Quasars, Stars, Planets & Neutrons

[Lloyd]

ANALOGY 1
1a. Quasars form within galactic centers: the center is a plasma gun that periodically shoots out 2 quasars in opposite directions.
1b. The quasars start out with very low mass, very high velocity and very high positive charge or ionization, stripping off many of its electrons.
1c. The quasars quickly gain mass from the intergalactic medium, lose velocity and lose ionization on opposite sides of the mother galaxy.
2a. Some stars form within planetary nebulae: each nebula is a plasma gun[?] that periodically shoots out 2[?] stars in opposite directions.
2b. The stars start out with very low mass[?], very high velocity and very high charge or ionization[?].
2c. They quickly gain mass[?] from the interstellar medium, lose velocity and lose ionization on opposite sides of the nebula.
3a. Some planets form within brown dwarf stars: the dwarf is a plasma gun[?] that periodically shoots out 2[?] planets in opposite directions.
3b. The planets start out with very low mass[?], very high velocity[?] and very high charge or ionization[?].
3c. They quickly gain mass[?] from the stellar atmosphere, lose velocity and lose ionization on opposite sides of the dwarf.
4a. Some plasma bullets form within artificial plasma guns: I don't know if they can shoot 2 bullets in opposite directions, etc.
5a. Some electrons and positrons form from neutrons: are neutrons plasma guns that shoot out an electron and a neutrino in opposite directions? The neutron plasma gun becomes a proton. Can the proton be reloaded to become a neutron plasma gun again?
5b. Do the electrons start out with very low mass, very high velocity and very high charge?
5c. Do they gain mass and lose velocity and charge?

ANALOGY 2
1. Radioactive elements can transmute by beta decay, which is the shooting out of an electron or a positron from a neutron, leaving a proton or antiproton.
2. Nuclear explosions shoot out neutrons, which have a half-life of under 15 minutes. So the neutrons suffer beta decay, just as radioactive elements do. But do they only shoot out electrons? Or do they just as often shoot out positrons?

In both analogies, notice that ionization is produced initially, which eventually becomes reduced, until the cycle repeats.

It's not clear to me, though, whether the universe tends to become more and more charged, or less and less charged, or both.

Could the universe be a plasma gun that periodically shoots out new universes in opposite directions?

[earls]

Interesting theory.

If quasars are galactic seeds that form from galaxies, what came first, the chicken or the egg, and how?

Nebulae are akin to clouds. Star formation happens in multiple areas of the cloud simultaneously. I suppose the specific areas of turbulence could compose "plasma guns" but it's questionable if stars are forming in pairs, and the consequences of such.

I strictly disagree with this type of planet formation. For one, if the building blocks are being discharged along the axis, how do they become aligned with the equatorial plane? In my mind, the positive ions are cast out near or at the equator with a spin opposite the star... Areas of turbulence form around a positive column of charge, electrons come in equatorially to neutralize such, you get neutral atoms between the positive column and the negative medium which forms an expanding region which eventually forms the "crust" of a planet... technically the mantle as the original cooler top layer falls back inward as the newer, hotter, attempts to expand outward... Like the formation of ice in a pond? Familiar?

Welp, either the plasma guns have to shoot two equal bullets in opposite directions, or they will be flying across the sky in one direction... Certainly not impossible either way, but would require some study of the available data for a conclusive answer.

Neutrons I know do shoot out electrons and protons in opposite directions...? And yes, any proton can become a neutron.

5b, according to relativity, velocity = mass? I don't agree with such. Good question, I have no real answer at this time.

5c, kind of the cornerstone of your theory, no? Again, according to relativity, the faster something is moving, the higher its mass. Charge I believe remains the same regardless of velocity? I am awash in ignorance however.

1. I guess I need to study up on nuclear physics... While I already knew it, I just can't believe the difference between a neutron and proton is one electron.

2. It seems that they can expel positrons leaving an anti-proton... which will result in small particles and/or photons if hit by a proton... Or it may absorb a positron, go neutron, then expel an electron to form a regular proton.

