Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2017 3:53 AM
390 online now:
bluegenes, CRR, frako, NoNukes, PaulK, Son Goku, vimesey (7 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,933 Year: 13,539/21,208 Month: 3,021/3,605 Week: 363/933 Day: 8/97 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
zaius137
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 106 of 181 (672696)
09-10-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Straggler
09-10-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Not enough.
I find this a bit rigorous for a conversation forum…

Rather than a 'Gish Gallop' I would prefer that we identify the one you think is strongest and look at that in detail. Pick one and then let's ask these questions:

1)What exactly does the theory say?
2) How exactly does it lead to the prediction in question?
3) Is the theory falsified if the prediction isn't met?
4) What new observable data did the prediction and it's verification
result in (i.e. what was discovered as a direct consequence of the theory in question)?

Try applying number 3 and 4 to say a theory like Evolution… Just funny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 2:41 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Admin, posted 09-10-2012 4:56 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12503
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 107 of 181 (672697)
09-10-2012 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Not enough.
Don't bother to ask me anymore questions as this has clearly become nothing more than a shouting match.

Moderator if you want to ban or suspend me for refusing to take being insulted by this clown go right ahead. I guess I thought this would be civil place. My mistake.

I don't see anything in Jon's post that seems like shouting, nor does he say anything insulting, nor anything that deserves calling him a clown. By Internet discussion board standards Jon's message was fairly sedate. The request that you support your claims is standard operating procedure here - it's in the forum guidelines. People are expected to support their claims with evidence and argument. His noting that you have been and are still using old and superseded data seems correct as far as I can tell, but if he's wrong about that then you need only correct him.

I recognize that it is many against one, so if you're feeling pressured then please realize there's no time limit on replying. Take as much time and be just as relaxed as you like.

I can tell you feel unfairly put upon, but recall your claim from earlier messages that you're quite capable of dishing it out, and I think you may be failing to recognize that you're displaying this ability to a greater degree than you're aware.

I've been moderating this board for quite a while and I'm pretty good at it, but I can't force people to follow my advice. The only stick is temporary suspension, but it's a two-edged sword because those suspended frequently cite it as evidence of moderator bias, so I try to use it sparingly (spammers ("Get a Date Tonight!") are suspended immediately and permanently).

You can argue any position you like here. If anyone doesn't like your position and uses anything besides evidence and argument against it then I am here to defend you. But if you insist on defending yourself and in the process antagonize others then, well, my experience has been that it's a downward spiral about which moderators can do little.

Edited by Admin, : Regrammarize.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:24 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1621 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 108 of 181 (672698)
09-10-2012 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Straggler
09-10-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Not enough.
Let's pick prediction No. 9 About supernovas The basic premise of the conventional view on them is that when a star is massive enough and has used up its supply of nuclear fuel it will collapse due to its gravity overcoming its energy output.

Laviolette writes; "The progenitor star for Supernova 1987A was found to be an unusually luminous type B3 blue supergiant known as Sandulek -69 202. It wa not a a star that was about to exhaust its energy supply and flicker out, but one that was emitting prodigious amounts of energy. Hence there was no way that its envelope could have collapsed. More over nuclear reactions fall far short of providing the energy needed to power such an explosion."

"On the other hand SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy."

I choose this because it may make the best inroads for the case for this genic energy. Further I find it fascinating the notion that stars grow rather than just ignite from a condensing cloud and then slowly burn out. That seems a dismal paradigm to me both for stars and the universe.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 2:41 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2012 5:15 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-10-2012 5:28 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 112 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 5:33 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 7:34 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12503
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 109 of 181 (672699)
09-10-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by zaius137
09-10-2012 4:43 PM


Re: Not enough.
This thread has a topic, and you're not on it. Criticize evolution all you like, but please, not in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. In this thread you don't claim, "I'm no monkey's uncle!" You instead claim, "I am not made of star stuff!"

