Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
42 online now:
Admin (Percy), AZPaul3, jar, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (7 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,346 Year: 20,382/19,786 Month: 779/2,023 Week: 287/392 Day: 18/129 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
Panda
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 91 of 181 (672669)
09-10-2012 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:30 PM


Re: Not enough.
[qs]...quote...[/qs]

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:30 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 92 of 181 (672670)
09-10-2012 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:43 PM


[qs]...quote...[/qs]

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:43 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2524 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 responded

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

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2524 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 responded

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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12643
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 95 of 181 (672677)
09-10-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 11:32 AM


Quote Codes Almost There
You're getting close, still not quite there. The opening quote code is just the code, like this (you did this correctly): [qs]

The closing quote code has a leading slash, like this (you were missing the leading slash): [/qs].

You should be able to tell whether the codes have been entered properly by doing a Preview before posting.

I'll fix the quotes for you.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 11:32 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 96 of 181 (672680)
09-10-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 6:57 PM


Re: Not enough.
If you genuinely have some predictions directly borne from the logical consequences of creationist theory which have not only been verified but which have actually led to the discovery of new phenomena - Then that is more than any other creationist has ever achieved!!!

In order to assess whether this is the case or not would you care to pick the most impressive discovery you think has been made as a result of the theories you advocate so that we can analyse this specific one in detail?

TRoU writes:

Want more?

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

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

So - Which of the discoveries you cite do you think is the most impressive vindicator of the theory you advocate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 6:57 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by zaius137, posted 09-10-2012 4:43 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 108 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:52 PM Straggler has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 181 (672684)
09-10-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:35 AM


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

What is "genic energy" and what is the evidence that such energy exists?

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.

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.).

I don't care what Laviolette believes, but instead am interested in what he or others can demonstrate. I don't even care about the state of science in 1985. Conventional science (i.e. non genic energy science) is that stars that are red giants top out at about 10 times the mass of the sun. The sun is expected to become a red giant, but not a red super giant, and is not expected to become a super nova.

You have yet to show a "genic energy" based prediction that is correct in a situation where non genic-energy, regular science is wrong. Your super nova prediction does not qualify.


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 71 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:35 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:09 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2524 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 responded

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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 99 of 181 (672688)
09-10-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Not enough.
Hey. I don't do this for a living Jon.

If you don't want to defend or discuss the theory, stop posting.

I assume you are referring to claims about Prediction No. 3 regarding the cosmological redshift

Try assuming that I am referring to what I explicitly wrote that I was referring to: the Cosmic Microwave Background.

I'll include similar details for the remaining two tests titled "The Hubble Diagram Test" and "The Galaxy Number Count Magnitude Test" later

Don't bother. None of those and none of what you posted have anything to do with the Cosmic Microwave Background. The CMB is the elephant in the room. Big time. If his theory doesn't predict that a CMB exists and a provide a reasonable approximation of its temperature1, he's dead in the water. No matter what else he's got. This is numero uno in any evaluation of a cosmological theory.

I do notice that his "Galaxy Angular Separation" goes only to a redshift Z of 1. That's ignoring the vast majority of the Universe. I don't know off-hand what his claims and tests mean, but the fact that they aren't addressing the most important observations of astronomers over the past hundred years or so sets off alarm bells.

Ah, and I see that The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies (2001) includes:

quote:
For a true Tolman signal with n = 4, the luminosity evolution in the look-back time, expressed as the exponent in 2.5 log (1+z)^(4-n) mag, must then be between 1.72 to 1.19 in the R band and 0.94 to 0.45 in the I band. We show that this is precisely the range expected from the evolutionary models of Bruzual & Charlot. We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the "tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the "tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma.

{emphasis added}

10 sigma is a lot. A whole freakin' lot.

Also, in Fundamental Questions of Practical Cosmology: Exploring the Realm of Galaxies (2011) I find:


Looks as if you are not the only one who's using out-of-date data. Again, let's concentrate on this century, please.

------------
1If it predicts other characteristics of the CMB, that's a big plus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 1:55 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 4:24 PM JonF has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 181 (672689)
09-10-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 2:19 PM


Is there a difference between red giants and red supergiants?

Yes there is. But the convention is not that red giants become super novas. Our sun is predicted to become a red giant before cooling to a white dwarf.


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 94 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 2:19 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 101 of 181 (672690)
09-10-2012 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 3:15 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?

Well, I was saying that "I don't see any reference to International Journal of General Systems saying that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova", and I still don't see any indication of a reference for the claim that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova. The book that makes the claim isn't a valid reference. A paper written by the guy who makes the claim isn't a valid reference. What reference do you have not written by LaViollette that says that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova?

Oh, and I found the publication too, but it's behind a paywall. If you know its contents, what does it say about red supergiants and what references (other than his writings) does he give for whatever he says about red supergiants?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 3:15 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1956 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 102 of 181 (672691)
09-10-2012 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 1:57 PM


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".

This is a major problem for LaViolette. From the errors in this passage, he clearly has very little understanding of standard Big Bang comsology. How can anyone possibly trust his ideas, no matter how "new and interesting", when he is either unable or unwilling to learn the very subject he is claiming to be revolutionising.

No matter what measure of space-time is taken, the Universe most certainly does not have a radius of anything anywhere near so small as 14bn lyrs. In fact, it is still quite possible from observation that the Universe is infinite in extent.

Furthermore, no qualified cosmologist will claim that "nothing lies beyond" the Universe, for in the classic Big Bang comsology, there is no such concept as "beyond the Universe". Even if finite in size, the Universe has no edge, no place from which to consider a "beyond". Such naive thinking comes from layman "knowledge", not any form of understanding of General Relativity and relativistic cosmology.

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.

Again, criticisms need to come from a position of knowledge, not ignorance. There are those that have seriously questioned the Big Bang cosmology: Halton Arp, Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, amongst a few others. They have been shown to be incorrect, but at least they are (were) scientists who certainly understand what they are criticising. Sadly, the same cannot be said for LaViolette.

Furthermore, you do realise that many in the field of cosmology are looking beyond the classic Big Bang comsology, for something that replaces it - ideas such as the Ekpyrotic Universe, brane collisions, the no-boundary proposal, etc. These do away with the Big Bang, whilst attempting to match observations. How do the researchers behind these ideas square with your insulting and ignorant accusations of pygmies and herd mentalities?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 1:57 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2524 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 acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12643
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 104 of 181 (672693)
09-10-2012 4:17 PM


A Few Moderator Requests
To TheRestOfUs: Given that LaViolette has over a number of years written entire books and a number of papers, it is easily possible to dump more cut-n-pastes into this thread then could ever be properly discussed. Please keep cut-n-pasting to a bare minimum. Describe your position in your own words and provide links to the sources on the Internet. This is rule 6 from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

To some others: Please keep the heat to a minimum and the light to a maximum. In other words, make the cold light of logic central to your efforts and leave out any heated emotions.

A question for everyone: I tried to make tired light the central focus of this thread, but the natural course of discussion has taken things toward red versus blue supernovas. Would anyone object if I made that the central focus of this thread. Or maybe more generally the topic could be genic energy. Naturally anyone can propose threads to discuss other areas of LaViolette's ideas.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2524 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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019