Star sizes and Halton Arp

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Star sizes and Halton Arp

Unread postby tholden » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:26 am

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
tholden
 
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Star sizes and Halton Arp

Unread postby D_Archer » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:03 am

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
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Star sizes and Halton Arp

Unread postby webolife » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:33 pm

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.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Star sizes and Halton Arp

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:01 am

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...

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.
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Star sizes and Halton Arp

Unread postby willendure » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:00 am

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?
willendure
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Star sizes and Halton Arp

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:53 am

D_Archer wrote:
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...


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.
fosborn_
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas


Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests