Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 42 of 181 (672556)
09-09-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
09-08-2012 9:03 PM


Dr. Adequate,
Thank you for the LA Times Article on the Pioneer Spacecraft Anomoly. But even if Anderson et al are now saying they've accounted for the observed spontaneous blueshifting with recoil thermal radiation from decaying plutonium fuel and residual heat from electrical subsystems after trying to claim a "time acceleration" hypothesis I find it hard to believe them.
Since Scheffer,( E- Print arXiv:gr-qc/0107092; gr-qc/0108054), and Katz and Murphy, ( Phys. Rev. Letters 83) long ago suggested that what they were calling an acceleration effect when the spacecraft was moving sunward (and now calling deceleration when moving outward) was due to waste heat from subsystems radiated from the spaceward side of the spacecraft. In fact they believed the considered thermal effect should be reduced to 82% of its value.
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. In fact when two of the main Models are just averaged it comes to only about 26% at most of the observed "acceleration".
In addition Anderson et al at the time maintained the unmodeled thermal effects accounted for even a much smaller percentage of the anomaly than the above models.
I am not surprised they are saying something different now since one Dr. Paul LaViolette had alerted them to look for this blueshifting in the Maser signal in 1980 and later published his prediction in 85 that they would find it. He called them at that time and cited his published prediction. And received no simple courtesy notification when they did find it nor mention that this was predicted by him.
So you see even if they now are saying they've accounted for it, their behavior makes me doubt it. In any event this blueshifting phenomina should be investigated in later spacecraft missions where highly accurate phase locked laser signals can look for the predicted effect. Because if it is verified the "Tired Light" Model gets new life since it confirms that energy is not absolutely conserved in the Universe. And the Big Bang goes down.
Just some thoughts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2012 9:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2012 10:03 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 43 of 181 (672558)
09-09-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by JonF
09-09-2012 11:13 AM


Son Goku and JonF,
I'll take you both on since you're so tiny.
First there is no way to verify unequivocally whether or not matter does warp space, since all of the standard tests for this effect may be accounted for by alternate theories. For example in 1898 before the development of general relativity, Paul Gerber, (P. Gerber, Zeitschrift fur Mathematik und Physik 43 (1898): 93-104), derived a formula for the angular advance of the long axis of Mercury's elliptical orbit in Newtonian CLASSICAL physics terms just by assuming that gravity propogates at the speed of light.
And second I will proudly stand with geniuses like Tesla when he uses the common sense you apparently lack and said in 1932 in response to the new concept being bandied about, "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties... Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."
Further according to Dr. Paul Laviolette in his book "Genesis of the Cosmos," - "Research conducted in 1991 by a group of Cornell University scientists throws further doubt on Space- Time Warping equations. Their computer simulations showed that if a very large oblong mass were allowed to collapse upon itself, it would produce a spindle shaped gravatational singularity of infinite energy - a black hole- whose extremities would extend outside the black hole's central region of invisibility. Such a "naked" singularity would radiate infinite quantities of energy into surrounding space: an absurd result!" No wonder Einstien never believed this fantasy.
Just some more thoughts.
Trou

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 09-09-2012 11:13 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:14 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 44 of 181 (672566)
09-09-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tanypteryx
09-09-2012 1:59 AM


