Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 12:40 AM
361 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 357 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,619 Year: 19,225/21,208 Month: 1,984/3,111 Week: 205/574 Day: 1/46 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
onifre
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 121 of 181 (672752)
09-11-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Not enough.
I am not religious. But yes I do believe in God the Creator and in His Son.

Um, I don't think you know what "religious" means.

Is his son's name Jesus?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 8:19 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 10:09 AM onifre has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 122 of 181 (672768)
09-11-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by onifre
09-11-2012 8:11 AM


Re: Not enough.
Um, I don't think you know what "religious" means.

Is his son's name Jesus?

- Oni

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, on the contrary I think it is you that doesn't know what "religious" means. With all due respect. To me "religious" means belonging to a particular organized religion, like the Catholic Protestant, Presbyterian, Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist, etc. Or being an Orthodox, Reform or Conservative Jew. Or a Hindu, Moslem or a Buddhist.

My belief in God and Christ came about on a personal spiritual basis and includes an "expanding philosophy" that embraces the truths and beauty found in all religions and "non-religions". Truths pursued by atheists, agnostics, and philosophers of all kinds. The key for me is "Truth".

Yes I have "Faith" now, but in my case it needed, unlike with many others, a lifetime of experiencing the Love God has for me and us all. And I will not be constrained by the dogmas that form the basis for too many religions.

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 121 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 8:11 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:37 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 125 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:39 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12517
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 123 of 181 (672772)
09-11-2012 10:36 AM


Topic Reminder
Religion, religiousness and whether TheRestOfUs is a creationist are not the topic.

If TheRestOfUs will please understand that he is advocating a position that in the past has only been advocated here by creationists, and that he himself has raised suspicions about the degree to which his religious views influence his scientific judgment (e.g., Message 48) and that's why it keeps coming up, then I request that everyone else please respect his declaration that he is keeping his science and his religion separate and to raise the issue no more.

That doesn't mean no one is allowed to mention religion or creationism in this thread, but please do not get into digressions on these topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:41 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11556
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 124 of 181 (672773)
09-11-2012 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Not enough.
Um, on the contrary I think it is you that doesn't know what "religious" means. With all due respect. To me "religious" means belonging to a particular organized religion, like the Catholic Protestant, Presbyterian, Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist, etc. Or being an Orthodox, Reform or Conservative Jew. Or a Hindu, Moslem or a Buddhist.

We're not going to agree on what that particular word means. For example, I'm Catholic but I don't consider myself religious. Its not about being in the club, its about what you feel.

But lets stick to the topic and not get sidetracked:

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 122 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 10:09 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 125 of 181 (672774)
09-11-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Not enough.
My belief in God and Christ came...

...from the Bible. You believe in Jesus Christ, so you are a Christ-ian. You are religious. There are no independent writings and teaching from Christ. You MUST read the Bible for such lessons, teachings, etc. You follow the Christian religion whether you like it or not.

You don't believe in Allah and the teachings of Muhammad do you?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 10:09 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 126 of 181 (672776)
09-11-2012 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Admin
09-11-2012 10:36 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Sorry Percy, didn't see your message until after I posted.

If Moose wishes to suspend me for 8 weeks I understand

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Admin, posted 09-11-2012 10:36 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 127 of 181 (672783)
09-11-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2012 1:06 AM


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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Scientist,

First it's "Trou" not "Thou". Second the words including "precisely fit" were LaViolette's.

I believe what he meant is clear. As I mentioned the convention at the time of his prediction No. 9 (1985) was "that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion."

In prediction No. 9 he does say that; "Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced, not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (IJGS pp. 342-343).

I call your attention to the words; "That is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable." As I have already mentioned in my dialogue with "NoNukes" in Post 115, LaViolette says on page 236 of Subquantum Kinetics;

"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.)"

