting in dimples on sphere planes gave you the number you liked, so you went with that. Dumb.

The real sun has a density only about 1% of the atmosphere of Earth at the photosphere (the bright opaque "surface" we see). The density climbs in a complicated but more or less exponential way to 150 times that of water at the center. You are read about it in Wikipedia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476692

This is numerology, and the fact that your number agrees with average-reality to two digits, is pure chance.

You are calculating the density of your Sun using H atom spheres in cubical boxes which have edges 2R, where R is the Bohr radius. But of course, a sphere in a box takes up only pi/6 = 52.36...% of the volume of the box. And real spheres, even marbles, don't pack head to toe that way. It's been known since Gauss that the most efficient packing of spheres, as in bubble gum machine, or liquids or in certain solids, takes up 74% of the volume (this is close to "hexagonal close-packing" in solids). 

The Gauss limit, which again we see in real materials quite often, is exactly square-root-2 = 1.414 times *better* than your sphere-in-box number, and would give a density of 1.4 x 1.4 = 1.96 that of water. Not even close to your number, which is why you don't use it. You just noticed that the unnatural sphere in a box, with no spheres nesting in dimples on sphere-planes gave you the number you liked, so you went with that. Dumb. We know the Sun is 24% by mass helium, as well.

The real sun has a density only about 1% of the atmosphere of Earth at the photosphere (the bright opaque "surface" we see). The density climbs in a complicated but more or less exponential way to 150 times that of water, at the center. You can read about it in Wikipedia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476722

W dniu sobota, 10 listopada 2018 04:45:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Steve BH napisał:
> This is numerology, and the fact that your number agrees with average-reality to two digits, is pure chance.
> 
> You are calculating the density of your Sun using H atom spheres in cubical boxes which have edges 2R, where R is the Bohr radius. But of course, a sphere in a box takes up only pi/6 = 52.36...% of the volume of the box. And real spheres, even marbles, don't pack head to toe that way. It's been known since Gauss that the most efficient packing of spheres, as in bubble gum machine, or liquids or in certain solids, takes up 74% of the volume (this is close to "hexagonal close-packing" in solids). 
 
Oh! You still have a problem with the optimal packing of spheres.

There is no problem - simply: the compressed hydrogen creates
the type of 'simple cubic' crystal structure!

Thus it is not the bcc - like in a diamond, what you wrongly assume here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_crystal_system

And this is obvious why this is the simple cubic structure too!:
the hydrogen atoms have only one electron, not more,
what is necessary to create the bcc or fcc!

> The real sun has a density only about 1% of the atmosphere of Earth at the photosphere (the bright opaque "surface" we see). The density climbs in a complicated but more or less exponential way to 150 times that of water, at the center. You can read about it in Wikipedia.

This is inconsistent with the observed 160-minutes oscillations, thus wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476836

There are no 160 minute cycles, Ding Dong. They were an artifact and the entire study of helioseismology has moved on. Sound waves in the Sun vary from 200 sec periods to just over 1 day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160-minute_solar_cycle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476922

W dniu poniedziałek, 12 listopada 2018 02:59:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Steve BH napisał:
> There are no 160 minute cycles, Ding Dong. They were an artifact and the entire study of helioseismology has moved on. Sound waves in the Sun vary from 200 sec periods to just over 1 day.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160-minute_solar_cycle

The 160-minutes period is still observed
and very well remembered by helio-scientists.

They don't know, don't have any idea now,
what is the cause of this oscillation,
especially in the actually pending models,
therefore they just ignore this, and wait for some more data,
more progress in this area, to consume this fact correctly in the future.

There is needed a general paradigm shift sometimes
in the science, to accept some 'anomalous' data - like the Copernicus revolution!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476643

On 11/8/18 11:46 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> [...]

What's the point of just making stuff up and pretending it is true?

And what's the point of ignoring very basic physics? -- the sun is 
enormously more dense at the center than average, so "calculating" 
averages from made-up numbers is USELESS.

Moreover, we can MEASURE the (surface) composition of the sun from its 
spectrum. and it is NOT 100% hydrogen as you fantasize. As other 
elements are denser than hydrogen, they are most likely present at 
higher concentrations in the interior than at the surface [#]. Needless 
to say this makes your "calculation" COMPLETELY WRONG.

	[#] But the high temperature of the sun implies considerable
	mixing, so a model is needed.

If the sun were pure hydrogen, as you fantasize, how do you suppose it 
generates the enormous energy that it radiates?

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476652

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 11/8/18 11:46 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> > [...]
> 
> What's the point of just making stuff up and pretending it is true?
> 
> And what's the point of ignoring very basic physics? -- the sun is
> enormously more dense at the center than average, so "calculating"
> averages from made-up numbers is USELESS.
> 
> Moreover, we can MEASURE the (surface) composition of the sun from its
> spectrum. and it is NOT 100% hydrogen as you fantasize. As other
> elements are denser than hydrogen, they are most likely present at
> higher concentrations in the interior than at the surface [#]. Needless
> to say this makes your "calculation" COMPLETELY WRONG.
> 
>         [#] But the high temperature of the sun implies considerable
>         mixing, so a model is needed.
> 
> If the sun were pure hydrogen, as you fantasize, how do you suppose it
> generates the enormous energy that it radiates?
> 
> Tom Roberts


I don't know the contents of the sun...but the sun "generates" the 
'enormous energy that it radiates' thru pipelines. 

