Most Thorough Model

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:48 pm

Lloyd wrote:Cooling Sun
Charles, in your previous post above, you said if the Sun doesn't lose mass it will merely get cooler with time. How would it cool down?

If by no other means, the Sun will cool down simply because it is radiating energy, in the form of photons, and if the Conservation of Energy still holds, the Sun is losing energy, and get cooler in the process.

Lloyd wrote:What would happen to the outer layers as it cooled down?

As it cools, plasma becomes less capable of maintaining charge separations, and the +ions get neutralized by free electrons. With no net charge, the particles are no longer subject to compression due to electric fields in my model. This means that their density will obey just the Ideal Gas Laws, which prescribe a thinner atmosphere. As the atmosphere thins out, the gravity field gets weaker. This means less pressure on the underlying supercritical hydrogen that is producing the black-body radiation. At a lower pressure, supercritical hydrogen produces a lower frequency black-body spectrum -- it gets redder.

All in all, this sounds like the recipe for a "red giant", though I'm not sure how much of a "giant" it would actually be, and the mechanisms are very different from those in the mainstream model. Most significantly, I don't think that old main sequence stars undergo catastrophic end-of-life processes -- I think that they just keep getting cooler, and eventually just freeze over. So there, I'm in agreement with Jeffrey. I think that a lot of the stars that have been identified as red giants are not destined to become main sequence stars at all -- these are the formative stages of exotic stars, complete with supernovae and their "degenerate" remnants such as pulsars and white dwarfs.

Lloyd wrote:Electric Circuits in Space
Here is my preliminary evaluation of the latest TPOD, Star Wires.
y=Yes. m=Maybe. p=Probable. u=Unlikely. n=No. q=Author'sQuestion. x=Extraneous, A=VeryImportant
I'm copying here only the statements that I labeled "A" for VeryImportant. Would you like to comment on them and give your evaluation of these statements?

u,A<5) According to a recent press release, astronomers working with data provided by Herschel found evidence for electric circuits in space, although that is not how consensus astronomers label their observations.
p<6) They identified “… an intricate pattern of filaments dotted with a few compact, bright cores: the seeds of future stars.”
u,A<7) Filaments of electric charge can flow in closed circuits through plasma.
u,A<21) Electromagnetism “pinches” those channels, otherwise known as Birkeland currents, into filaments that tend to attract each other in pairs.
u,A<26) There are power-consuming loads in those circuits converting electrical energy into rotational energy. They are known as galaxies.
u,A<29) In an Electric Universe, large-scale plasma discharges form coherent filaments that exhibit electrodynamic behavior.
u,A<32) When plasma moves through a cloud of dust and gas, some of the neutral molecules in the cloud are ionized, initiating electric fields, and thereby creating magnetic fields that tend to align and constrict the charge flow.
m,A<33) Since Birkeland currents are electromagnetic, they isolate regions of opposite charge and prevent them from neutralizing.

I agree that the filaments are there, and that they form stars. I also agree that the filaments are organized by magnetic pinches.

I disagree that it's an electric current flowing through the plasma that organizes the plasma. The disagreement is on several levels. First, no plausible electromotive force has been identified. Second, electric currents don't compress matter -- rather, they evacuate it. Ohmic heating causes the plasma to expand, making it thinner. And thinner plasma is a better conductor. Thus more current flows, meaning more ohmic heating, and even more thinning. So it's a runaway process, that eventually will result in a discharge channel that has absolutely nothing at all in it except for the free electrons zipping through at 99% of the speed of light. And you can't build a star out of nothing but free electrons. Third, if you could build stars like that, stars would be very different -- instead of being low velocity spherical objects, they'd be very long, very thin objects, moving very fast, and I don't know where you'd put the planets around such things, so that people could debate the nature of stars. ;)

Rather, the filaments implode into stars without any help from any sort of external current. There is an electrostatic attraction within the filament itself that gets it to implode. Once moving, the ionized matter within the filament starts generating magnetic fields, which further organize the matter within the filament. Thus electric currents don't cause filaments -- the filaments are the electric currents. And the electromotive force is entirely within the filament, where unbound opposite charges attract each other, creating a body force that gets the filament to implode.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:11 am

Galactic Filaments & Star Formation
Regarding last week's Star Wires TPOD at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/10/30/star-wires/:
u,A<5) According to a recent press release, astronomers working with data provided by Herschel found evidence for electric circuits in space, although that is not how consensus astronomers label their observations.
p<6) They identified “… an intricate pattern of filaments dotted with a few compact, bright cores: the seeds of future stars.”