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by zaius137, posted 09-10-2012 4:43 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12686
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 110 of 181 (672700)
09-10-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 4:52 PM


Re: Not enough.
It doesn't seem to be the case that all supernovae were blue giant stars.

SN2001fe appears to have been a white dwarf. (Further research indicates that no star was visible at the location, which was held to rule out a red giant - and therefore certainly rules out a blue giant, which would be even more obvious).

SN1993j seems to have originated with a K class (orange) star.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:52 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 111 of 181 (672701)
09-10-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 4:52 PM


"On the other hand SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy."

How so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:52 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 6:14 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1621 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 112 of 181 (672702)
09-10-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 4:52 PM


Re: Not enough.
On second thught it seems that the main criticism about LaViolette is he's using outdated data. While I disagree, as I've said many times I'm not a scientist and even as a buff I'm not necessarily up on the latest. I decided to go to the Starburst Foundation website and found more recent work by LaViolette in the fields of Astrophysics in which he has a Phd. And there isfurther work done in Microphysics relating to his matter creation theories.

I'll provide a link here: http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict.html to the latest list of both predictions and verifications for anyone who is interested. If you go to the main webpage there are further links to further predictions and verifications in Microphysics

But heeding the moderator I'll just provide one here that might be of interest:

"Cosmic Ray Propagation - prevailing concept (1980 - 1983): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that interstellar magnetic fields entrap cosmic rays released from Galactic core outbursts and slow their outward progress so that they reach the Earth after millions of years in the form of a constant low intensity background radiation.

Prediction No. 2 (1980 - 83): Dr. LaViolette's studies concluded that Galactic center cosmic ray volleys interact minimally with interstellar magnetic fields and are able to propagate radially outward along rectilinear trajectories traveling through the Galaxy at near light speed in the form of a coherent, spherical, wave-like volley. He was the first to suggest this idea of a "Galactic superwave."

Verification (1985): Astrophysicists discovered that X-ray pulsars continuously shower the Earth with high-energy cosmic ray particles that have traveled over 25,000 light-years at nearly the speed of light, following straight-line trajectories unaffected by interstellar magnetic fields.

Verification (1997): Astrophysicists detected a strong gamma ray pulse arriving from a galaxy billions of light years away having a redshift of 3.4 (see Prediction No. 10 below). Mainstream media, such as Sky & Telescope magazine, suggested that this gamma ray pulse may be accompanied by a volley of high energy cosmic ray particles travelling at very close to the speed of light along a rectilinear trajectory and that the gamma ray pulse is produced by the radial outward movement of this volley. In effect, they were restating the same Galactic superwave idea that LaViolette had proposed 14 years earlier in the face of stiff resistance from mainstream astronomers.

Verification (2000): Radio astronomers announce at the January 2000 American Astronomical Society meeting that the synchrotron radio emission radiated from the Galactic center (Sgr A*) is circularly polarized. Scientists present at the meeting concurred with Dr. LaViolette's suggestion that the circular polarization indicated that cosmic ray electrons were travelling radially away from the Galactic center along straight-line trajectories."

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:52 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1621 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 113 of 181 (672707)
09-10-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by New Cat's Eye
09-10-2012 5:28 PM


Catholic Scientist's Quote:

"How so?"

If genic energy is a major component of the older larger stars energy output besides nuclear fusion and stored heat, it could be the source of the tremendous energy put out in supernovas.

The conventional view as I understand it is that this huge explosion is the result of stored potential gravtational energy or of additional fusion energy produced at the time of collapse. But some Astrophyisicists claim it doesn't add up to the amount of energy they observe put out by a supernova. Certainly the main premise is the star has used up its supply of fusible fuel which is why they think it collapses. Some believe that it comes from some recoil effect but that explanation doesn't satisfy some.

LaViolette writes further on this topic; "That is, in the case of a genic power source, a supernova would be expected to develop from a hot stellar phase SUCH AS (emphasis mine) a blue-supergiant, rather than from a cool red supergiant phase. A hot star would have a particularly high rate of genic energy production, as indicated by Equation (9-3) Lg = dE/dt =uH ~ -a(gravity constant figure (not) I can't reproduce) C (not) M T (not).) and hence would be most likely to embark on the exponential increase mode of energy production. Normally a star dissipates much of the heat from its interior through convection to its surface where the energy is then radiated into space. However, in a luminous blue supergiant there is no longer a definite surface to the star. The high stellar wind mass loss rate builds up a dense concentratin of gases immediately around the star which reflect back much of the outgoing radiation back inward. As a result, convection is no longer able to efficiently dissipate energy, so the star's temperature and genic energy production soars and rapidly builds up to an explosive condition."

He cites the massive outpouring of stars like Eta Carinae which has been continuously "exploding" since 1843 and is termed by some astronomers as a "slow nova". Genic energy buildups could account for this according to LaViolette.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-10-2012 5:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 1:06 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 114 of 181 (672716)
09-10-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 4:52 PM


Re: Not enough.
I don't think you have any idea just how revolutionary the idea of creationists predicting new phenomenon and making discoveries as a result really is.

It is unheard of!! If your claims are true and stand up to scrutiny you will have achieved more than any other creationist I have ever seen here or anywhere else on the internet.

TROU writes:

"On the other hand SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy."

Did Laviolette discover SN187A and it's behaviour himself or did someone applying his theories discover this phenomenon by seeking the specifics of that which he had predicted? Can you explain exactly how SN187A and it's anomylous behaviour was discovered and the role of Laviolette's work in that discovery?

When Laviolette made his predictions did he provide any mathematical basis for calculating exactly how luminous (or any other measurable quantity) an example like SN187A would be based on his theory? Can we make a specific measurement which verifies the theory beyond any reasonable doubt?

TROU writes:

"On the other hand SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy."

If this isn't just a post hoc "I can explain an observation that seems anomylous to accepted science" but in fact a genuine prediction then this is very exciting. I look forward to your answer to the above questions.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:52 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 8:19 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1621 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 115 of 181 (672722)
09-10-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NoNukes
09-10-2012 12:19 PM


No Nukes,

I found something that might answer your finding that 5 Supernovae were found to have had red supergiant precursors. It may be a matter of the scenario I described earlier where red switches to blue and back again. The point I think LaViolette was really making is that the mechanism of supernova may not be that a star runs out of fuel but that it is producing so much energy and throwing off so much matter in a supergiant phase that its mass loss rate chokes off the convectional process and causes an explosive buildup.

He writes; "As the radiation pressure intensity progressively increases to the point that it overcomes the inward pull of the star's gravatational field, the star rapidly expands, it's surface temperature progressively decreasing, and it begins moving off the main sequence toward the right end of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram into the red supergiant region. In the course of this departure, it will have entered its post main sequence phase of evolution. During this supergiant phase it could adopt any one of several spectral classes (O through M). The particular spectral class it adopts would depend on its characteristic mass, luminosity, and internal structure (e.g., on the fraction of genic energy generated in its metallic core as opposed to its gaseous envelope.)"

So what MAY be really found at the time of the star going supernova is a star that is old, having had time to synthsize heavier elements (metals) in its core and also time to grow a huge genic energy component. A star like our sun when it does become a red giant may be only in an intermediate phase far from spectral class O or M. But what do I know? In any event while LaViolette may have not been precise enough in that prediction he did nail it with SN 1987A. So he's only human and he ain't my dad so I won't take it personally.

Trou.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 12:19 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 10:41 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1621 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 116 of 181 (672725)
09-10-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Straggler
09-10-2012 7:34 PM


Re: Not enough.
Straggler,

I will ignore your calling me a "creationist" because I sense you don't mean it in a nasty way. I am not religious. But yes I do believe in God the Creator and in His Son. I don't know what LaViolette's "religion" is if indeed he has one. But my belief in God as Truth certainly doesn't stop me from following careful observational and experimental data where it may lead. In fact it encourages it.