The above points out that when stars have "grown" luminous enough, processes may come into play which may move the star into "Post Main Sequence". And to the right on the Hertzsprung- Russell Diagram into a spectral class where it may "oscillate" between appearing Blue OR Red. But the "Red" Supergiant star has already been a "Blue" (exceedingly HOT exceedingly luminous) Supergiant and OLD enough to have synthesized heavier elements AND presumably (as per LaViolette) have even a majority of it's energy output coming from his theorized "genic energy".

So, as to answering your question, "How so?"- does SN 1987A being found to be blue supergiant Sandulek -69 202 "precisely fit the circumstances that would be expected IF supernovae were powered by genic energy"? I think what he meant was just that; Sandulek-69 202 was NOT a star that FIT the conventional "wisdom" at the time of a star that had exhausted its nuclear fuel supply. If ANYTHING it was the opposite; a highly energetic star FULL of fuel!

Does that answer your question adequately?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 1:06 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 11:56 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 09-11-2012 12:49 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3801
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 128 of 181 (672787)
09-11-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Not enough.
So, there's nothing about the CMB? And, I see a Google search for"Laviolette cosmic microwave" turns up no evidence that he has any explanation for the CMB, except for a few nutjobs denying the existence of the CMB.

That's the last nail in the coffin. No CMB explanation, no theory.

The only remaining question, a minor one, is WTF are you doing? You obviously don't understand LaViolette's theory, you can't post anything other than quotes from his writings, you can't explain or expand on or discuss the theory, you can't respond meaningfully to any questions or criticisms… so what's the point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:24 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 1:51 PM JonF has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11556
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 129 of 181 (672788)
09-11-2012 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 11:05 AM


First it's "Trou" not "Thou".

Sorry.

Second the words including "precisely fit" were LaViolette's.

Well I'd rather us discuss this in our own words anyways. I can't stand reading long cut-n-pasted quotes.

I believe what he meant is clear. As I mentioned the convention at the time of his prediction No. 9 (1985) was "that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion."

Okay. And some are. You know, there's like ten different types of supernovae. There's not just one cause of a supernova.

In prediction No. 9 he does say that; "Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced, not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (IJGS pp. 342-343).

Okay, so he was right about its progenitor being a blue supergiant. That could have been a lucky guess, no?

Where's the beef in this balogna about genic energy though?

So, as to answering your question, "How so?"- does SN 1987A being found to be blue supergiant Sandulek -69 202 "precisely fit the circumstances that would be expected IF supernovae were powered by genic energy"? I think what he meant was just that; Sandulek-69 202 was NOT a star that FIT the conventional "wisdom" at the time of a star that had exhausted its nuclear fuel supply. If ANYTHING it was the opposite; a highly energetic star FULL of fuel!

Does that answer your question adequately?

Sort of, but not really. If we assume geneic energy means that some supernovae have blue giants as progenitors, then finding just that might seem like a success. But what we're missing is anything about this genic energy, itself.

Too, we still have the other types of supernovae that do stem from more traditional explanations - so those aren't really wrong they're just incomplete.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 11:05 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 130 of 181 (672790)
09-11-2012 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NoNukes
09-10-2012 10:41 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?

I disagree that is my sole reason and that there is no evidence and disagree that predicting that blue supergiants going supernova does not confirm or require a concept of a separate power source, (genic energy). Both FOR the event itself and AS a better explanation to account for the observed energy released BY the event.

Conventional explanations fail to account for the energy released by a collapsing star that has presumably ""run out of fuel".

Take for example Eta Carinae. Eta Carinae (approx 150 Solar Masses) has a luminosity according to LaViolette "of about 4 x 10 to the 6th L (Solar Luminosities)., whereupon it became the second brightest star in the sky." It has released so much energy over such a long period of time some astronomers call it a "slow nova". LaViolette writes; "Since the time of its 1843 peak luminosity it is estimated to have released upwards of 2 x 10 to the 50th ergs, comparable to the energy released in some of the most energetic supernova explosions.

Astrophysicists have been puzzled as to what energy source could produce such enormous outputs over such an extended period of time. One theory suggested that material expelled from the star's poles might return at the equator to replenish the star with energy. However new observations with the Hubble Space Telescope demonstrate that matter is flowig outward in all directions, with no sign of inward motion. The mystery is easily resolved if Eta Carinae is spontaneiously creating its energy in the form of genic energy."