Tanypteryx,
I never said I was a physicist or even a scientist. Nevertheless we are all human beings and courtesy matters. But I can take it as well as dish it out.
I am presenting new and interesting ideas and if your two "heroes" can't take it without name calling I'd say they are the "boobs" (And I'd include you too.)
Here is another quote from LaViolette's book "Genesis of the Cosmos," (he says it better than me), "Big Bang cosmologists conceive the Universe to be contained within a finite sphere, an expanding bubble of space-time that has attained a radius of some 14 Billion light-years. They claim that nothing lies beyond this bubble of physical manifestation, no existence of any kind. Just as theologians did in medieval times, today's cosmologists have confined the heavens within an Aristotelian "crystalline sphere".
"When modern cosmologists are asked to comment on the present nature of the universe and on its ultimate fate, they project a dismal outlook. Basing their view on the second law of thermodynamics, they state that the universe was at its greatest state of order at the moment of the Big bang, and that ever since, with the continual expansion of space, things have tended toward greater disorder. They see the universe in its final stages as primarily dark, a giant black hole whose gloom arises from its vast population of smaller black holes, avaricious beasts that continually gobble up matter and snuff out light beams that approach too close. The cosmos is seen to tend toward a decay that has supposedly been going on for more than 10 billion years and is expected to continue for many billions of years to come.
By comparison, the event of creation, the emergence of light and order into physical manifestation, is said to have occurred in the briefest possible moment, an instant lasting less than 10 -43 seconds. Modern cosmology on the one hand elevates the principle of decay to a supreme status, referring to it as the "second law," but on the other hand relegates the phenomenon of cosmic creation to the obscure realm of chance and uncertainty as a highly improbable event. It is not surprising that death and darkness should ultimately rule over light in this spiritually impoverished worldview."
I agree totally with the above statement by LaViolette. And ever since I've become aware of the Big Bang Theory I felt the same inner malese. It is a spiritually impoverished view. And it is falling apart as more and more ad hoc contrivances are needed to hold up the teetering ediface. And everyone who takes science seriously as a search for truth and not as a religion or a means to tenure or to avoid ostracism by pygmies in a herd knows it.
Just my opinion.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-09-2012 1:59 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2012 4:03 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 46 of 181 (672569)
09-09-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Son Goku
09-09-2012 9:30 AM


Re: Not enough.
Son Goku,
In re-reading the threads I find I have done you a dis-service. You have been polite to me so far and I have not been to you in my post answering both you and JonF. I publicly apologize for my error. I respect everyone if they show me the same respect in return. I admit I got mad at the name-calling and was a bit too ready to lash out. Again my apologies.
To everyone else. If you treat me as you would want to be treated you'll get the same from me.
Just the way it is.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:30 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 3:29 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 51 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 5:05 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 48 of 181 (672571)
09-09-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Not enough.
Now that that's out of the way I'd like to focus on the main proposal I have found way more compelling than the Big Bang Theory. But first let me deal with this;
I have been "accused" of being a "creationist".
While I am aware this is supposed to be a derogatory, implying even imbecility in believing in God, I will cop to it with humility and thankfulness.
Yes, I believe in God. The Creator. Not ashamed of it in the least. You see I believe in a God of both Love and Truth. And I believe those two things are interchangable and indespensible to each other.
I mentioned before that the Big Bang Theory with its subsequent concepts is spiritually impoverished and factually failing. If as I say I believe God is Truth then following the observed and or experimental evidence where it leads is no "blasphemy". Indeed the only "blasphemy" I believe exists is when truth is not followed. Especially for a scientist who has an obligation to it
You might find it surprising that I don't blame the average scientist for what I see as an almost religious adherence to the mainstream paradigm. Because I believe we've made it almost impossible to do otherwise. As in many other institutions and in government and society in general I believe we've allowed money to be what we "worship" and not Truth, or God if you will. What other scientists charge as a herd like rejection of new information, (or new papers), that challenge the status quo is just human nature when we distort the innocence, the purity of any vocation; science included. For example when I was a kid I couldn't decide whether I wanted to be a scientist or a cop. Then I saw "Serpico" and I decided to turn towards science. By that time my life had taken a different path but that's not relevant.
I am not religious by any means. There is way too much "dogma" involved in almost all religions for me to belong to any. But I do remember sunday school and being taught what Christ said. Among the very wise sayings was one I didn't understand until recently, (if indeed I've got the meaning right.). He said "Suffer the little children to come unto me." And; "Lest ye be as these, (the children gathered around Him), you cannot enter the Kingdom of God." I wasn't sure for the longest time what exactly He meant. Were only children going to be allowed in the Kingdom? Or were we supposed to be AS children? And what did that mean? I recently decided it meant like what I just said about wanting to be a cop until I saw "Serpico". The corruption that tainted the pure (child-like?) desire to protect and serve. Or a fireman wanting to save lives. Or a nurse or doctor wanting to heal the sick, etc. And like a scientist wanting to pursue truth.
We've allowed our society to become so concerned with money that we've corrupted the central premises of almost all vocations. It's not hopeless, especially in the field of science because it's been said that science, like mankind, often climbs uphill on the backs of its eccentrics. Mark Twain commented that, "The man with a new idea is a "crank," until the idea succeeds."
Allright enough "preaching".
What I wanted to say since I came on this forum is that I've come across a much more compelling alternative creation theory than the dying (IMO) Big Bang. I am not promoting any book for sale on or through this forum. In fact I am not saying anyone should buy any book or even go googling to any particular website. I do have to mention the author and refer to his books only because as a non-scientist I need to answer any questions put to me about this new physics by people more learned.
If that is acceptable to the moderator that I mention the author and refer to his writings in explaining what I mean I will continue.
The Theory is touted by Paul LaViolette as a new Unified Field Theory and all that means. The "Tired Light" hypothesis is just part of what's predicted by the new physics he calls "Sub-Quantum Kinetics".
He describes it as an "Etheric" theory of continous creation to replace the Big Bang. Further he predicts that there are no such things as "Black Holes" and that what formed the galaxies and what lies now at the center of each "creation center" is a super massive super dense "primordial" or "Mother Star" continuing to create matter and energy at a prodigious rate even today.
He postulates that subatomic particles, (protons, photons, etc.), nucleate in free space arising from an etheric substrate according to a specific receipe in what he calls "super-critical regions" and have been doing so for likely much longer than 13.7 billion years. He postulates that the emergence of this matter and energy is sustained by this etheric substrate and that particles and all energy are not absolutely conserved because the universe is an "open system" as opposed to a closed one favored by modern cosmologists and quantum theorists.
I realize that's quite a lot to absorb so I'll take a breather.
Later,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 5:08 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 49 of 181 (672572)
09-09-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
09-09-2012 2:31 PM