It gets it's energy thru pipelines from other suns.


Each star is connected to another star where energy flows through.



We get our energy from our sun...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476667

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > On 11/8/18 11:46 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > What's the point of just making stuff up and pretending it is true?
> >
> > And what's the point of ignoring very basic physics? -- the sun is
> > enormously more dense at the center than average, so "calculating"
> > averages from made-up numbers is USELESS.
> >
> > Moreover, we can MEASURE the (surface) composition of the sun from its
> > spectrum. and it is NOT 100% hydrogen as you fantasize. As other
> > elements are denser than hydrogen, they are most likely present at
> > higher concentrations in the interior than at the surface [#]. Needless
> > to say this makes your "calculation" COMPLETELY WRONG.
> >
> >         [#] But the high temperature of the sun implies considerable
> >         mixing, so a model is needed.
> >
> > If the sun were pure hydrogen, as you fantasize, how do you suppose it
> > generates the enormous energy that it radiates?
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> I don't know the contents of the sun...but the sun "generates" the
> 'enormous energy that it radiates' thru pipelines.
> 
> It gets it's energy thru pipelines from other suns.
> 
> Each star is connected to another star where energy flows through.
> 
> We get our energy from our sun...



It seem right here in the 'scientific community' there is a lack of...know how.


No one seems to know how the sun works, or what exactly is the sun.


It is a ...machine.


It has many functions, and performs different tasks.


It simply made not to look like a machine..to

look like a Star.


The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476725

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/8/18 11:46 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > What's the point of just making stuff up and pretending it is true?
> > >
> > > And what's the point of ignoring very basic physics? -- the sun is
> > > enormously more dense at the center than average, so "calculating"
> > > averages from made-up numbers is USELESS.
> > >
> > > Moreover, we can MEASURE the (surface) composition of the sun from its
> > > spectrum. and it is NOT 100% hydrogen as you fantasize. As other
> > > elements are denser than hydrogen, they are most likely present at
> > > higher concentrations in the interior than at the surface [#]. Needless
> > > to say this makes your "calculation" COMPLETELY WRONG.
> > >
> > >         [#] But the high temperature of the sun implies considerable
> > >         mixing, so a model is needed.
> > >
> > > If the sun were pure hydrogen, as you fantasize, how do you suppose it
> > > generates the enormous energy that it radiates?
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> >
> > I don't know the contents of the sun...but the sun "generates" the
> > 'enormous energy that it radiates' thru pipelines.
> >
> > It gets it's energy thru pipelines from other suns.
> >
> > Each star is connected to another star where energy flows through.
> >
> > We get our energy from our sun...
> 
> It seem right here in the 'scientific community' there is a lack of...know how.
> 
> No one seems to know how the sun works, or what exactly is the sun.
> 
> It is a ...machine.
> 
> It has many functions, and performs different tasks.
> 
> It simply made not to look like a machine..to
> 
> look like a Star.
> 
> The Starmaker

Now, put aside the pipelines that connect to all the other stars...

in order for 'our' star/sun to perform it's different tasks and functions

on the earth, it needs a pipeline between the sun and the earth.


The pipelines are visible between all the stars in the universe.

But, what about the pipeline between the sun and the earth?

Has anybody bother to look for it? Or even know that it exist??

If you don't know about the pipeline between the stars...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476787

W dniu sobota, 10 listopada 2018 20:29:21 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/8/18 11:46 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > What's the point of just making stuff up and pretending it is true?
> > > >
> > > > And what's the point of ignoring very basic physics? -- the sun is
> > > > enormously more dense at the center than average, so "calculating"
> > > > averages from made-up numbers is USELESS.
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, we can MEASURE the (surface) composition of the sun from its
> > > > spectrum. and it is NOT 100% hydrogen as you fantasize. As other
> > > > elements are denser than hydrogen, they are most likely present at
> > > > higher concentrations in the interior than at the surface [#]. Needless
> > > > to say this makes your "calculation" COMPLETELY WRONG.
> > > >
> > > >         [#] But the high temperature of the sun implies considerable
> > > >         mixing, so a model is needed.
> > > >
> > > > If the sun were pure hydrogen, as you fantasize, how do you suppose it
> > > > generates the enormous energy that it radiates?
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts
> > >
> > > I don't know the contents of the sun...but the sun "generates" the
> > > 'enormous energy that it radiates' thru pipelines.
> > >
> > > It gets it's energy thru pipelines from other suns.
> > >
> > > Each star is connected to another star where energy flows through.
> > >
> > > We get our energy from our sun...
> > 
> > It seem right here in the 'scientific community' there is a lack of...know how.
> > 
> > No one seems to know how the sun works, or what exactly is the sun.
> > 
> > It is a ...machine.
> > 
> > It has many functions, and performs different tasks.
> > 
> > It simply made not to look like a machine..to
> > 
> > look like a Star.
> > 
> > The Starmaker
> 
> Now, put aside the pipelines that connect to all the other stars...
> 
> in order for 'our' star/sun to perform it's different tasks and functions
> 
> on the earth, it needs a pipeline between the sun and the earth.
> 
> 
> The pipelines are visible between all the stars in the universe.
> 
> But, what about the pipeline between the sun and the earth?
> 
> Has anybody bother to look for it? Or even know that it exist??
> 
> If you don't know about the pipeline between the stars...