"Genic energy" could also account for the highly energetic cosmic ray outbursts emitted from active galactic nuclei. At present, no reasonable explanation has been found..."

"Conventional explanations, such as energy produced by matter entering a black hole, fall short by many orders of magnitude in being able to to account for the energy radiated from the nuclei of certain quasars and radio galaxies." (reference Burbridge, G. "physical problems associated with BL Lac Objects and QSQ's." Physica Scripta 17 (1978): 281-283. and Burbridge, G. R., T. Jones and S. O'Dell. "Physics of compact nonthermal sources III. Energetic considerations." Ap. J. 193 (1974): 43-54.)

"Even if the material said to orbit a black hole could overcome the intense pressure of the outgoing radiation wind, it simply would not be able to fall in fast enough to yeild the observed luminosity. (reference Barnes, J., L. Hernquist, and Schweizer. "Colliding galaxies." Sci. Am. 265(2) 1991): 40-47.) "

Trou


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 10:41 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Coragyps, posted 09-11-2012 1:00 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 1:45 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13326
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 131 of 181 (672797)
09-11-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 11:05 AM


TheRestOfUs writes:

So, as to answering your question, "How so?"- does SN 1987A being found to be blue supergiant Sandulek -69 202 "precisely fit the circumstances that would be expected IF supernovae were powered by genic energy"? I think what he meant was just that; Sandulek-69 202 was NOT a star that FIT the conventional "wisdom" at the time of a star that had exhausted its nuclear fuel supply. If ANYTHING it was the opposite; a highly energetic star FULL of fuel!


I don't know if this helps but: How would you detect and measure "genic energy"? What observable effects would it have on matter? How would you distinguish it from other forms of energy?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 11:05 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:43 PM ringo has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 132 of 181 (672800)
09-11-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 12:20 PM


Beaming.
Burbridge, back so long ago that I was still in school, obviously did not know everything about jets and quasars that we know today.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/916.summary
discusses just one of a few hundreds of examples.......


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 12:20 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9734
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 133 of 181 (672808)
09-11-2012 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 12:20 PM


Conventional explanations fail to account for the energy released by a collapsing star that has presumably ""run out of fuel".

Take for example Eta Carinae. Eta Carinae (approx 150 Solar Masses) has a luminosity according to LaViolette "of about 4 x 10 to the 6th L (Solar Luminosities).,

First of all "according to LaViolette" is not any kind of argument when we are discussing whether he is right. In short this is a issue raised by LaViolette and conveniently answered by filling in genic energy. "LaViolette said so" is not evidence of a gap in conventional theory to close with a missing energy source.

More importantly Eta Carinae is not a collapsing star. It is a big blue variable star, or more accurately a star system including a humongous star and at least one smaller but still humongous star. Conventional explanations for its brightness don't leave a gap that needs a genic energy fill in.

Neither of the other two references you cited deal with super nova, and there is not enough context for me to tell even whether they raise issues that are without a current explanation. Two sources are articles about 30-40 years old, and the third citation is to a twenty plus year old Scientific American article. Do either of them reflect the current state of knowledge or lack thereof regarding sources of energy? Well that's for you to show.

disagree that predicting that blue supergiants going supernova does not confirm or require a concept of a separate power source, (genic energy).

You have yet to present anything like an argument for this idea. I haven't seen any reasonable response to messages from me or PaulK on this issue. You haven't even shown that conventional astrophysics (from the last few years and not from 20-30 years ago cannot account for exploding red and blue super giants. Nobody thinks that red giants explode as type II supernovas without becoming one of the known pre-cursors first.

Let me ask you a personal question. Do you believe that you have enough personal knowledge of the subject to be able to identify gaps in current explanation of science requiring genic energy, or are you simply taking LaViolette's word that there are gaps.


