Electric Currents Critical to Star Formation?

[StefanR]

The new image reveals the intricate tendrils of gas and dust located in the remnants of the stellar explosions that created the still-expanding cloud complex. The object was first recognized in the early 1970s as a supernova remnant, a type of object that is enriched with elements created in stellar explosions. The nebula was likely created a few tens of thousands of years ago by more than one type of supernova exploding in this region of the Large Magellanic Cloud.
Dr. Rosa Williams of Columbus State University, an astronomer who has studied DEM L316 extensively. "It's a great step forward in efforts to understand this fascinating pair of remnants - whether they represent only a chance alignment on the sky or some as-yet uncovered physical relationship."

The data show that the smaller shell (lower left in the GMOS image) contains significantly more iron than the larger one. The high abundance of iron in the small bubble indicates that the gas is the product of a Type Ia supernova. This type of explosion is triggered by the infall of matter from a star onto a white dwarf. Since white dwarf stars are extremely old objects, the system must have been a few billion years old when this supernova explosion took place.
By contrast, the larger, less iron-rich bubble is the result of a Type II supernova that was triggered by the collapse of a massive star (more than seven times the mass of our Sun) when it was only a few million years old. Since the two progenitor systems had vastly different ages when they “went supernova”, there is little chance they came from the same system. Therefore, while the detailed structure seen in the GMOS image makes it look like the two bubbles are colliding, they only seem to be close together in the sky because of a chance alignment in our line of sight.

http://www.gemini.edu/node/265

This composite X-ray (red and green)/optical (blue) image reveals a cat-shaped image produced by the remnants of two exploded stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy. Although the shells of hot gas appear to be colliding, this may be an illusion.

Chandra X-ray spectra show that the hot gas shell on the upper left contains considerably more iron than the one on the lower right. The high abundance of iron implies that this supernova remnant is the product of a Type Ia supernova triggered by the infall of matter from a companion star onto a white dwarf star.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/d316/


Somehow I'm not convinced they are seperate.

[StevenO]

The high abundance of iron in the small bubble indicates that the gas is the product of a Type Ia supernova. This type of explosion is triggered by the infall of matter from a star onto a white dwarf. Since white dwarf stars are extremely old objects, the system must have been a few billion years old when this supernova explosion took place.
By contrast, the larger, less iron-rich bubble is the result of a Type II supernova that was triggered by the collapse of a massive star (more than seven times the mass of our Sun) when it was only a few million years old

The mainstream cosmologists have their stellar evolution mostly backward...

Type 1 supernova's are young stars that reach a thermal limit in the B and O class range. The trigger is the inability of the star to radiate enough energy when it starts to convert the iron-nickel class of elements into energy. That is why the explosion product show so much iron. The typical result of a Type 1A supernova is a binary system composed of a white dwarf plus cloud of dust that will aggregate again into a red giant. The white dwarf is the remnant of the stellar core that exploded into time (=> matter faster than lightspeed, implosion in space) while the outer stellar layers explode into space (=>matter slower than lightspeed) and create the dust cloud.

Type II supernova's are stars that die of 'old age' after reaching a magnetization limit caused by long exposure to neutrino's.

So white dwarfs are typically pretty young and massive stars going into type II supernova's are pretty old. Also, white dwarfs are the result of type I supernova and not the cause of it.

[sathearn]

The mainstream cosmologists have their stellar evolution mostly backward...

As StevenO is aware, Larson marshals quite a number of items of astronomical evidence against the present view of the age sequence. On the other hand, numerous pieces of the puzzle fall into place if it is assumed that the present view of the age sequence is backwards. If Larson is right, we need to read "young stars" when present theory says "old," and vice versa (So red giants and white dwarfs are young and O and B stars are old, on this view). A good summary of this evidence is presented in Chapter 8 of The Neglected Facts of Science (1982): http://library.rstheory.org/books/nfs/08.html, especially from just before the second half of the webpage.

There are a couple of possible _theoretical_ (as opposed to evidential) conflicts with this conclusion: the first is that it conflicts with the assumption that fusion of lighter elements is the stellar energy generation mechanism. Of course, this objection wouldn't carry much weight among EU proponents, as they also deny the same claim of mainstream physics and astronomy, and Larson's astronomical case therefore constitutes further evidence for this conclusion. The second is a possible, rather than a definite conflict, and has to do with the EU's general downgrading of gravity, and Larson's contention that gravity is the driver of galactic aggregation (related to his claims about _stellar_ evolution). Here I'll just pose the question, does EU have any specific objection to the idea that galaxies merge due to gravity?