[Re u,A<5: "u" means "Unlikely"; "A" means "Important Statement"; "5" means "5th Statement".]
The TPOD is referring to "B211/B213 filament in the Taurus Molecular Cloud" from the "Gould Belt survey".
u,A<7) Filaments of electric charge can flow in closed circuits through plasma.
u,A<21) Electromagnetism “pinches” those channels, otherwise known as Birkeland currents, into filaments that tend to attract each other in pairs.
u,A<26) There are power-consuming loads in those circuits converting electrical energy into rotational energy. They are known as galaxies.
u,A<29) In an Electric Universe, large-scale plasma discharges form coherent filaments that exhibit electrodynamic behavior.
u,A<32) When plasma moves through a cloud of dust and gas, some of the neutral molecules in the cloud are ionized, initiating electric fields, and thereby creating magnetic fields that tend to align and constrict the charge flow.
m,A<33) Since Birkeland currents are electromagnetic, they isolate regions of opposite charge and prevent them from neutralizing.

CC replied: I agree that the filaments are there, and that they form stars. I also agree that the filaments are organized by magnetic pinches.
- I disagree that it's an electric current flowing through the plasma that organizes the plasma. The disagreement is on several levels.
- First, no plausible electromotive force has been identified.

By EMF, you're referring to a Voltage Drop, or Electrical Potential Difference, aren't you? That means there should be a charge level in one area and a different charge level in another area, and an electric current should be moving between the two areas, tending to even out the charge over both areas and reducing the Voltage Drop to Zero. Am I right about this?
- Second, electric currents don't compress matter -- rather, they evacuate it. Ohmic heating causes the plasma to expand, making it thinner. And thinner plasma is a better conductor. Thus more current flows, meaning more ohmic heating, and even more thinning. So it's a runaway process, that eventually will result in a discharge channel that has absolutely nothing at all in it except for the free electrons zipping through at 99% of the speed of light. And you can't build a star out of nothing but free electrons.

EU theory often refers to Marklund Convection. Is that what you're describing? They say Marklund Convection concentrates matter along the central axis of a filament, although the matter has to be moving along the axis in one direction at high velocity. Does Marklund Convection move positive ions along the axis?
- Third, if you could build stars like that, stars would be very different -- instead of being low velocity spherical objects, they'd be very long, very thin objects, moving very fast, and I don't know where you'd put the planets around such things, so that people could debate the nature of stars. ;)
- Rather, the filaments implode into stars without any help from any sort of external current. There is an electrostatic attraction within the filament itself that gets it to implode. Once moving, the ionized matter within the filament starts generating magnetic fields, which further organize the matter within the filament. Thus electric currents don't cause filaments -- the filaments are the electric currents. And the electromotive force is entirely within the filament, where unbound opposite charges attract each other, creating a body force that gets the filament to implode.

You mean there is an electric current in Marklund Convection, but it's an internal current, not external, and it's caused by the implosion of the filament, not by an external Voltage Drop, like between galaxies etc. Right? And the implosion causes the ends of each filament to move toward the midsection of the filament, where the matter piles together and forms either tokamak-like stars, or electric double layer stars. Right?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:59 pm

Lloyd wrote:Galactic Filaments & Star Formation
By EMF, you're referring to a Voltage Drop, or Electrical Potential Difference, aren't you? That means there should be a charge level in one area and a different charge level in another area, and an electric current should be moving between the two areas, tending to even out the charge over both areas and reducing the Voltage Drop to Zero. Am I right about this?

Exactly.

Lloyd wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:Second, electric currents don't compress matter -- rather, they evacuate it. Ohmic heating causes the plasma to expand, making it thinner. And thinner plasma is a better conductor. Thus more current flows, meaning more ohmic heating, and even more thinning. So it's a runaway process, that eventually will result in a discharge channel that has absolutely nothing at all in it except for the free electrons zipping through at 99% of the speed of light. And you can't build a star out of nothing but free electrons.

EU theory often refers to Marklund Convection. Is that what you're describing?

No -- I'm talking about an electric current, in the form of free electrons, moving through a discharge channel. If there is any resistance at all, electrons do most of the moving, not +ions, since electrons have at least one order of magnitude more mobility, since they're lighter than +ions. So any time there is a voltage between two points sufficient for a discharge, the electrons go to where the +ions are, not the other way around, nor do they meet in the middle. And the electrons evacuate the discharge channel with high-energy collisions. The more evacuated the discharge channel, the greater the conductivity.