Indeed. These tubes have been observed already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_transfer_event

Simply:
the electric current/energy flow is invisible in general.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476879

On 11/9/18 12:00 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> I don't know the contents of the sun...but the sun "generates" the
> 'enormous energy that it radiates' thru pipelines.
> It gets it's energy thru pipelines from other suns.
> Each star is connected to another star where energy flows through.

This is all OBSERVABLY FALSE. No such "pipelines" are visible.

What's the point of just making up fantasies and pretending they are true?

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476905

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 11/9/18 12:00 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > I don't know the contents of the sun...but the sun "generates" the
> > 'enormous energy that it radiates' thru pipelines.
> > It gets it's energy thru pipelines from other suns.
> > Each star is connected to another star where energy flows through.
> 
> This is all OBSERVABLY FALSE. No such "pipelines" are visible.
> 
> What's the point of just making up fantasies and pretending they are true?
> 
> Tom Roberts


Just because the 'information' does not exist 'in Your mind' doesn't mean it isn't true...it means simply ..
what you don't know, you don't know.

But, another person in this thread posted this:

> Indeed. These tubes have been observed already.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_transfer_event
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476654

W dniu piątek, 9 listopada 2018 17:09:04 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 11/8/18 11:46 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> > [...]
> 
> What's the point of just making stuff up and pretending it is true?
> 
> And what's the point of ignoring very basic physics? -- the sun is 
> enormously more dense at the center than average, so "calculating" 
> averages from made-up numbers is USELESS.
> 
> Moreover, we can MEASURE the (surface) composition of the sun from its 
> spectrum. and it is NOT 100% hydrogen as you fantasize. As other 
> elements are denser than hydrogen, they are most likely present at 
> higher concentrations in the interior than at the surface [#]. Needless 
> to say this makes your "calculation" COMPLETELY WRONG.
> 
> 	[#] But the high temperature of the sun implies considerable
> 	mixing, so a model is needed.
> 
> If the sun were pure hydrogen, as you fantasize, how do you suppose it 
> generates the enormous energy that it radiates?
> 
> Tom Roberts

Indeed.
My proposition doesn't exclude the possibility:
in the center of sun is something other than the metallic hydrogen.

For example:
in the center there is in sun a pure protonium sphere,
or maybe neutronium... with a radius, say: 1-10% of the sun,ie.:
1000 km - something like a pulsar, which pulsates there. :)

And the protonium's matter density is just the same as the metallic hydrogen, of course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476645

Soundgarden - Black Hole Sun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbBbFH9fAg


In my eyes, indisposed
In disguises no one knows
Hides the face, lies the snake
The sun in my disgrace
Boiling heat, summer stench
'Neath the black the sky looks dead
Call my name through the cream
And I'll hear you scream again
Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain
Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come (won't you come)
Stuttering, cold and damp
Steal the warm wind tired friend
Times are gone for honest men
And sometimes far too long for snakes
In my shoes, a walking sleep
And my youth I pray to keep
Heaven sent hell away
No one sings like you anymore
Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain
Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come
Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain
Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Hang my head, drown my fear
Till you all just disappear
Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain
Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come
Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain
Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come (black hole sun, black hole sun)
Won't you come
Won't you come

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476658

> I have the one very interesting additional question in this subject:
> what is a speed of sound in such extremely compacted hydrogen?

So, I try to calculate the sonic speed for the compacted hydrogen.

The general formula for the sound speed looks like this:

c^2 = 2 ke^2/mr

And I simply insert the data for the compressed hydrogen:

k = 9e9; e = 1.6e-19; some popular electric constants;
and: 
m = 1.67e-27 kg, r = r_H = 5.3e-11 m; a mass and a radius of the hydrogen atom.

hence:
c^2 = 2 x 9e9*1.6e-19 / 1.67e-27*5.3e-11 = 5206191390. =>

c = 72153 m/s

so, the sonic speed in the hyper-hydrogen is just 72 km/s!!!!

Now we must verify this number with something observed in the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160-minute_solar_cycle

radius of the sun is:
R =~ 0.69 mln km, then a time period for the ~72 km/s is simply:

T = R/C = 0.69e9m / 72e3m/s = 9583s =~ 160 minutes, exactly!!!

So, the sun is in fact an uniform ultra compacted of hydrogen ball,
with... 99.999999% of confidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web