To me only, the universe "began" charged and is attempting to neutralize... Not neutral and then becoming ionized. Personally I believe in an eternal balance of the two opposite charges and a neutral "staging ground" which we refer to as the "visible" "livable" universe.

"Could the universe be a plasma gun that periodically shoots out new universes in opposite directions?"

Semantically/physically impossible... There is only ONE universe, hence universe.

[StevenO]

We should always use Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation that gives the correct result is the better...

e.g. how do stars form from nebula's? Initially you have particles in interstellar space, these particles have mass. The particles together have a common center of gravity and will start moving towards that common center of gravity. Gravitational energy (position) of the particles is then converted to kinetic energy (heat) until the aggregate of particles starts to emit visible radiation. Initially as an infrared star, then a red giant and up the main sequence to a supernova. Looks simpler to me than a plasma gun

[earls]

StevenO, I never pegged you to be such a strict adherent to mainstream physical explanations. Quite odd that you would prefer the gravity driven star formation theory over an Electric Universe interpretation... Unless you're attempting to be subtly clever.

While this article is about planet formation, I believe it could be applied to stars as well...

http://www.physorg.com/news148315121.html

"turbulent forces keep the dust and gas swirling and prevent it from forming a dense and thin enough layer for gravitational instability to occur"

Interestingly enough however, this next article halfway agrees with me, but instead of turbulence preventing star formation altogether, it only prevents SMALL star formation in light of HUGE star formation:

http://www.physorg.com/news154631619.html

This more EU-esque article suggests a constructive electromagnetic positive feedback loop rapidly heats and consolidates material... Given enough mass, I can see how this could be a candidate for star formation:

http://www.physorg.com/news154893335.html

"Initially as an infrared star, then a red giant and up the main sequence to a supernova."

That statement is patently false unless I'm misinterpreting it. Red giants come AFTER main sequence stars, not before. Stars that become red giants do so because they CANNOT supernova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

[Lloyd]

* Earl, do you favor Wal's theory of planet formation?
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVII05.txt

PLANET BIRTHING - MORE EVIDENCE - By Wal Thornhill
In my May news item I wrote, "It is far simpler and infinitely more efficient if planets are "born" at intervals by the electrical ejection of charged material from the similarly charged interiors of larger bodies -- gas giants from stars, and rocky planets from gas giants."

* I think this is the clearest explanation I've read from him.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=1dqzp30f

Hyperion's History
- after their formation in a Z-pinch, stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galaxy. The gravitational field inside a star distorts atoms in the star to form tiny electric dipoles. These atomic dipoles align to produce a weak radial electric field. Under the influence of that field, electrons tend to drift toward the surface, leaving a positively charged interior. It is the mutual repulsion of the positive charge within a star that supports the bulk of its envelope against gravity. A central fire is not necessary. However, a star's apparent size is purely an electric discharge phenomenon, dependent on its environment, and bears little relationship to its physical size. The best example is a red giant star, which has a low energy glow discharge so far from the central star that it can envelop an entire planetary system.
- External electrical or gravitational stresses on a star may cause some of its internal positive charge to be offset from the center of the star. And since like charges repel, the offset charge will tend to accelerate toward the surface. It is a form of internal lightning. This process may lead to the expulsion of a substantial portion of the positively charged interior of the star. The visible result is a nova, or star-wide lightning flash, as electrons in the stellar atmosphere rush toward the emerging positively charged matter. The ejected material constitutes a powerful electric current, which generates its own magnetic field. That magnetic field constricts the charged matter to form a jet. The leading matter is neutralized and stops accelerating, causing the following charged matter to pile into it. So is born a companion star or gas giant planet. This explains why so many stars have been found to have extremely close-orbiting gas giant planets.

