Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
26 online now:
(26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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


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

How so?


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

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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


Thanks for the reply, Thou.

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

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

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

How so?

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


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

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 170 of 181 (674448)
09-29-2012 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Paul Choa
09-29-2012 2:29 AM


Re: Big bang
Big bang has evidence . When I worked at Bell labs. On the back of the small hill there was an a microwave antenna station. Right there our colleague Arno Penzias (actually our VP) and Bob Wilson received Nobel price because they observed the background temperature of the universe, which match with exactly the big bang predict about big bang residue energy.... Anyway, I think you misunderstand big bang. Big bang is very spiritually matched with Bible....

when Jesus engineered all these creation works you were not there. It does Take 13.7B earth years to reach the current "golden age of the universe", Sometimes is is hard for our mind to understand the language of God.. To understand this part you really need to know both Bible and science well. big bang is very spiritual... More closely to match with Bible than any others...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Paul Choa, posted 09-29-2012 2:29 AM Paul Choa has not yet 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