Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 77 of 181 (672648)
09-10-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by JonF
09-10-2012 9:18 AM


Quote from JonF:
Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please.
Hint: tain't so.
"Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed 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.
Prediction No. 9 (1985): 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. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343).
Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic plates. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction."
Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:18 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 12:19 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:28 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 09-10-2012 2:24 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

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


Message 78 of 181 (672651)
09-10-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
09-10-2012 2:40 AM


Re: Not enough.
Quote from JonF:
I find that claimed predictions re not always as good as they appear.
So I did a little research, choosing this one:
quote:
"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."
It turns out that Podkletnov's work sounds very dubious, and hasn't been replicated. Eugene Podkletnov
It's not a good sign that this should be mentioned high up the list, without mentioning the questionable nature of the alleged verification.
End of Quote from JonF
LaViolette writes; "...In his article in Janes Defense Weekly, Nick Cook reports that a laboratory installation in Russia has demonstrated that this beam is able to repel objects one kilometer away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200 kilometers!"*
"Podkletnov and Modanese acknowledge that conventional theories of gravity fail to explain the action of their gravity impulse beam."
"* Cook writes that Boeing Aerospace Corporation was actively interested in investigating this beam technology with the aim of developing it into an R&D project named GRASP (Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion). A GRASP briefing document states "If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire areospace business." Other interested areospace companies included BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. He reported, however, that the Russian government had resisted allowing this gravity research beam technology to be exported."
Everything above in quotation marks are from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) pp. 126-127. Below are the references in the notes section.
"Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Impulse gravity generator based on charged YBa2 CU3 O7-y Superconductor with composite crystal structure." August 2001, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0108005.
"Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes." September 2002, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0209051
"*Cook, N. "Antigravity propulsion comes out of the closet." Janes Defense Weekly, July 31, 2002"
"*Cook, N. "Airpower Electric." Janes Defense Weekly, July 24, 2002"
Trou.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2012 2:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 12:23 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 84 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:38 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:38 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2012 1:00 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

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


Message 83 of 181 (672658)
09-10-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by JonF
09-10-2012 9:22 AM


Re: Not enough.
Quote from JonF:
I see a lot of claims, and claims about claims, but no math and no verifiable tests
We want to see the math and the details of the tests that he claims to have caried out.
Because of your overwhelming charm I am willing to oblige your requests. But what math specifically do you want me to laboriously copy from Subquantum Kinetics JonF? If you can't be more specifc in your questions I politely suggest you read the book yourself.
Trou
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:22 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:49 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 91 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 1:12 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

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


Message 86 of 181 (672661)
09-10-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by JonF
09-10-2012 12:28 PM


Repeating a bare assertion isn't a reference for your claim. Peer-reviewed literature, please, from this century if possible.
And "the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy" was correct in 1987 but is no longer.
What? The International Journal of General Systems isn't a peer reviewed publication? I think you are wrong about that. And LaViolette has a PHD in Systems Science.
And I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to say to your second sentence.
Trou.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:28 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 1:00 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 92 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 1:13 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

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


Message 87 of 181 (672662)
09-10-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by JonF
09-10-2012 12:38 PM


Re: Not enough.
LOL!
I would like to reply in the manner you deserve but I have already been suspended once for defending myself from loutish behavior. However if you continue to make snide remarks and demand I (a non-scientist) jump through your hoops I will respond as I see fit and suspension be damned.
Sincerely
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:38 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 93 of 181 (672675)
09-10-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by JonF
09-10-2012 12:49 PM


Re: Not enough.
Quote from JonF:
"Let's see the math for the existence and characteristics of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is notable by its exclusion from your list of claims."
Hey. I don't do this for a living Jon. and I'm not sure what you are asking for but I'll try my best to simply cite what I think you're after. I assume you are refering to claims about Prediction No. 3 regarding the cosmological redshift. That photons should gradually lose energy over intergalactic distances and that LaViolette compared the Freidman expanding universe model to the tired light non-expanding universe model on four different cosmology tests. If so I will list those tests and list the graphs he references. Then you can look it up yourself.
Test 1. The Angular-Size- Redshift Test
He has in figure 42 on page 144 a graph with a vertical axis titled "Galaxy Angular Seperation" a theta symbol and then (Radians). A horizontal axis titled Galaxy Cluster Redshift from 0.01 to 1. the description under the graph reads "Harmonic mean angular seperation for the brightest galaxies in a cluster plotted vs. redshift for 94 galaxy clusters. The no-evolution tired light model makes a far better fit to the data than the no-evolution q0=0 Friedman model assuming universal expansion (LaViolette, 1986 (6) using data from Hickson and Adams (Hickson, P., and P.J., Adams. "Evidence for cluster evolution from the theta (symbol)-z relation." Ap. J. 234 (1979): L91-L95"
And there is plenty of math and jargon beyond me , (to keep you happy), as he further desribes this test.
Test 2. The Tolman Surface Brightness Test
On page 153 Figure 44 he has two graphs with vertical axises titled "Galaxy Surface Brightness" and horizontal axises titled "Galaxy Linear Radius log R (parsecs)." The note under figure 44 reads, "The Tolman surface brightness test. Galaxy surface brightness in magnitudes is plotted against log galaxy radius in parsecs where surface brightnesses have been determined assuming Petrosian galaxy radii of n=1.7 and n-2.0 mag. Upper graphs: R-band data for cluster 1604 + 4321 (z=0.92). Lower graph: I-band data for clusters 1324 + 3011 (filled circles, z= 0.76) and 1604 + 4304 (open circles, z=0.90). The no-evolution, tired-light prediction (solid line) makes a good fit. The no-evolution, q0=0.5 expanding universe prediction (dashed line) requires the introduction of specific evolutionary corrections in order to fit the data. Data is taken from Lubin and Sandage (2001). (Lubin, L. M., and A. Sandage. "The Tolman surface brightness test for the realityof the expansion. IV. A measurement of the Tolman signal and the luminosity evolution of early type galaxies." A.J. 122 (2001): 1084-1103."
I need to do some mundane chores since I do have a lifeand work besides spoon feeing this site. I'll include similar details for the remaining two tests titled "The Hubble Diagram Test" and "The Galaxy Number Count Magnitude Test" later.
chow,
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 88 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:49 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 3:34 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 165 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-23-2012 8:25 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

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


Message 94 of 181 (672676)
09-10-2012 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NoNukes
09-10-2012 12:19 PM


Is there a difference between red giants and red supergiants? I note that LaViolette's actual prediction cited the convention being red giant stars go supernova. Red Supergiants may be a temporary or oscillating phase between Red and Blue as I mentioned earlier.
LaViolette describes Stellar Evolution differently than convention and includes Main Sequence Evolution (including planet to brown dwarf (< 10-3 Solar Mass) M Dwarf Star to K,G, F to A, B to O-Type Blue Giants (20-100 Solar Masses), and Post Main Sequence Evolution (which includes O through M Supergiant (20-100 Solar Masses), G,K, M Giant to Wolf-Rayet Transition Star or Symbiotic Star, (approx 10 Solar Masses), on to Wolf Rayet Star or Planetary Nebula, (also approx 10 Solar Masses), to X-Ray Star or White Dwarf. ( 0.1 - 1 Solar Mass)).
Just sayin'
Trou
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 3:36 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

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


Message 98 of 181 (672685)
09-10-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by JonF
09-10-2012 1:00 PM


I don't see any reference to International Journal of General Systems saying that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova, and given the subject classifications at that link I'd be very surprised if a relevant paper were to be found there.
That's funny I found his publication. It's in "Volume 11 Issue 4 November 1985" And they cite the book:
AN INTRODUCTION TO SUBQUANTUM KINETICS: III. The Cosmology of Subquantum Kinetics
DOI:10.1080/03081078508934920
PAUL A. LAVIOLETTEa
pages 329-345
Received: 26 Feb 1985
Accepted: 28 May 1985
Version of record first published: 10 May 2007
You were saying?
Trou

