Star sizes and Halton Arp

[tholden]

Question... Are these kinds of statements about the sizes of several known stars still valid after the work of Halton Arp or are they based on wrong ideas about redshift or something similar to that??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKu1939d2vc&t=19s

[D_Archer]

I think they are wrong.

An example is Betelgeuse, a red "giant" should be smaller then our sun as it is cooler, but mainstream says it is very large.

Regards,
Daniel

[webolife]

No, that is incorrect Daniel. If our sun without a change of mass were to expand to the size of the earth's orbit, for example, like a red giant it would cool down tremendously. The increase of a volume of gas [or plasma if it so please] results in the decrease of its temperature. Simple gas laws apply here, regardless of the disputed energy source of the star. Betelgeuse is a near enough star that its size is known by parallax, but also due to its large diameter uniquely has a discrete disk. Redshift considerations are moot in Betelgeuse's case. Now by spectral comparison other red giants that are much more distant undergo a set of assumptions in the determining of their size, among which may be redshift. Arp's work does throw a big wrench into this work as far as prediction is concerned. Likewise Sirius B, also a very near star, is much tinier and much hotter than our sun.

[D_Archer]

No, that is incorrect Daniel. If our sun without a change of mass were to expand to the size of the earth's orbit, for example, like a red giant it would cool down tremendously.

This is a substantion, no star was ever observed to balloon in size when it evolved into a red giant.

As per GTSM, more logical would be that if our Sun cools it would shrink in size...

In this case (as Wal does sometimes) he takes the mainstream size as fact and applies an EU sauce over it. He then explains how a red star can be so large, it scavenges electrons, the whole construct breaks apart when the first "fact" is not a fact.

Regards,
Daniel

*ps you also said 'if our sun..', indeed IF, but why would it...there is no observation for this... maybe safire can do some experiments, i did see smaller glows, but it was purple, the purple was not bigger than the yellow high discharge glow.
*pss. i have problems with parallax as well.

[willendure]

Were Halton Arps anamolies only to do with quasars? Or did he claim the measurements for individual stars are out too? Or are we inferring that if it is wrong for quasars then it can't be right for individual stars too?

[fosborn_]

No, that is incorrect Daniel. If our sun without a change of mass were to expand to the size of the earth's orbit, for example, like a red giant it would cool down tremendously.

This is a substantion, no star was ever observed to balloon in size when it evolved into a red giant.

As per GTSM, more logical would be that if our Sun cools it would shrink in size...

Charles C 's view may give some illumination on red giants.
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6350.html

Note that the evolution down the main sequence isn't a straight line — there are two humps, one at the transition from blue to yellow stars, and the other between yellow and red stars. Since the standard model doesn't address this, we should look to the CFDL model for an answer. Figure 3 shows the proposed layers within the Sun. As it continues to cool, the bulk ionization will relax, reducing the electric force between charged double-layers. This will allow the star to expand. The reduced density will relax the internal pressure, shifting the thresholds for charge separation by electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) downward. In other words, such thresholds occur at isobars, and if the pressure is relaxed, we have to go deeper to find the same isobars. The significance is that the near-surface conditions will change — the topmost positive layer will get deeper, because its bottom has shifted downward, and because its top isn't as firmly bound. The greater mean free path will yield redder photons. And note that this is a shift in frequency in addition to the shift from the reduced temperature. So a little bit of temperature difference results in a lot of reddening, and not a lot of decrease in luminosity (since that varies just with the temperature). Hence we get an explanation for the flatter stretch in the main sequence, before the yellow-to-red hump.

My highlights.
Charles claims there is only slight cooling if I read it right.

[webolife]

webolife wrote:
No, that is incorrect Daniel. If our sun without a change of mass were to expand to the size of the earth's orbit, for example, like a red giant it would cool down tremendously.

This is a substantion, no star was ever observed to balloon in size when it evolved into a red giant.
As per GTSM, more logical would be that if our Sun cools it would shrink in size...

Not sure what you're trying to explain here Daniel... stellar evolution, as in biological macroevolution, is not a humanly observable phenomenon, I grant you that. But simple temperature pressure and volume considerations do apply here. If you want something to heat up you compress it [ie. lower its volume], and vice-versa to cool it. Energy output is related to mass, so these variables all combine to make up the HR diagram. Now the various mechanisms invoked for stellar generation [from GR to EU/PC] invoke quite a bit of controversy obviously... I stand pretty firmly on the view that compression is the general mechanism behind stellar energy production, regardless of the question regarding nuclear fusion or Z-pinch, neither of which is confirmed scientifically at this point.

But parallax is simple trigonometry... what's your issue there?

[D_Archer]

But parallax is simple trigonometry... what's your issue there?

Jerrold Thacker made me doubt, his paper > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Astrophysics/Download/4635

Parallax is not really "simple".

And it seems there are red dwarf stars that are actually small..., there should not be 2 types, it is 1 or the other.

Regards,
Daniel

[webolife]

You're mixed up about the idea of "red"... red is a result of temperature, not of size.
A dwarf star has little mass or great mass, if little then it is not very dense, low pressure, low temperature, red, eg. Proxima Centauri. A little more mass, greater compression, higher temperature, yellow, eg. Sol.
If greater mass, then it's density will be greater, higher compression and temperature, color whiter, eg. Sirius B.
If a big star has great mass, it will be denser, higher temp, shine brighter, whiter color, eg. Capella [yellowish].
Or if it has less mass, therefore less density and pressure, therefore expanded, lower temperature, red, eg. Betelgeuse.
Cepheid variable stars have an unstable radius, get hotter [whiter] when they condense, cooler [redder] when they expand., eg. Polaris.
All these examples are close enough to study in some detail.
Parallax is simple in "concept". I think that GR considerations are of less importance than the author of your linked paper complained [but I don't claim superior knowledge]... that's a good article though.

[D_Archer]

You're mixed up about the idea of "red"... red is a result of temperature, not of size.
A dwarf star has little mass or great mass, if little then it is not very dense, low pressure, low temperature, red, eg. Proxima Centauri. A little more mass, greater compression, higher temperature, yellow, eg. Sol.
If greater mass, then it's density will be greater, higher compression and temperature, color whiter, eg. Sirius B.
If a big star has great mass, it will be denser, higher temp, shine brighter, whiter color, eg. Capella [yellowish].
Or if it has less mass, therefore less density and pressure, therefore expanded, lower temperature, red, eg. Betelgeuse.
Cepheid variable stars have an unstable radius, get hotter [whiter] when they condense, cooler [redder] when they expand., eg. Polaris.
All these examples are close enough to study in some detail.
Parallax is simple in "concept". I think that GR considerations are of less importance than the author of your linked paper complained [but I don't claim superior knowledge]... that's a good article though.

I would say mainstream size, mass, distance guesstimates are off (by large margins), they have masses of cometary asteroids probably wrong... how would they know masses light years away...

Regards,
Daniel

[webolife]

I would say mainstream size, mass, distance guesstimates are off (by large margins), they have masses of cometary asteroids probably wrong... how would they know masses light years away...

That may be so, but they're using well studied nearby stellar info with the reasonable assumptions that:
1. Distant [based on intensity ie. relative magnitude] stars operate on the same principles as nearby stars,
2. Newtonian mechanics and its associated equations are valid determiners of mass.
If you don't feel these are reasonable assumptions, then you have to come up with more reasonable ones!