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 130 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 12:20 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:09 PM NoNukes has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 134 of 181 (672811)
09-11-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by JonF
09-11-2012 11:49 AM


Re: Not enough.
So, there's nothing about the CMB? And, I see a Google search for"Laviolette cosmic microwave" turns up no evidence that he has any explanation for the CMB, except for a few nutjobs denying the existence of the CMB.
That's the last nail in the coffin. No CMB explanation, no theory.

The only remaining question, a minor one, is WTF are you doing? You obviously don't understand LaViolette's theory, you can't post anything other than quotes from his writings, you can't explain or expand on or discuss the theory, you can't respond meaningfully to any questions or criticisms… so what's the point?

Even though you deserve no answer I will try to present what I've read and understand myself. (yes read. I did not come up with the theory nor have I the scientific knowledge to expand significantly of what he theorizes).

From what I understand the MBR (Microwave Backround Raditaion) is presently measured at a temperature of 2.73 K (Kelvin) and is said to be evidence of the Big Bang. However I myself have heard other theories. I remember hearing of one a while ago that the radiation might be from dust particles throughout the universe absorbing random cosmic rays and re-emitting them but I didn't know where it came from. I know the Microwave Background Radiation was first discovered by accident by the two Bell Lab scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964 who received a Nobel Prize for the discovery. It was quickly asserted as evidence of the Big Bang.

I admit I was not focused enough on or familar with every detail of Dr. LaViolette's work. I was fascinated by the "growth" of stars as an alternative paradigm to the "Supremacy of Entropy" concept which I feel is spiritually impoverished.

So I was caught flatfooted by your throwing graphs at me and your demand I reproduce his math on the spot. But at your "genial" request I did a little more research in the book Subquantum Kinetics and I find reference to the subject on page 169. He states what I thought was that "dust particle theory" except he's talking about something else and references it (Lerner, E."The Big Bang Never Happened". New York: Vintage, 992, p.156.).

Then he references himself in his earlier Phd. thesis work (Appendix B) Portland State University, 1983. and to another of his books; "Beyond the Big Bang" (2nd ed. working title: "Genesis of the Cosmos") Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 1995, 2004.).

So in "reading" what he says about it: "Such magnetized plasma filaments might be energized by the cosmic ray particle background radiation. If 100 percent of the cosmic ray energy flux were absorbed by these filaments, a 6.1 K thermal microwave spectrum would result. However, a lower temperature would be more likely since absorption would be relatively inefficient. The observed 2.73 K blackbody temperature could be entirely accounted for if 4 percent of the ambient cosmic ray energy flux were absorbed."

He's making a case of course for an alternate explanation for the Microwave Background Radiation having some source other than the Big Bang. In his alternate theory matter and energy would be continously created in a universe which is cosmologically stationary. In that he references some similar ideas presented by others like Jeans and McCrea. (Jeans, J. Astrononmy and Cosmogony, Cambridge University Press, London, 1928, p. 352. and McCrea, W. H. "Continual creation." Mon Not. R. Astr. Soc. 128 (1964): 335-344.)

He goes on to say that Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory was another example of "a continuous creation cosmology". However those theories ( both the classical version and he C- Field version (with some regions being more "fertile" than others), differ from his because they continue the assumption that the universe is expanding and therefore encounter the same problems with observational data as the Big Bang. (Like his four cosmological tests showing the tired light model making a better fit on ALL the tests than the standard qo = 0 Friedman Model).

If you want me to present the other two Cosmological Tests he's talking about,( "The Galaxy Number Count Magnitude Test" and the "Hubble Diagram Test) I will do so.

One note: Dr. LaViolette addresses the unjustified criticisms in his appedices in updated reprints. The one I have was last updated in 2003. Nine years ago. In it in Appendix B he writes th title: "The Differential Number Count Test: Unjustified Criticisms Rebutted."