* I think his theory makes good sense, but the reason I developed my theory above is to try to explain "runaway planets" and now maybe neutrons too.
* The first part of this theory, which relates to galaxy formation from quasars, seems to be pretty strongly accepted by the TB team and it seems to be based both on Halton Arp's findings on quasars and combined with Wal's input on plasma effects.
* In the second part of my theory here on star formation, I think the TB team tends to regard planetary nebulae as places where stars form, but I don't know what specific mechanism they favor, although I know they refer to Z-pinches and I remember Wal suggesting that a series of stars and planets can all form close together in single file in a Birkeland current that succumbs to a series of Z-pinches.
* The third part of my theory tries to explain runaway planets. I think I've only heard of one runaway planet that was discovered over ten years ago. It was said to be moving at high velocity and unconnected to any star. Since quasars shoot out of galactic center's plasma guns at high velocity, that's what made me think that maybe planets and stars can sometimes form from plasma guns as well. I found that the ratios between quasar distances from mother galaxies and between Earth and Saturn in the Saturn Configuration could be very close to the same size.
* Now, are you sure that protons and electrons shoot out in opposite directions from each other when a neutron decays? I was thinking, that, since the proton is 1836 times or so more massive than an electron, it's just the electron and neutrino that shoot out in opposite directions, leaving the proton basically where it was. I was thinking that the electron might start out massless, like the neutrino, and only gain mass over time.
* As to the chicken and the egg, it may be that there are 2 ways for each of these objects to form: the plasma gun way and the Z-pinch way. So the first galaxies may have formed from Z-pinches, but maybe that's a more painful way, so they prefer to make plasma guns to form quasars after that, which then evolve into galaxies.
* And as for universes, when the Milky Way was the only galaxy known, the word galaxy and universe, I think, had the same meaning. It wasn't until 1924 that another galaxy was discovered, viz. by Hubble, i.e. the Andromeda galaxy M31. So, if it turns out that there are other globs of billions of galaxies, like our known universe, we'll have to come up with a term to refer to such globs. And I figured folks here would likely get my drift if I just say universes for now. Or how about globiverse? Our globiverse might shoot out pairs of baby globiverses in opposite directions, which would form new globiverses right next door, only a few tens of billions of lightyears away.

[StevenO]

StevenO, I never pegged you to be such a strict adherent to mainstream physical explanations. Quite odd that you would prefer the gravity driven star formation theory over an Electric Universe interpretation... Unless you're attempting to be subtly clever.

Well...it is not mainstream explanation, it is Reciprocal System theory(RST), which I am actually not allowed to post on the EU section...
<snip>

"Initially as an infrared star, then a red giant and up the main sequence to a supernova."

That statement is patently false unless I'm misinterpreting it. Red giants come AFTER main sequence stars, not before. Stars that become red giants do so because they CANNOT supernova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

You are quoting the going mainstream explanation, which has stellar development backwards. RST has explanations why, when and how stars supernova. Then again, I'm not supposed to post that here, so I guess I have to make some new threads in the Mad Idea's section.

[Lloyd]

* The Reciprocal System theory supports the Expanding Universe theory, which is disproven by Arp's findings that quasars are near and sometimes in front of galaxies that have low redshift and are much closer than the redshift formula contends.
* The idea in RST that everything is expanding at the speed of light is pretty absurd. That would mean electrons and protons are rapidly expanding at the rate of 186,000 miles per second, so the radius of a proton grows by that much every second. In a year it would be almost 6 trillion miles in radius. And everything else in the universe would also be proportionately that much bigger each year.
* RST doesn't consider electrical forces to have much effect in the universe. It accepts conventional gravity-only models for planet, star and galaxy formation. Contrary to RST, the brightness of stars has little, if anything, to do with the star's age and mostly to do with the electrical stress affecting the star.
* There seems to be almost nothing in RST that is likely to be true, except the basic idea that everything is motion.

[StevenO]

* The Reciprocal System theory supports the Expanding Universe theory, which is disproven by Arp's findings that quasars are near and sometimes in front of galaxies that have low redshift and are much closer than the redshift formula contends.
* The idea in RST that everything is expanding at the speed of light is pretty absurd. That would mean electrons and protons are rapidly expanding at the rate of 186,000 miles per second, so the radius of a proton grows by that much every second. In a year it would be almost 6 trillion miles in radius. And everything else in the universe would also be proportionately that much bigger each year.
* RST doesn't consider electrical forces to have much effect in the universe. It accepts conventional gravity-only models for planet, star and galaxy formation. Contrary to RST, the brightness of stars has little, if anything, to do with the star's age and mostly to do with the electrical stress affecting the star.
* There seems to be almost nothing in RST that is likely to be true, except the basic idea that everything is motion.

Lloyd, you are putting your own interpretations in here. RST has no expanding universe model, neither is everything expanding at lightspeed and neither does it have gravity as the only force in the universe. RST postulates that the universe consists of quanta of motion and that the unit quantum is lightspeed. Physical phenomena then come from displacements of the unit ratio. Larson checked his quasar predictions with the observations from Arp.

I think it is better to have an RST discussion that takes away these misconceptions in a seperate thread in the Mad idea's section.

[bboyer]

....

You are quoting the going mainstream explanation, which has stellar development backwards. RST has explanations why, when and how stars supernova. Then again, I'm not supposed to post that here, so I guess I have to make some new threads in the Mad Idea's section.

A topic in the Future of Science section might serve as well. Not being familiar with the theory myself, you would have to be the judge of that for the time being.

[keeha]

We should always use Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation that gives the correct result is the better...

e.g. how do stars form from nebula's? Initially you have particles in interstellar space, these particles have mass. The particles together have a common center of gravity and will start moving towards that common center of gravity. Gravitational energy (position) of the particles is then converted to kinetic energy (heat) until the aggregate of particles starts to emit visible radiation. Initially as an infrared star, then a red giant and up the main sequence to a supernova. Looks simpler to me than a plasma gun

Thanks, I'm going to remember that StevenO. Cleanly put.

Earls, are you talking about 'super-gravity'? The gravity one gets when ordinary matter is separated into two opposite types of matter (by a process called 'creating charge') that have a gravity between them 1037 stronger than normal gravity?

Lloyd, thanks for the WT quote. I'm thinking bubbles, with some bullet-like features.
solstation.com: Galactic Superbubbles around the Solar Neighborhood

[earls]

That's part of the process I suppose, but not directly what I was referring to... Gravity is simply charge balance, it's just that one charge is *slighty* larger than the other and give a preference of direction to any other particles under its influence.

Take a Hydrogen atom for example... It's basically a dipole... electron (-)[somespace](+) proton. However, because the electron is "orbiting" the proton just under the speed of light, the atom SEEMS neutral, but it has a slight positive charge because the electron can't be everywhere at once to neutralize the charge of the proton.

It's the same deal with the Earth. There's a positive charge in the middle that negative space has virtually neutralized, but not completely, so atoms have a preferred direction of movement.

Again, whether StevenO's theory is called "RST" or "Mainstream" they sound exactly the same... Mass causes gravity, it's just that with RST, certainly "motion" causes mass.

I propose "mass" is the iteration of the particles with their parent electromagnetic field... Very similar to the Higgs Field explanation, just more convenient and better known.

EMFs proceed matter, matter will not exist in an area where there is no EMF. No where in the known Universe will you find an area devoid of an EMF.

[Lloyd]

* Steven O said:

RST has no expanding universe model, neither is everything expanding at lightspeed and neither does it have gravity as the only force in the universe. RST postulates that the universe consists of quanta of motion and that the unit quantum is lightspeed. Physical phenomena then come from displacements of the unit ratio. Larson checked his quasar predictions with the observations from Arp.