Re: Not enough.
Hey NoNukes,
Eat this: A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury
Just a "suggestion".
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 2:31 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 5:15 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 6:31 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 56 of 181 (672586)
09-09-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Straggler
09-09-2012 5:08 PM


Re: Not enough.
Sure Straggler,
The first concept he lists is:
"Nucleon Core Field - prevailing concept (1978): The electric field in the core of a nucleon is assumed to be aperiodic and to rise to a sharp cusp at the particle's center."
"Prediction No.1 (1973 - 1978): Subquantum kinetics predicted that the electric potential field
in the core of a subatomic particle should be Gaussian-shaped and should continue outward as a periodic field pattern of diminishing amplitude having a radial wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength, further that this field pattern should be positively biased in positively charged particles. Prediction published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang)."
"Verification (2002) Particle scattering form factor data for the proton and neutron is found to be best fit by a model in which the nucleon core electric charge density distribution has characteristics similar to those that subquantum kinetics had predicted. Energy boosting during collision, however, did cause the target nucleons to exhibit a wavelength slightly shorter than had been predicted."
"2. Gravatational Repulsion - Prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter attracting fields just like protons. Gravatational Repulsion is considered a speculative idea."
"Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)."
"Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass."
"Concept No. 3 : Energy Conservation and Photon Reshifting - prevailing concept (1978): The cosmological redshift is conventionally attributed to the assumed expansion of space. Photon energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved."
"Prediction No. 3 (1978: As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should gradually redshift with time when passing through regions of low (less negative) gravatational field potential, e.g. intergalactic space. It predicted a "tired light effect," that distant galaxies should appear redshifted without the need of postulating recessional motion."
"Verification (1979- 1986): I check this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Friedman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests (AP.J., 1986). The tired light model is found to make a closer fit to observational data on all tests confirming subquantum kinetics tired-light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings at the same time undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics (2003)."
Want more? He's got 9 in this book alone.
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.
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 53 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 5:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 8:01 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2012 2:40 AM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:22 AM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 2:41 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 58 of 181 (672596)
09-09-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 6:57 PM


Re: Not enough.
I've decided to include more. What the hey.
"4. Energy Conservation/Generation - prevailing concept (1978): Energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved. Stars are assumed to generate their energy either through nuclear fusion or from heat released from gravatational accretion. Planets are instead thought to acquire their luminosity from stored heat. There is no reason to believe that planets should conform to the stellar M-L relation."
"Prediction No. 4 (1978- 1979): As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should progressively blueshift in regions of high (more negative) gravatational field potential, e.g., within stars and planets and in interplanetary and interstellar space. It predicted that "genic energy" should be continuously created within all celestial bodies."
"Verification (1979 -1992): I tested this genic energy prediction by plotting the mass-luminosity coordinates of the jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus) to compare them with the mass-luminosity relation for red dwarf stars and found that they conform to this relation. Others had not previously checked this because doing so didn't make sense in the context of the conventional astrophysical paradigm. This conformance suggests that the heat coming from the interiors of planets is produced in the same way as that radiating from the interiors of red dwarf stars, just as subquantum kinetics predicts. I also showed that the genic energy hypothesis predicts a slope for the "planetary stellar M-L relation" similar to the observed slope and that genic energy is able to account for about 50% of the Sun's luminosity, thus explaining the solar neutrino deficit. The required violation of energy conervation is 10 orders of magnitude smaller than what could be observed in laboratory experiments."
"5. Brown Dwarf Stars - prevailing concept (1985): Based on conventional theory, brown dwarf stars are not expected to have any particular mass-luminosity ratio. They are assumed to be stars that are not massive enough to ignite nuclear fusion and hence are merely dead stars that are cooling off."
"Prediction No. 5 (1985 - August 1995): Subquantum kinetics predicted that brown dwarf stars should also generate genic energy and hence, like the jovian planets, should lie along the lower main-sequence mass-luminoity relation for red dwarf stars. This prediction was published on four occasions: 1985 (IJGS, p. 339), 1992 (Physics Essays,) 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics, p. 125), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang, p. 304)."
"Verification (November 1995, 1998): Masses and luminosiies are published for brown dwarfs GL 229B and G 196-3B. I demonstrate that the M-L data points for these dwarfs lie along the planetary-stellar M-L relation as earlier predicted. This indicates that brown dwarfs are not dead stars as previously supposed, but bodies that are actively producing genic energy in their interiors."
I think this guy has got something.
Just my opinion.
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 56 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 6:57 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 8:13 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 60 of 181 (672598)
09-09-2012 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Admin
09-09-2012 8:13 PM


Re: Moderator Warning
Will do to the best of my ability not being a scientist.
Trou

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 8:13 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 8:29 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 62 of 181 (672601)
09-09-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Admin
09-09-2012 8:29 PM


Re: Moderator Warning
OK. I see the message box showing your post but how do I post including it in my answer?
Trou.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 8:29 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 9:03 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 64 of 181 (672606)
09-09-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Admin
09-09-2012 9:03 PM


Re: Moderator Warning
Just use copy-n-paste on text in another message, or on any text in any window on your computer.
Also useful when replying to a message is "Peek Mode". After clicking on the "reply" button you'll see a radio button for "Peek Mode" at the top of the message you're replying to (it's displayed in an area beneath the text box you type into). If you select "Peek Mode" then you again see the mark-up that produced the message. This is useful for copy-n-pasting text that has markup codes. For example, in if you select this word, italicized, and copy it all you'll get is the text. But if you first click on "Peek Mode" when replying to this message you'll be able to also copy the [i] and [/i] codes that encompass it.
I also notice that you sometimes edit a message many times. There's a preview button you can use before posting to see what a post will look like before you submit it.
Ok. Thanks for the tips. I'll get it eventually.
Trou