So white dwarfs are typically pretty young and massive stars going into type II supernova's are pretty old. Also, white dwarfs are the result of type I supernova and not the cause of it.

Of course, mainstream theorists contend that Type 1A supernovae are white dwarfs that reach the Chandrasekar limit of about 1.4 solar masses, due to accretion of mass from their binary partners, and then explode (for some unknown reason). Usually this is presented as something we know, or at least a well-founded conclusion. It would be most useful to lay out the supposed evidence for this conclusion, however, carefully separating assumption from factual material in the logical way that was so characteristic of Larson's work. Unfortunately, I'm not well-prepared to undertake this myself, just very curious. But I was very interested to hear Australian astrophysicist John Lettanzio admitting that they can't get their models to produce supernovae as a natural outgrowth of their other assumptions.
See interview here: http://www.brainsmatter.com/?p=76

Larson would, however, agree with the mainstream theorists to this extent: Type 1 supernovae are due to a mass limit - though a different one - and therefore very much alike ("standard candles," in the terminology of mainstream astrophysics).

Steve A.

[sathearn]

... massive stars going into type II supernova's....

Oh, one other clarification: As I understand Larson's theory, the supernovae associated with hot, massive stars are Type I. Type II supernovae can theoretically occur in stars of any size. This is because the limiting factor associated with the former involves temperature: According to Larson, the main source of stellar energy are the destructive temperature limits for successively lighter elements in the range heavier than iron. When the destructive thermal limit of iron is reached, the star explodes, because unlike the previously obtained limits (partially excepting nickel), the iron constitutes a substantial fraction of the mass of the star, and the quantity of energy thus converted is too much to be handled by the normal radiative mechanism. And such a temperature limit can only be attained in the hot, massive stars - the ones currently assumed to be "young."

On the other hand, Type II supernovae are associated with a limit that is a function of age, rather than of temperature, as you indicate: accumulation of neutrinos until a limit of "magnetic ionization" is reached. Increased age is GENERALLY associated with higher mass in Larson's theory, but not NECCESSARILY; it depends on whether the stars environment was favorable to mass accretion.

[nick c]

While Larson's theories and those of the Electric Universe are both at odds with mainstream, that is about all they have in common.
It seems that Larson's star theory subscribes to stars powered internally by an "atomic disintergration process":

According to the Reciprocal System, the energy generation in the stars is by the atomic disintegration process.
http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/SunPartI.html

While at odds with mainstream, it still has an internal source of power as opposed to the Electric Star theory which says stars are externally powered as part of a larger galactic circuit. Imhop, there is little or no compatibility between Larson and the EU.

If Larson is right, we need to read "young stars" when present theory says "old," and vice versa (So red giants and white dwarfs are young and O and B stars are old, on this view).

That is in contrast to Wal Thornhill:

White dwarfs are often found in multiple star systems, which puzzles astronomers because “it is not easy to understand how two stars of the same age could be so different.” The answer is simple. The appearance of stars has nothing to do with their age. In multiple star systems the brighter primary star usurps most of the electrical power, dissipating the energy in optical wavelengths. The white dwarf converts its share of power most efficiently into X-rays.

highlight added
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf

and to Don Scott:

In the Electric Star hypothesis, there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another. We conclude that a star's location on the HR diagram only depends on its size and the electric current density it is presently experiencing.

highlight added
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here I'll just pose the question, does EU have any specific objection to the idea that galaxies merge due to gravity?

It seems to me that we have to question anything that is attributed solely to "gravity." Especially on galactic scales where the 'gravity only' model has gone so very wrong...resulting in the assumed existence of dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

The Electric Galaxy

The scandalous truth is that there is a model of spiral galaxy formation that has long been demonstrated by laboratory experiment and "particle in cell” (PIC) simulations on a supercomputer. But instead of using stars, gas and dust as the particles, subject to Newton’s laws, the particles are charged and respond to the laws of electromagnetism. This seems like an obvious approach when we know that more than 99.9 percent of the visible universe is in the form of plasma. Plasma is a gas influenced by the presence of charged atoms and electrons. Plasma responds to electromagnetic forces that exceed the strength of gravity to the extent that gravity can usually be safely ignored. This simple fact alone suggests why gravitational models of galaxies must fail.

highlight added
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=2m1r5m3b

Furthermore, are we in fact observing the merging of galaxies? or something else?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... merger.htm

nick c

[sathearn]

While Larson's theories and those of the Electric Universe are both at odds with mainstream, that is about all they have in common.