In answer to your question. LaViolette merely predicted that astronomer's would find Supernova precursor stars to be Blue SuperGiants. But if you've read through this thread and read the previous post of mine responding to "NoNukes" you'll see that if the findings he reports are true that (5) red supergiants were found to be Supernova precursors then LaViolette's prediction, while nailing SN 1987A right on, leaves some remaining questions that still need to be investigated about those other ones. I believe his new ideas on stellar evolution will bear out if genic energy is proved and at the very least revise the Main Sequence and Post Sequence Stellar Evolutionary charts.

Trou.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 7:34 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2012 1:53 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 121 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 8:11 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15927
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 117 of 181 (672730)
09-10-2012 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 12:15 PM


Since Scheffer,( E- Print arXiv:gr-qc/0107092; gr-qc/0108054), and Katz and Murphy, ( Phys. Rev. Letters 83) long ago ...

Why bother with what was done "long ago" when what I presented was based on newly discovered data?

Perhaps because you have a canned answer to what was said long ago, but not to what was just recently proved?

Scheffer's Model predicted that the thrust from these thermal sources should have declined by 11.8% from "Period I" (10/1988) through "Period III" (7/1995) due to a decline in available spacecraft power and changes in the types of experiments being carried out. instead a much smaller rate of decrease in "acceleration" is seen.

Did you write that correctly? You seem to be saying that the explanation is more than enough to explain the phenomena. In which case you'll have to reverse the nature of the supposed anomaly.

So you see even if they now are saying they've accounted for it, their behavior makes me doubt it.

Their behavior, eh? Rather than their data and their calculations?

Let me know how that works out for you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 12:15 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9537
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 118 of 181 (672733)
09-10-2012 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 8:04 PM


I found something that might answer your finding that 5 Supernovae were found to have had red supergiant precursors. It may be a matter of the scenario I described earlier where red switches to blue and back again.

Apparently I have completely and utterly failed to make my point.

Understanding how blue or red super giants become type II super novas does not require genic energy and therefore SN1987A is not evidence supporting LaViolette's work. Expressed another way, there is no reason to believe that genic energy even exists and thus no reason to indulge in fantasies about how wrong conventional astrophysics and cosmology are if such energy did exist.

If LaViolette thinks that genic energy causes some stars to produce type II supernova for reasons other than a process involving using up materials to fuse, where is his evidence?

LaViolette may have not been precise enough in that prediction he did nail it with SN 1987A

But a super human result is what you are advertising. Your claim is that he has predicted something no else could have predicted using convention science not based on subquantum kinetics and genic energy, with genic energy being something for which there is no evidence. The sole reason you have for accepting LaViolette's work is that it is an alternative to conventional physics gives results you are motivated to reject.

I am not so motivated, so what is a reason for me to believe LaViolette is not yet another crank?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 8:04 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 12:20 PM NoNukes has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 119 of 181 (672742)
09-11-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 6:14 PM


Thanks for the reply, Thou.

"On the other hand SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy."

How so?
If genic energy is a major component of the older larger stars energy output besides nuclear fusion and stored heat, it could be the source of the tremendous energy put out in supernovas.

Wait... No. Not: "What if?".

How so?

How does SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 6:14 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12686
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 120 of 181 (672745)
09-11-2012 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Not enough.
quote:

In answer to your question. LaViolette merely predicted that astronomer's would find Supernova precursor stars to be Blue SuperGiants

Alright, so the prediction wasn't verified by SN1987A (one example is insufficient) and has failed. (See the two examples in my post Message 110)

quote:

But if you've read through this thread and read the previous post of mine responding to "NoNukes" you'll see that if the findings he reports are true that (5) red supergiants were found to be Supernova precursors then LaViolette's prediction, while nailing SN 1987A right on, leaves some remaining questions that still need to be investigated about those other ones.

If LaViolette was right then you shouldn't need to be doing that investigation. You should have a clear majority (at the least) of the supernova precursors should be blue giants. If you have to explain away the majority of the results as special cases (with only one supposedly "typical" event!) then your theory is almost certainly wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 8:19 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017