So don't ask me to rebutt scientific criticisms expressed in mathematical language I am untrained in. I have a reasonable understanding of his work and am intelligent enough to discuss it as I believe I have shown. If that's not good enough for you you'll just have to live with it. I know I can.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 09-11-2012 11:49 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 09-11-2012 8:02 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1684 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 135 of 181 (672818)
09-11-2012 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by NoNukes
09-11-2012 1:45 PM


Conventional explanations fail to account for the energy released by a collapsing star that has presumably ""run out of fuel".
Take for example Eta Carinae. Eta Carinae (approx 150 Solar Masses) has a luminosity according to LaViolette "of about 4 x 10 to the 6th L (Solar Luminosities).,

First of all "according to LaViolette" is not any kind of argument when we are discussing whether he is right. In short this is a issue raised by LaViolette and conveniently answered by filling in genic energy. "LaViolette said so" is not evidence of a gap in conventional theory to close with a missing energy source.

More importantly Eta Carinae is not a collapsing star. It is a big blue variable star, or more accurately a star system including a humongous star and at least one smaller but still humongous star. Conventional explanations for its brightness don't leave a gap that needs a genic energy fill in.

Neither of the other two references you cited deal with super nova, and there is not enough context for me to tell even whether they raise issues that are without a current explanation. Two sources are articles about 30-40 years old, and the third citation is to a twenty plus year old Scientific American article. Do either of them reflect the current state of knowledge or lack thereof regarding sources of energy? Well that's for you to show.

disagree that predicting that blue supergiants going supernova does not confirm or require a concept of a separate power source, (genic energy).

You have yet to present anything like an argument for this idea. I haven't seen any reasonable response to messages from me or PaulK on this issue. You haven't even shown that conventional astrophysics (from the last few years and not from 20-30 years ago cannot account for exploding red and blue super giants. Nobody thinks that red giants explode as type II supernovas without becoming one of the known pre-cursors first.

Let me ask you a personal question. Do you believe that you have enough personal knowledge of the subject to be able to identify gaps in current explanation of science requiring genic energy, or are you simply taking LaViolette's word that there are gaps.[/qs]

End of NoNuke's Quotes.

Start of Trou's Post:

Let me answer your last question first. No. I don't believe I have enough personal knowledge myself to adequately fill in the gaps. As I've said I am fascinated by the entire subject and am very interested in it for philosophical reasons. But that's all. If that disqualifies me from being on this site all the moderator or the owner of this site has to do is ask me to leave and I'll be gone.

Now if that's out of the way I will attempt to continue discussng this fascinating new theory that if proven would have major implications everywhere.

"Genic energy" (nonDoppler photon blueshifting or amplification) according to his theory is supposed to be continuously created in "super-critical" regions. Particularly in stars and other celestial bodies including planets. If that is so, then even though this violation of the first law of thermodynamics he claims is so small it cannot be detected in laboratory experiments might show up in monumental (global) or astronomical magnitudes of manifestation.

I will now attempt to present recent events that I've become aware of in the area related to Astrophysics (as well as what I can find in LaViolette's and other's work) that may be further evidence of genic energy in celestial bodies.

I've already mentioned the neutrino gap in regards to our Sun. I heard about this myself years before I read LaViolette's books and wondered what it might mean. Genic Energy could resolve that mystery and account for the descrepencies observed. I also mentioned his finding the jovian planets being located inordinately near the slope for the Mass - Luminosity Relation. No one else had thought to check that. Once again genic energy could account for some of this. He also discusses the M-L relation in regards the rocky planets like our earth and bodies like our moon and the differing theories put forth to account for the excess of the earth's total thermal output in particular.

But in recent years I recall seeing some tv programs discussing the discoveries by various probes of unexplained geysers of liquid nitrogen or in some cases even liquid water coming from some of the Jovian planets' frozen moons that do not have elipitical orbits and therefore wouldn't be subject to the tidal gravitational forces that sceintists use to explain the heating up of the interior of Titan for example. I am not sure but I believe Astrophysicists are puzzled to account for the observed evidence of unexplained sources of heat from these places. Once again genic energy being contnuously created within the interiors of these bodies could account for this unexplained heat.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 1:45 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 3:41 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 138 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 3:45 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Admin, posted 09-11-2012 8:14 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017