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 9:03 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Admin, posted 09-10-2012 8:43 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 65 of 181 (672611)
09-09-2012 9:54 PM


One of the most interesting predictions I think LaViolette made was due to subquantum kinetics unconventional view on the entomology of stars. He predicted that blue supergiant stars are much more likely to go supernova where the conventional view was that only red supergiants did so.
In 1987 Supernova 1987A was observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. I believe this was the closest supernova in history. Astronomers located its precursor star on old photographic plates and were surprised to find that the precursor was a blue super giant!
His view is that contrary to conventional belief blue super giants are often among the oldest of stars and have a huge genic energy component included in their total energy output. He believes that this energy production can become runaway due to the solar wind's sub-luminary speed becoming in effect a cloud that reflects the radiant energy back onto the star, heating it up and increasing the genic energy buildup in the interior of the star which then further increases the genic energy production rate, which then builds to critical proportions resulting sometimes in a supernova, and at other times in a throwing off of a large proportion of the outer gaseous atmosphere. He also believes this process when it is less than critical is what explains why some stars are seen to pulsate. Once they've thrown off a significant amount of mass the genic energy production rate, (which is tied largely to gravity field potential), subsides and begins to slowly build again producing the pulsations.
I find this all quite fascinating.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2012 10:07 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 11:09 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:18 AM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 66 of 181 (672612)
09-09-2012 9:58 PM


Time to go get something to eat.
Later,
Trou

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 68 of 181 (672614)
09-09-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Coragyps
09-09-2012 10:07 PM


They'd be really HOT bugs for sure eh? No I meant the "life stages" of stars. Thanks for reminding me not to use words I'm not sure the precise meaning of.
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Coragyps, posted 09-09-2012 10:07 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 12:29 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 71 of 181 (672617)
09-10-2012 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
09-09-2012 11:09 PM


Quotes from NoNukes,
"The conventional view is that a star may transition between being a red or blue super giant and that they spend more time being blue than red. I don't see how a single example of an exploding blue super giant overturns that theory."
"The conventional view is that blue super giants and red super giants are formed from large stars that have very short life spans compared to Sol. The oldest, and most numerous stars in the universe would be little bitty red stars and brown dwarfs that will never form super novas."
The conventional view you just stated about itty bitty red dwarfs being the oldest is the reverse of what LaViolette postulates. He believes that those small red dwarfs are often among the youngest of stars and are far more numerous than stars like our Sol and larger red and blue super giants which are often older.
When a star reaches a critical mass of about approx 0.45 solar mass nuclear fusion ignites and begins to suppliment its genic energy output. Subquantum kinetics predicts that red dwarfs often evolve from brown dwarfs generating this genic energy as well as Hydrogen gas in the interior. As Jupiter sized planets given enough time evolve into brown dwarfs due to both accretion and continous matter and energy creation in the interiors of these bodies.
When the genic energy component gets high enough in the super giant phase they may indeed become unstable and if massive enough go supernova. Or form planetary nebulae and then start a slow growth in a white dwarf or neutron star phase and exceed the Chandra Limit and become a new "Mother Star" powered almost exclusively by genic energy rather than nuclear fusion.
Indeed Laviolette believes that red and blue super giants transition from blue to red and back again due to a number of factors. (outer cooler atmosphere being shed to reveal a hotter inner atmosphere.). However they aren't always soley accreted from large nebular gas clouds but may have grown from as I mentioned brown, red, yellow and larger star phases and so may be among the oldest of stars. The genic energy hypothesis makes the difference since it is contributing not only energy but additional hydrogen gas fuel. Actually he predicts that white dwarfs left over from stars like our sun or planetary nebula (or even supernova that don't smash everything to smithereens) may be the oldest stars and far from being just dead cooling off remains, be just begining to grow, (as I mentioned), into a primarily genic energy powered "Mother Star".
Just some thoughts.
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 69 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 11:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 3:06 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024