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 1:00 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 3:40 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

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


Message 103 of 181 (672692)
09-10-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NoNukes
09-10-2012 3:06 PM


What is "genic energy" and what is the evidence that such energy exists?
Apart from his finding the M-L relation revealing the jovian planets near this slope in Prediction No. 4 He lists experiments that could be done to verify its existence like a phase locked laser measurement of blueshifting anomalies regarding our spacecraft at high numbers of AU distant, as I've already mentioned. Further the amount of energy amplification or loss we are talking about is a billion times too small to be detected in laboratory experiments. But according to LaViolette "... It is reasonable to consider that a non-nuclear energy souce may make a substancial contribution to the Sun's output given that fusion models have been unable to adequately account for the solar neutrino deficit, which is observed to average about 36+/- 6 percent of the expected amount in CI detectors, 57 +/- 6 percent in the Kamiokande-II/III neutrino experment, and 62 +/- 4 percent in the SAGE and GALLEX experiments. This descrepency could be resolved if fusion supplied about half of the Sun's energy, with the remaining half coming from genic energy (nonDopplerblueshifting). This created genic energy ultimately arises as a result of the continous operation of the underlying subquantum reactions specified by Equation System (3-1)."
In chapter three he puts forth five kinetic equations that constitute a reaction scheme he calls "Model G" based on the Belousov-Zhabotinskii chemical clock reaction schematic.
They are as follows as best I can reproduce them here;
A ---- k1-----> G,
G ---- k2 ----> X,
B+X-- k3----> Y+Z,
2X+Y- k4----> 3X,
X------ k5----> omega
"Letter symbols A and B denote the concentrations of the initial ether reactants: G,X and Y denote the concentrations of the intermediate reactants; and Z and omega denote the concentrations of the final reaction products. The reaction rate constants, k 1-5 in each arrow help to specify the rate at which reactants on the left transform into products on the right."
He goes on to describe this "Model G" transmuting ether reaction and write sets of partial differential equations, (which I can't reproduce easily), to depict how the reaction intermediate variables vary as a function of space and time. These equations he writes may be used to computer simulate Model G to show how its ether concentratons might become distributed in space and time, thereby illustrating the various behavioral modes."
He is saying that these various transmuting etheric substrates in a vast possibly infinite etheric "sea" may for some unknown reason be "moved" to generate a particularly strong SUB-Quantum fluctuation by one or more of the various "etheron fluxes" (A, B, G, or X, or Y) flowing in the "sea" and become strong enough to overcome the random chaotic and effectively "homogeneous" nature of all the other etheric fluctuations around it, begin to combine as per "Model G," and produce a stationary and self-stabilizing wave pattern "nourished" by these now combined etheric substrate flows.
And so a particle of matter (a neutron or a proton) will materialize.
Because he sees the universe as an "open system," he sees the very particle as a self-stabilizing "flux" unit sustained by the etheric process that underlays the physical universe. This self-stabilizing particle influences the immedeiate area and creates a small region that is "super-critical" or "fertile" if you like for more particles to form from the ether.
Point is you want math? he's got plenty to satisfy all ya'll.
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 3:06 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 105 of 181 (672694)
09-10-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by JonF
09-10-2012 3:34 PM


Re: Not enough.
Sorry "pal" but he takes account of the criticisms and devotes several addendum pages to doing so. But I'm not going to write it down for you. If you dispute LaViolette's claims and want to throw a bunch of math at me that is over my head do so. But if you had any gutts you'd contact LaViolette at the Starburst Foundation and I'm sure he'd be glad to pin your ears back for you. (And yes that's right he did his PHD work on Galactic Superwaves in 1978-9. So he's quite qualified in the field of Astrophysics.
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.
Trou

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 3:34 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Admin, posted 09-10-2012 4:52 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 09-11-2012 11:49 AM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 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 replied

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

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 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 replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 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 replied

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

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 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 replied

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

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 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 replied

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