Lloyd wrote:They say Marklund Convection concentrates matter along the central axis of a filament, although the matter has to be moving along the axis in one direction at high velocity. Does Marklund Convection move positive ions along the axis?

No, you were right the first time -- Marklund Convection moves matter toward the axis, which is motion that is perpendicular to the axis. And yes, it's a concentration of +ions, where the greater the degree of ionization, the greater the effect. So the stuff that ends up nearest the axis is the stuff that has the greatest charge, which will be the matter that has the lowest ionization potential (i.e., matter that is charged the easiest).

Lloyd wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:Rather, the filaments implode into stars without any help from any sort of external current. There is an electrostatic attraction within the filament itself that gets it to implode. Once moving, the ionized matter within the filament starts generating magnetic fields, which further organize the matter within the filament. Thus electric currents don't cause filaments -- the filaments are the electric currents. And the electromotive force is entirely within the filament, where unbound opposite charges attract each other, creating a body force that gets the filament to implode.

You mean there is an electric current in Marklund Convection,

No.

Lloyd wrote:but it's an internal current, not external, and it's caused by the implosion of the filament, not by an external Voltage Drop, like between galaxies etc. Right?

Yes.

Lloyd wrote:And the implosion causes the ends of each filament to move toward the midsection of the filament, where the matter piles together and forms either tokamak-like stars, or electric double layer stars. Right?

Yes.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:39 am

GRB's
Charles, at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/16754.html you have your paper on Supernovae. (You misspelled dying there at least twice.) I think you said once that GRB's, gamma ray bursts, are probably a result of star formation in nearby locations, instead of in distant locations. In this paper you say supernovae are due to star formation too. You mention gamma rays with respect to the Crab Nebula pulsar, but not with respect to supernovae. (1.) Do you think GRB's should accompany supernova explosions? (2.) Do you know of any supernovae that have been found where GRB's have occurred?

- This article http://www.universetoday.com/52412/supernova-or-grb-radio-observations-allow-astronomers-to-find-unusual-object/ says: "For the first time, astronomers have found a supernova explosion with properties similar to a gamma-ray burst, but without seeing any gamma rays from it. Radio observations with the Very Large Array (VLA) showed material expelled from supernova explosion SN2009bb at speeds approaching the speed of light. The superfast speeds in these rare blasts, astronomers say, are caused by an “engine” in the center of the supernova explosion that resembles a scaled-down version of a quasar."

- This article https://universe-review.ca/F08-star14.htm says: "Crab Nebula: When stars with mass greater than 5 Msun exhaust their nuclear fuel, they collapse suddenly in a process called supernova explosion, which flings off huge amount of heavy elements into interstellar space. Supernovae can be classified into two types. Their characteristics are listed in Table 08-04. Figures 08-13 shows images of the Crab Nebula taken at different wavelengths. The Crab Nebula is a supernova remnant after an explosion at 1054 AD.
Figure 08-13a Crab Nebula [view large image]
- In the optical image, red colour comes from electron recombination to form neutral hydrogen (producing emission lines), while blue colour is generated by synchrotron radiation. The X-ray image shows an enlarged view of the central region with rings of high-energy particles flinging
outward near the speed of light and powerful jets rushing off from the poles (see more explanation on the structure in Figure 08-13a). Figure 08-13b further classifies the supernovae into sub-types according to the spectral signature. ...
- In general the supernova also emits gamma-ray burst that lasts more than two seconds leaving behind a black hole (the shorter burst happens when an old neutron star spirals into a preexisting black hole or another neutron star). The supernova explosion disperses heavy chemical elements produced during the star's life time into the interstellar space. They have become the building materials so essential to life.
... The record was broken by the detection of a more powerful supernova cataloged as GRB080319B in March 2008."


- (3.) By the way, did you get the idea about pulsars being natural tokamaks from the x-ray image of the Crab Nebula pulsar? It certainly looks like a toroid. (4.) Since you say that supernovae seem to be able to stimulate star formation in molecular clouds near them, and you say supernovae are the result of star formation, do you think star formation can be a chain reaction process? I mean a galactic filament in a molecular cloud implodes, producing a star-forming supernova; the supernova causes another filament to implode, producing another supernova; the second supernova does the same thing and so on, until an entire molecular cloud is converted into stars. By the way, I saw an image of a molecular cloud online that looked like a filament here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Part_of_the_Taurus_Molecular_Cloud.jpg/220px-Part_of_the_Taurus_Molecular_Cloud.jpg.