* Our own interpretations are all that exist, aren't they? I can't say what someone else's interpretation is without interpreting it myself.
* I have 3 of Larson's books and I read much of them several times. He used three or more analogies for his version of an expanding universe. He said galaxies are moving like dots on the surface of an expanding balloon. I think he said the balloon is expanding at the speed of light. It's the space between the galaxies that's expanding. He compared it also to raisin bread that's being baked in the oven. The raisins get farther and farther apart from each other as the bread bakes and rises. The other analogy was of a conveyor belt. A galaxy is like a ball on a belt. The belt is going at the speed of light and the galaxy rolls without moving with the belt at first, but eventually starts going faster and faster, like a ball that rolls increasingly slower.
* I'm fuzzy on details, but as I recall, he said that, when the galaxies get to the edge of the known universe, their speed eventually surpasses the speed of light and at that point they begin to expand in time, which is equivalent to contracting in space. I think he said the galaxies would then be juxtaposed in time, but not in space, resulting in the parts of receding galaxies appearing throughout the universe. It seems like he said that's the source of cosmic rays.
* You can say his model is not of an expanding universe, but it's a model of expanding space with the galaxies receding from each other with constantly increasing velocity.
* He did not consider stars etc to be electrical phenomena. I think he accepted the nuclear fusion model of stars.
* If you start a thread on this, I'll try to have a look, but I wanted to mention these contradictions that are relevant here.
* Please quote Larson where he said he checked his ideas with Arp's findings.

[StevenO]

* Steven O said:

RST has no expanding universe model, neither is everything expanding at lightspeed and neither does it have gravity as the only force in the universe. RST postulates that the universe consists of quanta of motion and that the unit quantum is lightspeed. Physical phenomena then come from displacements of the unit ratio. Larson checked his quasar predictions with the observations from Arp.

* Our own interpretations are all that exist, aren't they? I can't say what someone else's interpretation is without interpreting it myself.

Can't argue with that. It is just that Larson always tried to be very precise (except in his rants against mainstream physics).

* I have 3 of Larson's books and I read much of them several times. He used three or more analogies for his version of an expanding universe. He said galaxies are moving like dots on the surface of an expanding balloon. I think he said the balloon is expanding at the speed of light. It's the space between the galaxies that's expanding. He compared it also to raisin bread that's being baked in the oven. The raisins get farther and farther apart from each other as the bread bakes and rises. The other analogy was of a conveyor belt. A galaxy is like a ball on a belt. The belt is going at the speed of light and the galaxy rolls without moving with the belt at first, but eventually starts going faster and faster, like a ball that rolls increasingly slower.

Yes, that's a common explanation for 'scalar' motion. An expansion into all directions. Astronomers use it too. In RST this is the motion of the 'reference system'. However this motion is normally offset by gravitational motion in RST. Only outside the influence of gravity galaxies start to move with the reference system.

* I'm fuzzy on details, but as I recall, he said that, when the galaxies get to the edge of the known universe, their speed eventually surpasses the speed of light and at that point they begin to expand in time, which is equivalent to contracting in space. I think he said the galaxies would then be juxtaposed in time, but not in space, resulting in the parts of receding galaxies appearing throughout the universe. It seems like he said that's the source of cosmic rays.

This is not correct. Larson said that supernova's can push matter over lightspeed causing compact objects like white dwarfs. Lightspeed is the point of symmetry in the RST universe, matter that moves faster than lightspeed in one or two dimensions shows some 'inverted' behaviour, like contraction in space (white dwarfs), radio emissions etc.
Matter that gets pushed over lightspeed in three dimensions moves out of sight from the 'material' sector as Larsons calls it into the 'cosmic' sector, the temporal equivalent of three dimensional space. It can be seen as the 'anti-matter' section of our universe. These two parts of the universe are in equilibrium since supernova explosions from the cosmic sector push atoms back into our material sector as cosmic rays. The radiation of cosmic stars is responsible for the CMB.

* You can say his model is not of an expanding universe, but it's a model of expanding space with the galaxies receding from each other with constantly increasing velocity.

The formula in RST for the recession is equal to the Hubble formula I think. Except that the recession formula depends on the mass of our galaxy, so the reach of gravitation is included.

* He did not consider stars etc to be electrical phenomena. I think he accepted the nuclear fusion model of stars.

No. In RST stars get their energy from nuclear fission instead of fusion. The atoms reach a temperature limit in the center of a star, after which they fall apart into radiation.

* If you start a thread on this, I'll try to have a look, but I wanted to mention these contradictions that are relevant here.

I'm planning this for 6 months now, but I'm still working on the introduction... It is hard to introduce Larsons theory without misconceptions.

* Please quote Larson where he said he checked his ideas with Arp's findings.

You can find this here: http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/22.html