Is the Sun "lumpy" on the inside??

[tsmspace]

The Earth, and to my basic uneducated knowledge, actually all of the planets and other bodies are uneven in mass distribution. The Earth has a famous "low gravity bubble" in the Indian Ocean. LIkewise uneven gravity is an attribute of other planets. 

Previously in life I was explained to that the interior of the Earth, as well as the Sun, were so fluid that they were virtually perfectly evenly distributed for mass. In the last 20 years or so it has become common knowledge that for the earth and other planets this is not true, although scientists do not have perfect confidence in how to understand the observations they have made that show that indeed there is a "lumpy" interior to objects like the earth, as well as uneven gravity. 

Could this apply to the Sun as well? Could the Sun be "lumpy" on the inside?? True, the Sun is incredibly fluid, being so much plasma, but it is also incredibly massive. Recently I saw an article posted about a recent publication of a study, where a star far away in a fairly recent observation appeared to have more than one brightness, which was discussed to be possibly a result of uneven distribution of the isotopes of hydrogen ,, basically one part would be very much one isotope, leading to one color/brightness, while on the other side would be a different dominant isotope resulting in a different color/brightness. 

And ,, if this is true, , would it be plausible that the Sun's gravity is also (like all of the other measured bodies in human history) not perfectly consistent?? After all ,, to my understanding we do not have any data that supports the idea that there ARE objects in existence that DO have perfectly consistent gravity ???? 

[Sensei]

16 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

The Earth, and to my basic uneducated knowledge, actually all of the planets and other bodies are uneven in mass distribution.

"When you have $1 million, you don't see a loss or gain of a cent"..

17 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

The Earth has a famous "low gravity bubble" in the Indian Ocean.

 

Water has a density of 1 g/cm^3, while solid rock has two to three times that (or more if it contains more metals). But this is only a small "skin" on top of the Earth. The deepest ocean has a trench 11 km deep, while the Earth has a radius of 6730 km. 11/6370 = 0.17% (in mass it will be significantly worse, calculate how much using the average density of the Earth)

 

32 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

Previously in life I was explained to that the interior of the Earth, as well as the Sun, were so fluid that they were virtually perfectly evenly distributed for mass. In the last 20 years or so it has become common knowledge that for the earth and other planets this is not true, although scientists do not have perfect confidence in how to understand the observations they have made that show that indeed there is a "lumpy" interior to objects like the earth, as well as uneven gravity. 

Apparently, you haven't bothered to find out how little difference we are talking about..

 

34 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

After all ,, to my understanding we do not have any data that supports the idea that there ARE objects in existence that DO have perfectly consistent gravity ???? 

Do you have any data to support that something you perceive as flat is flat? To you, it appears flat because you are big and your eyes are imprecise. Under a microscope, a flat surface is full of "mountains" and "valleys." These "mountains" are "big" for microns or nanometers.. (i.e., irrelevant to the human body counted in meters)

[tsmspace]

I follow you, I promise. The gravity "hole" in the Indian Ocean is not the result of mountains or trenches or any other "crust" formation. Although these things do result in variations in the amount of mass nearby, I am talking about something else. In the mantle are measured (I guess by sound from earthquakes and such) to be these "giant structures" of "increased density".  , , There appears to be a large plume of magma that had erupted from the mantle into the crust resulting in the anomoly in the Indian Ocean. 

Perhaps a better way to make my suggestion would be to talk about the "Great Red Spot" on Jupiter. What is that?? Does it have different gravity? Could such a formation exist in the Sun???? What would that be like?? ANd,, Jupiter is SO ENORMOUS ,, could there not likewise be such "storms" deeper within Jupiter which although connected to other parts of Jupiter do no necessarily "reveal" themselves to us? 

I forget about this other star, but there are a number of stars with varying brightness, although there are multiple possible explanations. However, this was a study proper that analyzed the spectroscopy of the data and apparently it appeared as though there was indeed a "non-mixing" of the elements of this particular star, so that on one side burned the color of one particular material, while on the other side burned the color of another one. In this case, the density of SUCH A HUGE OBJECT ,,, A STAR  ,,,, must vary in a way that is not necessarily stable in it's gravity correct?? Given enough time, the whole thing should settle down to an energy-less mass perfectly sorted by gravity, but perhaps this just really takes a long time? So long, in fact,, that we might be able to imagine that within the sun, there are also "structures" that exist similar to our own uneven mantle mass distribution?? Huge formations (perhaps storms like the one on Jupiter's outer visible atmosphere) that are simply yet unable to mix into the rest of the Sun's mass, despite their instability against the Suns gravity?? Perhaps so huge that instruments might even be able to detect a gravitational variance that it might cause? 

[Sensei]

The difference is counted in milligals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal_(unit)

i.e. 9.80665 m/s^2 = 980.665 cm/s^2, and the difference is in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th digit, after the fractional dot..

 

They are specially tweaked to see them better. In RGB pixel format, without overtweaking, the differences would be so small that you could tell they were the same color.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Sensei

[tsmspace]

right ,, so we do not have such a "graph" for the sun correct?? 

[Sensei]

3 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

right ,, so we do not have such a "graph" for the sun correct?? 

Is it possible to have such a map for the Sun? Not really.. It is not a solid body. Different regions of the star rotate at different speeds and/or in different directions.

"Bubbles" on distant stars are often the result of an unseen second massive object nearby, which attracts them.

[tsmspace]

it would have to be quite dynamic then huh. 

 

you know first people were saying that jupiter doesn't have any solid objects because the pressure is so great that nothing can be just it's solid form, but then today other was saying that well on the other hand ,, it WOULD be solid, it would be under so much pressure that although it would be technically a "liquid" on the charts, it would be very solid compared to any of our solids on the surface of the earth, it would be very very very solid. ,,, The SUN is quite a bit bigger,, it must be quite a bit of pressure in there. perhaps likewise the mass in the sun would be, despite it's "gaseous" form,, a very very very solid bit of gas. ??? 

 

Anyway I don't suppose anyone is trying to track the suns surface gravity, in the way they track the magnetism?? I would be interested to see such discussions. I would spend all of my scifi energy on it. 

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

Do you have any data to support that something you perceive as flat is flat? To you, it appears flat because you are big and your eyes are imprecise. Under a microscope, a flat surface is full of "mountains" and "valleys." These "mountains" are "big" for microns or nanometers.. (i.e., irrelevant to the human body counted in meters)

This is something that's nicely illustrated using Google Earth. It surprised me when I first did it. It really shows how smooth the surface of the Earth is, when you look from a distance. If you look carefully, you can see the yellow line that indicates the height of Mount Everest, coming out of New York. I used the measuring tool and scrolled about 29,000 feet.