- Oh, I just found another interesting article: Gamma Ray Impact, Chryssa Kouveliotou: The GRB-supernova Connection at http://ecuip.lib.uchicago.edu/multiwavelength-astronomy/gamma-ray/impact/09.html, which says: "After 1997, GRB afterglow observations from X-rays to radio helped scientists make meaningful connections between GRBs and astronomical events, such as supernovae, star formation, and cosmology. ... This is the nearest ever gamma-ray burst to have been reported—37 megaparsecs from Earth. No wonder it was so bright! It also occurred at approximately the same time as a supernova, designated SN 1998bw."

Globular Clusters
(5.) Do you have any ideas about how globular clusters form and how they're able to contain thousands of stars closely packed and why they exist above and below the plane of the galaxy, but not in the plane? Thornhill I think theorized that they're like ball lightning made of neutrinos.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:25 pm

Lloyd wrote:GRB's
Charles, at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/16754.html you have your paper on Supernovae. (You misspelled dying there at least twice.) I think you said once that GRB's, gamma ray bursts, are probably a result of star formation in nearby locations, instead of in distant locations. In this paper you say supernovae are due to star formation too. You mention gamma rays with respect to the Crab Nebula pulsar, but not with respect to supernovae. (1.) Do you think GRB's should accompany supernova explosions?

Yes.

Lloyd wrote:(2.) Do you know of any supernovae that have been found where GRB's have occurred?

I think that all supernovae produce GRBs. Then there was that rare exception that you quoted, where the supernova produced ejecta like a GRB, but without the gamma rays. The simple explanation for that is that the gamma rays were absorbed by an intervening dust cloud.

Lloyd wrote:(3.) By the way, did you get the idea about pulsars being natural tokamaks from the x-ray image of the Crab Nebula pulsar? It certainly looks like a toroid.

I had already been working on that -- pulsars have a variety of characteristics in common with the other "exotic" star types, such as quasars and white dwarfs, which I explain as "natural tokamaks".

Lloyd wrote:(4.) Since you say that supernovae seem to be able to stimulate star formation in molecular clouds near them, and you say supernovae are the result of star formation, do you think star formation can be a chain reaction process?

Absolutely.

Lloyd wrote:Globular Clusters
(5.) Do you have any ideas about how globular clusters form and how they're able to contain thousands of stars closely packed and why they exist above and below the plane of the galaxy, but not in the plane?

I don't know.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Planets Are Plasma Cells That Repel Each Other

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:17 pm

This is an amazing finding of Charles. He found the explanation for the spacing between the planets. It seems to be similar to his finding about the electrical repulsive nature of Tides.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031-6199-15369
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:17 am

Lunar Maria from Impacts or Melting?

That was Charles' question. After looking online, I think it's pretty conclusive that the maria were formed from impacts and the craters filled with flood basalt. The maria seem to have crater rims etc. Here are some links.

Some Moon Rocks
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/WebImg/lunarRockTrio.gif
Article about Those Moon Rocks
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec07/cryptomareSample.html

More Detailed Article with images
http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/smith/Astro150/Labs/MoonRocks/

Apollo Landing Sites (mostly on maria)
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2005/07/01/11jul_lroc_resources/landingsites_600.jpg

More Moon Landing Sites
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/moon_landing_map.jpg

Lunar mineralogy
http://euromin.w3sites.net/Nouveau_site/gisements/extra/GISEXTe.htm

No Lava on the Moon?
http://www.livescience.com/47065-pink-moon-rocks-found.html
"The Mg-suite anorthosites represent the onset of ancient lunar magmatism, but we can't find the lavas anywhere," on the moon's surface, Prissel told Live Science, referring to volcanic activity. "If the pink spinel is linked to these ancient rocks, this is very cool, because then we can get a better idea of where Mg-suite magmatism was occurring on the moon," he said.

Moon Lava
http://www.space.com/30352-fire-fountains-ancient-moon-explained.html
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:01 pm

Moon Near Side Locked to Facing Earth

-Assuming the maria are due to impacts filling with flood basalt, one question is why is the maria side of the Moon locked onto facing the Earth?
-Did the impacts make that side heavier and gravity pulls that side more strongly toward Earth?
-Or did the impacts make the near side lighter and Earth's electrical repulsion has less effect on it?

-The Moon's near side was likely not facing Earth when the Asteroid Bombardment occurred, because Earth should have protected the near side from most of the bombardment.