Thanks for your well-pointed responses, Nick. I don't necessarily assume that the two theories do have a lot in common, but being relatively new to both (newer to EU in my particular case), I am interested in finding out what grounds they do share. And I do think that Larson's highly original and well-reasoned critiques of the standard theories are sufficiently important and sufficiently neglected to be well worth getting to know, whatever one's ultimate evaluation of his own positive proposals per se.

It seems that Larson's star theory subscribes to stars powered internally by an "atomic disintergration process":

According to the Reciprocal System, the energy generation in the stars is by the atomic disintegration process.
http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK/SunPartI.html

While at odds with mainstream, it still has an internal source of power as opposed to the Electric Star theory which says stars are externally powered as part of a larger galactic circuit. Imhop, there is little or no compatibility between Larson and the EU.

I think the distinctions you make are roughly right: the two theories are incompatible here (assuming there is only one primary source of stellar energy). But one may note that accretion of external matter plays a significant part Larson's theory of stellar evolution, subject to variation in the environment, which is the reason why they can grow more massive with age without violating the conservation laws.

... there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another...

(Don Scott)
The qualification which introduces this statement makes it relative to the electric star hypothesis, but considered on its own, Larson adduces substantial evidence to the contrary. See the evidence in the source I cited, again, and in particular note the seemingly conclusive point that the open (galactic) clusters are expanding at measurable rates, and that the ones nearer the galactic plane have lower stellar density than those farther out, and higher metalicity. This strongly suggests that higher metalicity is associated with more advanced age, and the conclusion is all the more strongly based in light of all the other collateral evidence that Larson presents.

It seems to me that we have to question anything that is attributed solely to "gravity." Especially on galactic scales where the 'gravity only' model has gone so very wrong...resulting in the assumed existence of dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

I thought this would be a point of contention. Still, it is not clear to me that the criticisms of the 'gravity only' model apply equally to Larson's model. Take dark matter. One of the bases of this hypothesis derives from the observation that in normal orbital systems, orbital velocity decreases at increasing separation between gravitating objects, as less orbital velocity is needed to balance the inward motion due to gravity. The need for dark matter arises from the observation that the same drop off in orbital velocity is not observed as distance from the center of a rotating galaxy increases. But, in Larson's gravitational theory, the two situations are not parallel, as the orbital motion of stars around the galactic center is not really what is responsible for preventing the stars of a galaxy from gathering into one clump. Though this requires much further elaboration, Larson's gravity is not a force by one mass upon another, but a motion of every atom (or aggregate) toward every other one within some limiting distance corresponding to the mass of the aggregate, beyond which the motion is outward. Gravity is an inward motion that is effective in all directions, of the same kind as the outward motion that standard theory (and Larson) attributes to the receding galaxies. The stars are all moving away from one another, but the motion of the larger aggregate of which they are part toward the individual constituents "holds" the individual stars in place, in a kind of equilibrium. This brief account will seem somewhat weird to the uninitiated, but the ground given above for assuming the existence of dark matter does not apply.

Furthermore, are we in fact observing the merging of galaxies? or something else?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... merger.htm

nick c

I may have more to say about this latter issue latter. Thanks for the link, which I read with interest.

Steve

[bdw000]

I ve been out working on my house for a good while and just found this thread. I just wanted to say a big WELCOME to klypp. I appreciate your input here. SteveO I think reading the other Miller article on time should do the trick for differentiating the most recent "space-time" confusion . Klypp may I reccomend "THE PHILISOPHICAL CORRUPTION OF PHYSICS" and "PHYSICIST LOST IN "SPACE" by David Harriman. Millers ideas are directly derived from the same source. I just wanted to add that Wal actually prefers the term "Natural Philosophers" instead of "physicist" in case of any objections to my relevent comments.

The David Harriman lectures are pretty darn good. I would recommend them to anyone interested in EU theory.

I would especially recommend his PHILOSOPHIC CORRUPTION OF PHYSICS lectures ($85 for five CD's):
http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodin ... mber=CH54M

This lecture series is a very important (though not complete, of course) part of the puzzle of what most here regard as the "problem of modern physics." It would be nice if Harriman would publish a book on this subject.

Many people here would be very intersted to hear this lecture. In a nutshell, his thesis is that the problems of modern physics "all go back to Kant," and he makes a very convincing case. Even though Harriman begins his story way before Einstein, he leaves out the important fact that Einstein read Kant as a young teenager: that just explains so much !

[StefanR]

"This is the first evidence of a new type of supernova remnant -- one that was heated right after the explosion," said Hiroya Yamaguchi at the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research in Japan.

A supernova remnant usually cools quickly due to rapid expansion following the explosion. Then, as it sweeps up tenuous interstellar gas over thousands of years, the remnant gradually heats up again.

Capitalizing on the sensitivity of the Suzaku satellite, a team led by Yamaguchi and Midori Ozawa, a graduate student at Kyoto University, detected unusual features in the X-ray spectrum of IC 443, better known to amateur astronomers as the Jellyfish Nebula.


The remnant, which lies some 5,000 light-years away in the constellation Gemini, formed about 4,000 years ago. The X-ray emission forms a roughly circular patch in the northern part of the visible nebulosity.

Some of the X-ray emission in the Jellyfish Nebula arises as fast-moving free electrons sweep near the nuclei of atoms. Their mutual attraction deflects the electrons, which then emit X-rays as they change course. The electrons have energies corresponding to a temperature of about 12 million degrees Fahrenheit (7 million degrees Celsius).

Several bumps in the Suzaku spectrum were more puzzling. "These structures indicate the presence of a large amount of silicon and sulfur atoms from which all electrons have been stripped away," Yamaguchi said. These "naked" nuclei produce X-rays as they recapture their lost electrons.

But removing all electrons from a silicon atom requires temperatures higher than about 30 million degrees F (17 million C); hotter still for sulfur atoms. "These ions cannot form in the present-day remnant," Yamaguchi explained. "Instead, we're seeing ions created by the enormous temperatures that immediately followed the supernova."

The team suggests that the supernova occurred in a relatively dense environment, perhaps in a cocoon of the star's own making. As a massive star ages, it sheds material in the form of an outflow called a stellar wind and creates a cocoon of gas and dust. When the star explodes, the blast wave traverses the dense cocoon and heats it to temperatures as high as 100 million degrees F (55 million C), or 10,000 times hotter than the sun's surface.

Eventually, the shock wave breaks out into true interstellar space, where the gas density can be as low as a single atom per cubic centimeter -- about the volume of a sugar cube. Once in this low-density environment, the young supernova remnant rapidly expands.

The expansion cools the electrons, but it also thins the remnant's gas so much that collisions between particles become rare events. Because an atom may take thousands of years to recapture an electron, the Jellyfish Nebula's hottest ions remain even today, the astronomers reported in the Nov. 1 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

"Suzaku sees the Jellyfish's hot heart," Ozawa said.

The team has already identified another fossil fireball in the supernova remnant known as W49B, which lies 35,000 light-years away in the constellation Aquila. In the Nov. 20 edition of The Astrophysical Journal, Ozawa, Yamaguchi and colleagues report X-ray emission from iron atoms that are almost completely stripped of electrons. Forming these ions requires temperatures in excess of 55 million degrees F (30 million C)-- nearly twice the observed temperature of the remnant's electrons.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/astro ... balls.html

[solrey]

Earlier today I was looking over the Focus Fusion website and thought the "Magnetic Field Effect" might be relevant.

From the article:

Forming these ions requires temperatures in excess of 55 million degrees F (30 million C)-- nearly twice the observed temperature of the remnant's electrons.

Effects of magnetic field on plasmoid:

Fortunately, there is a way to reduce the bremsstrahlung cooling with the dense plasma focus by using the magnetic field effect. This effect, which critics of hydrogen-boron fusion do not take into account, slows down the transfer of energy from the ions to the electrons by as much as a factor of twenty in the presence of extremely high magnetic fields, without affecting the transfer of energy from the electrons to the ions. This means that the ions could be 20 times hotter than the electrons. In turn, this would reduce x-ray emission by a factor of about 5.

[junglelord]

A supernova remnant usually cools quickly due to rapid expansion following the explosion. Then, as it sweeps up tenuous interstellar gas over thousands of years, the remnant gradually heats up again.

That never made any damn sense to me and it's Bull Crap.
Yes it is in glow mode, but DUH!
The mechanism from which they claim the interstellar gas begins to heat again is fairy tales of imagination.
No wonder the babble they dribble out always left a black hole in my understanding.


Thank god for the EU.

[jjohnson]

One has to be rather careful and specific in descriptions involving heat and cooling in cosmic processes. Heat in the first three states is typically measured in K and refers to the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules - the "average speed" say. In a plasma, in which some fraction of the material has been ionized - i.e., is either very light weight electrons or much more massive ions - temperature is more likely described in terms of electron volts. Simple expansion into less dense regions of space by electrons is not a source of cooling like it is in fluids, becasue their temperature is not largely a matter of collisions, except when collisions result in braking radiation (Bremsstrahlung) resulting in a decrease in electrons' energy. Lower particle densities result in less Bremsstrahlung cooling, not more. With nothing else going on (i.e. collisions with consequent radiation) an electron left to itself seems unlikely to just "cool down" in space. A second form of radiative energy release is cyclotron radiation, where the electrons in a magnetic field are moving in helical orbits along constant magnetic field values or "lines". This spiralling is an acceleration, but a direction change type of acceleration, not a scalar "speed change" type of acceleration, and it results in radiation as well. Electron temperatures can be converted from eV to joules (1 eV = 1.602 x 10^-19 joule) or with Boltzmann's constant to K, but understand that we are not to understand the energy-dissipating processes involving electrodynamics in plasmas precisely the same way we do thermal energy changes in collision-rich liquids and gases well under their ionization temperatures.

I think that, yes, electrical currents are critical to star formation (pinching, heating, particle segregation, some fusion, etc per the EU model). There is no doubt that, at close quarters, gravity also plays an important role - there's no reason to downplay its presence if the mass is large and density is increasing. However, in a highly ionized and magnetized environment, the E/M forces even there can be stronger than the distributed gravity condition inside a cloud. (See diagrams of how gravity behaves inside a hollow sphere (no net force!) and inside a filled object of constant density (decreases toward 0 at 1/r toward the center).

After formation and possible releasing of z-pinch conditions, an electric current is vital to the continuing functioning of the star mass, providing on-going energy to continue the internal current flows and field maintenance which results in operation in arc mode and all the related typical stellar effects. If the impressed current decreases enough, the star would "go out", but if it increased enough the star has to adapt and try to maintain sufficient radiating surface area to get rid of the increased loading. Too much, and energy has to be released at a very high rate indeed, such as collapsing of double sheaths and explosive release of radiation and acceleration of matter, or possibly fissioning of the star into two bodies whose summed radiating surface area is greater than previously, and compatible with the higher current condition.

The question always asked by the EU theory of the consensus gravity theory of stars is, if the gravity is so strong at the solar surface, how is there so much mass lifted and moved out along great arcs or ejected as CME's, and what powers the accelerating solar wind all the time? Their answer is more often, these days, magnetism helps, but the ignoring of electricity as the generator of those fields is deafening.

[StevenO]

<...>

The question always asked by the EU theory of the consensus gravity theory of stars is, if the gravity is so strong at the solar surface, how is there so much mass lifted and moved out along great arcs or ejected as CME's, and what powers the accelerating solar wind all the time? Their answer is more often, these days, magnetism helps, but the ignoring of electricity as the generator of those fields is deafening.

My apologies to quote Miles Mathis again in an EU thread, but he is one of the few authors next to EU to support an astral mechanism next to gravity and that is the combined gravitation/charge field of matter.

With the mass and size of the sun, the relative strenghts of these fields at the solar surface are:

1. Gravitation: the Sun's diameter is 109x that of the Earth, so its solo gravitational field is:

109 x 9.82m/s^2 = 1070 m/s^2

2. Charge field: the Sun's mass is about 333.000x that of Earth and it's density is about ¼ that of Earth. The earth's (repulsive) charge field has a strength of -.009545 m/s^2, so the Sun's solo charge field is:

-.009545 m/s^2 x 333,000 x ¼ = -795 m/s^2

As you can see the charge field is almost 75% of the strenght of the Sun's gravitational field, so EM effects at the solar surface could/should overcome gravity quite easily. Since the charge field strenght scales with the 4th power of distance the effects at greater distances scale down quickly.