-Or maybe Earth did protect the near side, if the Moon was hit by large asteroids first and then by small meteorites, since the maria don't seem to show many smaller craters in them.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:20 am

BTW, I just wanted to mention that recently, I did a bunch more work on my star formation model, and it now is considerably more detailed. The main points are as follows:

* Giant molecular clouds first resolve into filaments, and then the filaments collapse lengthwise into stars.

* The force that causes the collapse is the electrostatic attraction between oppositely charged ions.

* The speed of the collapse has to be above a certain threshold, for the matter to get fused into a star. (I'm still working on the calculations of what that threshold actually is, but the numbers are all running in the range of 85% the speed of light or above.)

* Just above the threshold, a "normal" star will form, like our Sun.

* In a considerably more energetic collapse, the collapse approaches the speed of light. As such, charges within the filament get separated into two distinct strands, one being positive, and the other being negative. This is because of the "magnetic push" effect. Just as like charges traveling in the same direction are brought together by the magnetic pinch effect at relativistic velocities, opposite charges are pushed away from each other, and then consolidated into strands. This is sometimes called the "twisted pair" configuration, where the opposite charges have been separated, and like charges have been consolidated, and there are two strands (+/-) to every filament.

* If the filament has resolved into strands, it won't be one collision at the center -- the positive strand coming in from one direction will collide with the negative strand coming from the other direction. So there will be two collisions, and these will form two stars -- binary companions.

* If the filament is oriented perpendicular to the galactic magnetic field, the Lorentz force will further separate the +/- strands, and orient them onto the same plane, coming in from both directions, guaranteeing that the positive strand from one direction will collide with the negative strand from the other. After the initial collision, the strands curve inwards, toward each other, and resolve into a continuous loop. In so doing, the strands have formed a toroidal plasmoid.

* The properties of a toroidal plasmoid explain exotic stars such as white dwarfs, pulsars, and quasars.

All of this appears to be fully consistent with the available data, so I'm just going to keep ratcheting up the specificity, to see what I find. I don't know of any other model that covers so much territory with realistic physics, so I'm going with it.

The full detail can be found in the following sequence of articles on my website:

Accretion
Filaments
Tokamaks
Egg Nebula
Supernovae

Let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers!
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:33 am

On Lloyd's suggestion, I updated my paper on Quasars, to bring it up to the new level of specificity in the other sections. Comments are welcome.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:13 am

Hi Charles,

I like it that you support GTSM by Jeffrey.

Yes, if an astron turns from plasma to gas, there is the red phase, the astron does not get larger it would still get smaller due to matter loss. The mainstream confusion is because they think the red stars are further away then they actually are.

Red stars are also flare stars, any explanation for that in your model?

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:37 pm

D_Archer wrote:Red stars are also flare stars, any explanation for that in your model?

I agree with Jeffrey that red giants are in the process of getting born, not in the process of dying. As a dusty plasma collapses into a star, it heats up, and then it starts to glow. As the compression continues, the temperature keeps going up, and the color shifts from red toward blue. If it has a lot of mass, it will form a blue giant. Most stars follow the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) toward the main sequence, ultimately settling into stable positions as yellow dwarfs. The brightness and color fluctuate in the migration toward the main sequence, because that's a dusty plasma that just collapsed into a star, and the reverberations haven't died down yet. So the AGB is populated by variable stars. Once on the main sequence, the star slowly cools, getting dimmer and redder as it goes, ultimately going invisible as a brown dwarf (a.k.a., a planet). So that's GTSM, in my words. ;)

Where the mainstream, Jeffrey, and I all agree is that the red giant phase might terminate with a supernova, but again, the mainstream thinks that this is at the end of the cycle, while Jeffrey & I agree that this is just the beginning. The "remnants" sometimes left behind by supernovae are embarrassingly out of place in the standard model, but are quite expected if it's a star birthing process. And a Type 1a supernova is just a star birthing process that was a little too vigorous, where the compression initiated a runaway thermonuclear explosion that annihilated everything in the vicinity. So there's an upper limit to how much matter you can ram together and still get a stable star.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:17 pm

What do you guys mean by flare stars? The Sun produces solar flares. Is it a flare star? It's not red. Red and brown dwarf stars flare too; don't they?

Charles, I thought you'd said that imploding galactic filaments should be able to produce all size stars and planets and moons. If that's the case, then we don't know if a body started out real big a long time ago and shrank, or if it started out more recently at a smaller size. Do we?

Doesn't one of your papers say that most stars are about 1/3 the mass of the Sun? Aren't there a lot of red and brown dwarf stars that are likely too dim to be visible? So how do you know that most aren't moon- or planet-sized?

Also, last I heard from you about a year ago was that it's possible that the Sun's constant mass loss may recycle back onto the Sun, causing it to remain the same size much longer. And isn't it possible still for stars to increase in size if interstellar matter falls onto them?

I just read your new Quasar paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... -6031-9273. Very interesting. I added a few questions about it there.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:43 pm

Lloyd wrote:What do you guys mean by flare stars?

I thought that he meant "variable stars", but he can chime in if he meant something different.

Lloyd wrote:Charles, I thought you'd said that imploding galactic filaments should be able to produce all size stars and planets and moons. If that's the case, then we don't know if a body started out real big a long time ago and shrank, or if it started out more recently at a smaller size. Do we?

Well, I haven't stopped reading. ;) And there does appear to be a preferred size for stars, at least when they first form, known as the "initial mass function". (See the references below.) My current thinking is that there isn't really anything that constrains the size of the dusty plasma filaments that implode to make the stars, so these could be big or small. But if they're too big, the implosion will be a bit too energetic, and it will graduate into a runaway thermonuclear explosion (Type 1a supernova), and that will be the end of it. And the lower limit is that if the implosion isn't vigorous enough, the filament won't get pinched into a tight enough stream, and the implosion won't develop the extreme pressures necessary to fuse the matter into a star. I'm trying to figure out how to quantify these statements.

Salpeter, E. E. (1955): The Luminosity Function and Stellar Evolution. Astrophysical Journal, 121: 161

Kroupa, P. (2002): The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems. arXiv, astro-ph: 0201098

Bastian, N.; Covey, K. R.; Meyer, M. R. (2010): A Universal Stellar Initial Mass Function? A Critical Look at Variations. arXiv, astro-ph.GA: 1001.2965

Larson, R. B. (2006): Understanding the Stellar Initial Mass Function. arXiv, astro-ph: 0602469

Lloyd wrote:Doesn't one of your papers say that most stars are about 1/3 the mass of the Sun? Aren't there a lot of red and brown dwarf stars that are likely too dim to be visible? So how do you know that most aren't moon- or planet-sized?

The "initial mass function" just speaks to the size of the stars when they first form -- it doesn't say how much matter they could subsequently scavenge. And certainly there are a lot of stray objects, such as planets, moons, asteroids, etc., that are irregular sizes.

But there is another aspect of this that is worthy of mention: the mainstream assumes that bright, blue stars are heavy, and that dim, red stars are small. This is because their energy source is nuclear fusion in the core, and to get brighter, bluer light, they need more mass, to sustain more fusion. But they neglect to say why so much more mass doesn't cause runaway fusion ending in a Type 1a supernova. So in my model, brighter and bluer doesn't necessarily mean more mass -- it might just mean a higher degree of ionization, with current-free double-layers (CFDLs) holding on more tightly.

Lloyd wrote:Also, last I heard from you about a year ago was that it's possible that the Sun's constant mass loss may recycle back onto the Sun, causing it to remain the same size much longer. And isn't it possible still for stars to increase in size if interstellar matter falls onto them?

Yes (on all counts). There really isn't any evidence of any net mass loss of the Sun into the heliosphere, so it really cannot be said that the Sun is blowing a high-pressure bubble in the interstellar medium. It rather looks more like a huge Debye sheath clinging to the charged body in the center, where the sheath is actually less dense than the surroundings, as the heliosphere (at its outer reaches) is 1/40 the density of the interstellar medium. So where is all of the matter from the solar wind going? I "think" that the answer has to be that it is all raining back down to the Sun. And energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) from the interstellar medium might be adding to the mass of the Sun. But I have no idea what the rate might be.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby D_Archer » Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:01 am

Lloyd wrote:What do you guys mean by flare stars?


The standard definition that is on Wiki > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_star
Most flare stars are dim red dwarfs, although recent research indicates that less massive brown dwarfs might also be capable of flaring


Just fainter, smaller, redder stars. What astronomers found was that they would suddenly brighten. Yes they are solar flares, but more frequent and bigger, a big surface area flares off...

With GTSM it is thermochemical, electrochemical in nature, it the phase where an astron goes from shining to not shining and thus a gas giant; this does take a long time and the astron could be flaring for a while.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests