@Sparky, Jeffrey is speaking from first-hand experience, and he is speaking from the heart. His insights are uncommonly crisp. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has yet to isolate his frustrations, but this is only a problem for those who care to engage at that level. He makes a lot of broad generalizations, which are easy to refute, but notice that viscount aero offers constructive criticisms -- he identifies specifically where he disagrees. A generalized insult in response to a broad generalization that you don't like is not constructive. Anyway...
OK, so with all of Thornhill's open-mindedness, in what respect has his position evolved in the last 10 years? Pointed questions have been asked about specific aspects in EU theory. Will they ever be answered? Is anybody even working on these problems? It's rather sounding like, "This is our story and we're sticking with it." That isn't genuine open-mindedness. If he solved all of the riddles 10 years ago, it would be reasonable to still be reiterating all of the same points. But no, not all of the riddles have been solved. Lloyd & I have been working on identifying the principal tenets of the various theories, the criticisms, and the rebuttals. The format that seems to work the best is similar to MIT's Deliberatorium, where people can make assertions, and then criticisms appear as sub-topics under the assertions, and rebuttals appear as sub-topics under criticisms. This way, you can scan for the principal assertions that interest you, and then find all of the arguments associated with that topic nested under the assertion. The stellar/solar modeling section is the most detailed. If Wal, or any other EU proponent, is actually willing to respond to any of the open questions, we'd be happy to enter the info. Otherwise, they'll remain unanswered questions, and other theories that are actually addressing issues that have been raised will prevail. The one thing that we really like about formal arguments is that they eliminate band-standing -- you can't just repeat the same stuff over and over, evading the questions, and burying the issues. Each distinct assertion is only one item in the outline. Say it as many times as you like elsewhere, but in an outlined debate, if it's the same statement, it only gets written once. And if there is a criticism, it appears directly under the assertion. And if there is no rebuttal, it's obvious. Most of this thread, from what I can tell, would reduce to just a couple of assertions, and a few criticisms -- the rest is senseless band-standing. We're convinced that a huge amount of decent intellect is being squandered in these threads, and that we could make a lot more progress if we identify the essential issues, and lay out the logic. So we'd like to encourage anybody who wants to see progress in astrophysics to get involved in these formal debates. OK, that's enough band-standing for our anti-band-standing strategy (at least for now...).
As concerns how regimented the scientific community is, anybody who disagrees with that should just go over to the JREF or CosmoQuest forums, and say anything at all that isn't quite kosher, and wait 5 minutes. Yes, you're going to get hammered!!! And yes, it's plainly obvious that they have somehow come to believe that their way is the only way. They even seem to think that they're doing you a favor by smacking you down. After all, the sooner you realize how foolish you've been, in thinking outside of the box, the sooner you'll fall in with the lemmings and get happy again. It worked for them, didn't it?
Some of us don't get pleasure out of running with a pack of fools, but I guess that's our problem, right? Still, the negative responses are always more than what one would expect. I "try" to remember times when I dismissed an idea, which later turned out to be correct, or at the very least, it was still a decent idea, and deserved more consideration. We have all done this, whether we admit it or not. And I consider myself to be a reasonable guy. So when my ideas get rejected, I don't always assume that the other guy is an a-hole who is just being ornery -- he might be a decent guy, but something about the way I described it got it put into the wrong category in his mind, and he dismissed it off-hand. Anyway, perhaps nobody is great at this (certainly not me), but I try to keep this in mind. And in the end, you're just not going to please everybody, especially at first. No great idea was ever accepted right away, so this is just part of the territory. But you're doing the right thing in getting your stuff in the archives (such as vixra). I need to do that with my stuff. At least that way you'll get credit for it -- after you're dead. Still, it's fun, even for the living. We understand the significance of what we're doing here.
Can anybody explain the nature of these stresses? Since they're the prime mover in this "explanation", it's a legitimate question. Without identifying the physical forces responsible for the phenomena, this is no better than mainstream astrobabble. In the linked webpage, it sounds like Thornhill is talking about the Pannekoek-Rosseland field. The paragraph immediately preceding the quote goes like this:
Thornhill wrote: Beyond plasma cosmology we enter the realm of electrical stars and electrical cosmogony. The history goes as follows: 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.
How does he get from "stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galaxy" to talking about "the gravitational field inside a star" (which causes the Pannekoek-Rosseland field)? And how is the PR field going to suddenly flare up into a nova? Or create a sustained discharge in a red giant? Will there ever be any attempt to answer any of these questions? Or are we just supposed to accept Thornhill's vague statements from 2005 as the final word? That was 9 years ago, folks.
Sparky wrote: Charles, I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer you in this thread. [...] I suggest that you open a thread and pursue that line of inquiry.
Been there, done that, many times, and no, the questions were never answered. I got flamed the way somebody from the EU gets flamed on JREF or CosmoQuest. BTW, Jeffrey & I disagree on several significant points, so no, I'm not just getting hypnotized by his smooth talking. But with us, disagreement is OK -- it makes us think.
Can anybody explain the nature of these stresses? Since they're the prime mover in this "explanation", it's a legitimate question. Without identifying the physical forces responsible for the phenomena, this is no better than mainstream astrobabble.
{Search results for:} Electrical Stress; Gravitational Stress; Galactic influences on the solar system
No, I wasn't asking for an explanation of stresses in general. I was asking for an explanation of the actual stresses involved in the hypothesis given. If somebody were to explain how a car engine works by saying that certain stresses cause the car to accelerate, that wouldn't be an explanation. Rather, it would be just an observation (albeit in pseudo-technical terminology). To actually explain something, you have to identify the nuts and bolts responsible for the observations. In mechanical engineering, if you keep questioning, you can get explanations all of the way down to the atomic level. That's an explanation. But a thesis that never identifies anything below the level of what is instantaneously observed is not an explanation -- it's just an observation.
ELECTRICAL ATTRACTION
Solar wrote: For example, it is rather easy to assert that your adoption of Feyman's "like-likes-like" is adopting a variation of his version of "like begets like". Or, a variation of the chemical expression "like dissolves like". The terms are just aphorisms or so; the expression of the general principle of ‘affinity’ and the results thereof but; if I hang my hat on one expression over the other, the opportunity of understanding the essential idea is obscured by personal preference isn’t it? Should I ask of you to change that to "birds of a feather flock together", which carries the same basic principle, instead? Is Feyman’s adaptation simply more 'acceptable' because a “scientist” reiterated an already existing principle apparent in nature and thereby (somehow) lent said principle some sort of acceptable ‘credence’ somewhere; and to someone? The quest for “truth” isn’t going to be had through nomenclature and quantification alone but more so in the understanding that overrides and integrates any and all limited expressions of said "truth".
Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle isn't just a "general principle of affinity". It's a specific set of forces. In electrostatics, like charges repel, while opposites attract. According to Langmuir, neutrally charged aggregations of charges shouldn't interact, because there is no net charge, and thus no net repulsion or attraction. (This is why he called quasi-neutral matter "plasma", like the cells in blood that wrap themselves around antigens, and insulate them from the rest of the body.) So according to Langmuir, there should be no reason for molecules to form. If both atoms are net neutral, there is no net electric force. Ah, but molecules do form, and Feynman identified the reason -- there is a net electric force. When two neutral atoms come together, their electrons are attracted to the superimposed positive field between the two nuclei, and then the positive nuclei are attracted to the shared negative charge between them. He then demonstrated that this principle not only forms molecules, but is also important in polymerization. Gerald Pollack went on to show that this same principle is responsible for molecule sorting at the macroscopic. Since the principles are scalable, I go on to say that this is a physical force between Debye cells in space. So this principle can be proved all of the way down to the atomic level, and its effects have been demonstrated on each level. This is the primary organizing principle of the Universe, without which we wouldn't have structured matter -- it would all be just individual atoms. Now that's an explanation.
EU IS TOO VAGUE
Solar wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Or are we just supposed to accept Thornhill's vague statements from 2005 as the final word? That was 9 years ago, folks.
The clamor for some quantitative exactitude from the EU isn’t new.
Sure, he was criticized for lack of specifics when he first made the assertions. And people have been asking ever since. The point is that I'm not seeing any progress. I see a lot of effort going into repeating the same statements over and over on the forums, and in developing better packaging, in the books that Thornhill, Talbott, and Scott published (in 2002, 2006, & 2007), and more recently, in the Space News videos. What I'm not seeing is any progress on the specifics. I'm perfectly willing to listen to somebody flesh out an idea with all manner of vague verbiage. I do it all of the time. But once the idea has surfaced, the next step is to clarify it, and to see if it actually traces down to something physical. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. So the ones that never lead anywhere get tossed, and the ones that still seem physical get explored further. In the end, you have only constructs that can be traced all of the way down to the finest granularity modern science can study, and a trashcan overflowing with ideas that broke down somewhere in that process. That's just how it works, and everybody understands this. But when I see somebody repeating the same vague verbiage for 10 years running, and no progress on tracing the assertions down to possible physical instantiations, I start to wonder why the theorist stopped. Then, if I come along and start proposing ideas that do trace all of the way down to the atomic level, such as the "like-likes-like" principle explaining the collapse of Debye cells into stars, and I get flamed really bad by the "Electric Universe" community, I start to think that the EU has fallen prey to mainstream-itis. That's a disease where you take a position and try to defend it, and if you're not careful, you dig in on that position, and become entrenched. Then, somebody comes along and shows you a way of making some real progress, and you say, "Naaa, I'm dug in here, and I don't do progress anymore -- I just sit here and defend this position." The problem with that is that you get left behind while everybody else moves on, always in search of better ways. And this is what is going to happen to the EU. Flame me all you want, but you're not going to stop me. To me, science isn't a position -- it's a process. When the process is working correctly, it affords constant progress. When it breaks down, people get entrenched, and then they get left behind. It's that simple.
Native wrote: AD: I agree on your first sentence, but not quite on the specific planetary aging and the general comparison with galaxies as such. The age of the planets in our Solar system shall, in my opinion, be derived from the age of the actual galaxy itself, i.e. when the planet was formatted in the galactic center.
I agree that everything started in the center of the galaxy, but perhaps not in the sense that others do. Some people believe that galactic nuclei are manufacturing stars (and even embryonic new galaxies) and spitting them out. If this were the case, the youngest stars would be closest to the center of the galaxy, and the oldest would be the furthest out. No matter what model of stellar aging you use, there is no simple stratification based on proximity to the center of the galaxy. The one exception is spiral galaxies, that have a central bulge composed on old stars, and spiral arms with young stars. But within the central bulge, there is no stratification based on distance from the center, nor is there any stratification in the spiral arms. And if the galactic nucleus was manufacturing stars and spitting them out, the central bulge would have the young stars, and the spiral arms would have the old ones. So the "AGN plasma gun" doesn't match the observations.
I rather believe that galaxies are in implosion/explosion cycles. The principle reason is that this is the only way to morph a peculiar galaxy into a symmetrical geometry. Regardless of how irregular the galaxy, if it implodes, the ejecta will radiate outward in a spherical form. (Then, magnetic conflicts in the implosions and explosions coerce the matter into a consistent rotation around the center, but that's a different issue.) The point here is that in the implosion, everything gets melted down into plasma, and in the explosion, eventually the stuff cools off enough to condense into stars and planets. The heat is evenly distributed during the implosion, so as it expands after the explosion, it all cools at the same rate. Thus stars and planets start forming throughout, all at the same time, inner and outer alike, despite the fact that all of the matter originated from the center of the galaxy. As such, this construct does match the observations.
CONFLICT WITH EU THEORY
nick c wrote:
and I get flamed really bad by the "Electric Universe" community, I start to think that the EU has fallen prey to mainstream-itis.
This statement is disingenuous to an extreme. Why? because you are freely using a venue that is an arm of the EU or the Thunderbolts project. One that allows all sorts of debate critical of the proposed EU paradigm. Now in the mainstream forums, to which you are comparing this one, you would have been banned after a few posts - yet I see that you have made more than 700 posts here. How is it that the EU "Gestapo" has allowed that to happen?
Actually, my statement was accurate. Just take a look at some of the ad hom attacks leveled at me by JustCurious and PersianPalladin on the EU forum. I generally stick to the NIAMI forum, as it is more appropriate for what I'm doing. I definitely believe that the Universe is electric, just not the way the EU folks have it. The rules of the EU forum stipulate that only arguments for or against EU positions are allowed in the EU forum -- alternative theses should go in the NIAMI forum. I'm fine with that. But one of my regular searches turned up some criticisms that PersianPalladin was making of my work (without PM'ing me that he was doing this), so I responded on that forum. And I got flamed, including all kinds of specious arguments about how C. J. Ransom's credentials are so much better than mine, etc. If the EU forum isn't for discussing alternative theses, be sure to let the moderators know that.
As concerns the fact that I'm being rude to the people who are hosting this site, you would have a legitimate point, if it were not for the broader context of the issues. I spent 10 years studying tornadoes, and developed incontrovertible, definitive proof that tornadoes are electromagnetic, citing well known physical principles, and laboratory experiments in support. Yet anywhere on the web, if I try to chat up my work, I get flamed, because the EU got there ahead of me, and evangelized an incorrect EM theory as "THE" EM theory, and everybody tells me that EM has already been disproved. The EU theory was, in fact, discredited long before the EU got ahold of it, because it just wasn't correct. My work includes a detailed, definitive disproof of that theory. But I can't get anybody to listen to me, because the EU has positioned themselves as the experts on all things EM, whether they know what they're talking about, or care. Mind you that tornadoes kill people. All of this other stuff might just be idle intellectual curiosities, which you people consider to be fun to consider. But I didn't get into this because I enjoy fringe science. I got into this because I was run over by a tornado, and before I could get on with my life, I had to come to understand what that thing was. The results of my research could save lives, if I could get anybody to listen to me. But as long as the EU has the monopoly, and won't even consider real EM research, I have no choice but to show that there are plenty of other opportunities for real progress, within the territory that the EU has claimed, and about which the EU is wrong, and about which the EU has no intention of correcting. I can take this over to other boards, and I'll get quite a receptive audience. They dismissed the EU off-hand, but I can show detailed proofs of where they're wrong. Some people would be interested in hearing that kind of thing. I personally think that the EU should be changed from within, rather than attacked from the outside. But if you want to kick me off of here, that's the next step. In the end, all of the rational people on this board will leave. But I (quite obviously) have no intention of giving up, and this (quite obviously) isn't just an idle intellectual curiosity for me. Tornadoes kill people, and my work can save lives, if I can just get past the EU roadblock.
Native wrote: How can a supposed implosion in the Milky Way center eject a sphere that looks like and rotates like the Milky Way disc?
Indeed, the shape of the explosion should {be} spherical, not planar. Only EM forces could induce rotation in the implosions and explosions, and coerce all of the matter onto the same plane. Newtonian explanations, such as water sprinklers, tornadoes, etc., are purely phenomenological -- they offer a concept that looks the same -- but the Newtonian forces just aren't there. So it has to be EM. Specifically, there are magnetic conflicts in radial flows that nudge the motions toward a similar direction, converting them to spirals.
The problem that I have with z pinches forming stars is that z pinches operate selectively on charged particles, where the greater the charge, the greater the pinch. Also note that polarity matters. In a magnetic pinch, like charges are pushed together, while opposite charges are pushed apart (assuming they'll all traveling in the same direction). So a z pinch pushes like charges together. But like charges repel, and cannot be forced to condense into any sort of aggregate (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma), due to the electric force, which is much more powerful than gravity and the magnetic force put together. Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force generated by moving charged particles become equal to the electric force. But if it were possible to accelerate matter to the speed of light, the matter wouldn't condense -- it would fuse, and then there would be the release of nuclear energy, which would blow the aggregate apart. The one other configuration would be opposite charges traveling in opposite directions. These would get pinched into the same axis. But the relativistic collisions of counter-streaming particles would blow the thing apart. So there just isn't a configuration of the magnetic pinch effect that would create stable aggregates.
The problem … is that we have plenty of pictures -- we just have no idea what we're looking at! Which are the birthing stars? Which are the dieing stars? Which are the dusty plasmas determined to stay that way? We have only a snapshot at one specific point in time, and we're trying to infer the nature of processes that probably take millions or billions of years to come full circle. Maybe we should be focusing on the novae, when a new star appears where there was nothing before. There aren't many of them that have been recorded since the advent of modern astronomy. Should we do case studies on those?
JeffreyW wrote: M84 just looks like a big blob in visible light.
It is not a blob. It is ejecting matter in bi-polar configurations. It is a growing galaxy. The reason why we can't see the arms growing is because the material is traveling so fast away from the central object that it is literally redshifting all the way to the radio frequencies. Mr. Halton Arp was right. A quasar is ejected from its parent galaxy and becomes a galaxy itself, like an acorn falling from an oak tree and growing into a tree itself.
There is another EM explanation for the radio jets, which takes more of the data into account. We know that the rotation in an elliptical galaxy produces a magnetic field, by the dynamo effect. The field is toroidal, with its central axis parallel to the minor axis of the ellipsoid. This drawing shows the magnetic field produced by an elliptical galaxy: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Galaxies/Quasar_Orbit_wbg.png {Link broke.} Relativistic ejecta from collisions in the AGN are charged particles moving in the presence of a magnetic field, and thus are deflected in the direction of the field. IOW, they're Birkeland currents, traveling parallel to the magnetic lines of force, which in the center of the galaxy point straight out along the minor axis of the ellipsoid. We also know that the charged particles in Birkeland currents spiral around the magnetic lines of force. This produces synchrotron radiation. If the particles are relativistic, this radiation gets up into the radio band. So this isn't redshifted stellar photons, with the appropriate emission/absorption bands characteristic of known elements. It's broad-band synchrotron radiation at arbitrary frequencies, centered on the average revolution rate of a charged particle moving at the speed, in a magnetic field of that density.
Then we can observe that the radio jets splay outward with distance from the AGN, eventually falling apart. This is the expected behavior of a Birkeland current following a magnetic field whose density diminishes with distance from the AGN, and whose lines of force splay outward in toroidal form. But there isn't any reason to consider radio jets to be stellar nurseries, or baby galaxies. If they were, we'd see the stars so produced in the visible spectrum. Rather, the highly ionized plasma in the radio jets will be the last thing to form aggregates. And by the time substantial charge recombination has occurred -- after the bipolar jets have become completely disorganized -- the matter is too diffuse for star formation. The exception is the quasars that we observe moving outward along the minor axis of elliptical galaxies. But I don't understand the conclusion that quasars are galactic seeds, just on the basis of what information is available.
JeffreyW wrote: A quasar is like an acorn that falls off an oak tree. It becomes a tree itself.
I agree that quasars are excellent scavengers, and that once organized, they're going to goggle up everything in their paths. I further contend that the energy that they gain in this process gives them the ability to eject themselves from their parent galaxies. But I don't see the utility of the "galactic seed" concept. What observations are you (and previously Arp and Ambartsumian) trying to explain? I remember seeing an image of a smaller galaxy with some quasars in it, near a larger galaxy, and Arp said that the small one was the child of the big one. But the same image could also be explained as the larger pre-existing galaxy gobbling up the smaller pre-existing galaxy. (If you see a picture of a big fish with a little fish in its mouth, it might be the birth, or the death, of the little fish, if you know nothing else of fish.) Somewhat more tellingly, if you're talking about a general principle, there needs to be more than one example -- a general rule of galaxy propagation would have many or most galaxies lying near other, larger galaxies, and along the axes of rotation. Otherwise, you have one example, with a general rule based on it, but the general support lacking, which is tantamount to disproof of the general rule. My opinion of this aspect of Arp's work is that he was just accessorizing his work on redshift re-interpretation. His work brought him into conflict with Big Bang cosmologists. So he broadened the attack. That doesn't make him right.
I agree that redshifts are not reliable indicators of distance, and thus age, and that the "Hubble Constant" is a vast oversimplification. Arp's work was brilliant and brave in that respect. On the basis of this, I'm not convinced that the Universe is expanding, and therefore I see no more than a little bit of sloppy data and a lot of creationism in support of Big Bang cosmology. But galactic evolution, the way the mainstream has it, isn't directly tied to the Big Bang, and just removing the Big Bang doesn't lend any support to the galactic seed idea. Even in a steady-state Universe, galactic acorns are just an unsupported epiphany. They don't explain how the first galaxy got started (i.e., the "chicken & the egg" problem); they don't explain galactic forms (i.e., peculiar, elliptical, lenticular, & spiral); more specifically, they don't provide a force that induces angular momentum in galaxies; and they don't identify the physics by which a parent manufactures and ejects the child. So it's just an idea, with all of the tough work still ahead of it. But before tackling all of those problems, I'd suggest questioning the implications of success in the endeavor. If you could provide great answers to those questions, then you'd have to explain why there is so little evidence of galactic families -- most of them are separated by vast distances, and moving slowly away from each other (if you believe in Big Bang cosmology) or not at all (if you go with steady-state cosmology). Galactic parent/child relationships prescribe direct relationships between the ages of related galaxies, the distances between them, and the relative velocities between them.
JeffreyW wrote: The establishment has Jupiter as "small traces of other elements" because they are ignorant. They do not want to use their brains. Tell me, how many colors do you see here? You mean to tell me this is all "hydrogen/helium"? [...] It's clear as day that the giant red spot is iron oxide. The blue areas are large amounts of oxygen... I could continue. Jupiter is a gas giant yes, but to say its mostly helium/hydrogen is ignoring common sense.
Bravo!!! The mainstream is fond of hydrogen/helium, because this is necessary in the fusion furnace model. The Sun does have the pressure to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core, but it doesn't have the pressure to fuse heavier elements, because the Coulomb barrier goes up exponentially with atomic number, and the Sun just isn't big enough for heavy element fusion. But having locked down on this model in the 1920s, astronomers no longer care what else about astronomy they have to bastardize, to protect the fusion furnace model. There are many, many proofs that there are much heavier elements in the Sun, and in the gas giants, and that the fusion furnace model is simply untenable. But to acknowledge any of that, astronomers would have to toss 100 years' worth of work, which they're not willing to do. So show them a true-color image of Jupiter, and they'll say, "Yep -- that's all just hydrogen and helium."
STARS FROM DEBYE CELLS
JeffreyW wrote: ... a tree doesn't just pop into existence in the forest. It had to at one point be a tiny little thing.
I agree. But I have a simpler way of a star growing from a "seed". The smallest dust grain that can support a Debye sheath has roughly 1 million atoms. At that point, it will be visible only under an electron microscope. So that's the seed. How did that dust grain form? Simply by condensation (i.e., polymerization, riming, or whatever). Once a dust grain gets big enough that it can host a sustained net negative charge (> 1 million atoms), the condensation accelerates, because free electrons in the surrounding plasma get lost in the electron cloud of the dust grain, and +ions are then attracted to the dust grain by the electric force. When the individual +ions impact the dust grain, instead of just picking up their lost electrons and bouncing off, they might get captured by covalent bonding, and thus the dust grain has just gained another atom. And the larger the dust grain, the more net charge it can support, so the Debye sheath gets stronger. So the process accelerates. (This is how snowflakes can form from supercooled water vapor in less than 1 hour inside a thunderstorm.) Multiple Debye cells also generate a body force between them, due to the "like-likes-like" principle. Now the dusty plasma is bound to collapse into a star sooner or later.
So there's a step-by-step process that explains stellar formation, starting just with individual atoms, and invoking forces that have all been proven in the laboratory. It explains solitary stars, "beads on a string" stellar nurseries (due to the enhanced body force in a linear configuration), and the collapse of random assortments of stellar systems, as peculiar galaxies, which will produce an elliptical galaxy, and ultimately, a spiral. If there's an "i" that I haven't dotted, or a "t" that I haven't crossed, I can't find it. So I think that this is "it".
The orange and brown coloration in the clouds of Jupiter are caused by upwelling compounds that change color when they are exposed to ultraviolet light from the Sun. The exact makeup remains uncertain, but the substances are believed to be phosphorus, sulfur or possibly hydrocarbons.[30][45] These colorful compounds, known as chromophores, mix with the warmer, lower deck of clouds. The zones are formed when rising convection cells form crystallizing ammonia that masks out these lower clouds from view
We have similar traces of such elements and compounds in our atmosphere. So why don't clouds on Earth sport similar colors? The answer is that it takes more than just trace amounts to generate such vibrant hues. For them to say that "the exact makeup remains uncertain" is suspicious -- identifying elements and compounds on the basis of distinctive emission/absorption lines in the photons is laboratory science dating back to the 1800s. They should be able to tell within a couple parts per million which elements and compounds are present. So IMO, they did, but it came out very different from their desired "mainly hydrogen and helium", so they go with "the exact makeup remains uncertain".
JeffreyW wrote: 1. Stars (the by-product of galaxy formation), which cool and die to become what are called "planets/moons", and or smash against each other to make asteroids/meteorites/protoplanetary disks. 2. Pulsars into galaxies. The pulsar being the galaxy seed. When the pulsar releases its energy it releases all matter. all elements, from hydrogen to uranium.
You haven't established how pulsars manufacture galaxies, nor how galaxies manufacture stars. I'm not saying that you can't -- I'm just saying that there are a LOT of details to fill in there.
Sparky wrote: Regions can be star forming. Galaxies come from an abundance of stars.
I prefer it this way too. It isn't that galaxies form stars. Rather, stars form galaxies.
JeffreyW wrote: As well, the "elliptical galaxies" of establishment science are actually "quasars".
No, elliptical galaxies are collections of individual stars, most of which are on the main sequence. And the galaxies are not far-field objects, the way the mainstream thinks of quasars. Arp left the ellipticals in place, and then brought the quasars in, from the edge of the Universe, to the neighborhood of the nearer ellipticals. On this point I agree. But to say that an elliptical galaxy is a quasar is a category error. Quasars are point sources, while elliptical galaxies are definitely not point sources -- they are made up of gazillions of individual stars, including quasars.
oz93666 wrote: A hollow sun!! .... have read Jeffrey s ' the sun is hollow' but it didn't help much, what can stop it collapsing ? The only thing I can think is the inside layer has a charge which causes the 'pushout'. Is this possible ? stable?
Theoretically speaking, it would be possible to have an empty center of the Sun, due to electric charges. But it couldn't add up to a big part of the Sun's volume. Like charges do repel each other, and in a charged volume, the charge is around the outside, due to this repulsion. If all of the matter in the volume was charged, you could get a shell with a vacuum in the center. But what is causing the charge separation? In a conductor, to my knowledge there are only three things that can separate charges: 1. electrical inductance (i.e., exposure to an opposite charge), 2. magnetic inductance (i.e., time-varying magnetic fields inducing currents), and 3. electron degeneracy pressure (i.e., pressure causing the expulsion of electrons, leaving positive ions behind). In the Sun, to get electrical inductance, you'd need an opposite charge, which begs the question of what separated the charges. The magnetic field is far too weak for significant magnetic inductance. That leaves electron degeneracy pressure. But to get charge separations by EDP, you need a great amount of pressure from overlying matter pressing down. So you might get a positively charged core with a hollow center. But the size of the hole will be small compared to the overall volume of the Sun.
SUNSPOTS
oz93666 wrote: And when you look at a sunspot your looking into the empty inside, presumably seeing the opposite inside surface of the 'shell' and why is this cooler? What about the mass? We have to let these questions rattle around in our heads till the answers come.
The center of a sunspot is only about 700 km below the surface of the surrounding granules. If we were seeing inside the Sun like that, the shell would only be 700 km thick. That definitely would not be stable. Nor is there any way to pack all of the Sun's mass into a shell that thin. In reality, the center of a sunspot is not a hole. It is black in photographs because it is cooler (3000~4500 K, compared to 6000 K in the granules), and if you filter to reveal the details of the granules, the sunspots are black. But if you were looking at just the sunspots, they would be brighter than an acetylene torch, and empty holes aren't like that.
oz93666 wrote: As a general comment,(Jeff) I think your technique of confidently asserting a whole theory which boldly covers everything is the ONLY way to progress. Off course you'll have somethings wrong, but you make a stand ,and everyone can throw in their comments and you'll adjust and improve your theory. Never be worried about making mistakes.
I stand up and applaud this comment. Mainstream scientists avoid making statements that could be wrong, because that would be bad for their careers. …
oz93666 wrote: It's been experimentally demonstrated in the Pound–Rebka experiment which anyone who lives in a tall building can duplicate.
Pound & Rebka's conclusions are questionable. They fired photons downward at an absorber, and found that the electrons didn't like absorbing the photons unless they were slightly redshifted. To get better absorption, Pound & Rebka had to move the emitter away from the absorber, producing a Doppler redshift. They concluded that the photons were getting blueshifted by gravity on the way down, and perfect absorption could only occur if the photons began with a slight redshift. Thus the necessary degree of redshifting could be a measure of the degree of blueshifting that was occurring in flight. So far so good. But Pound & Rebka did not rule out other well-known possibilities, such as effects on the absorbers themselves caused by external fields.
For example, in an electric field, what would otherwise be a single absorption / emission line in a spectrum gets split into two lines. This is known as the Stark effect, and it's one of the primary methods for detecting electric fields from a distance. The reason for the split is that electrons changing shells move faster if they are going with the field, and slower if they are going against it. When emitting photons, the faster electrons emit blueshifted photons, and the slower ones emit redshifted photons. Since these could be traveling in any direction, an observer at a distance will get both varieties -- thus the single emission line has been split into two lines. The corollary to this rule for emission is that during absorption, an electron that has to fight against the electric field can only absorb a redshifted photon, and an electron being accelerated by the field can only absorb a blueshifted photon.
For precisely the same reasons, we should expect spectral lines to be split by a gravity field -- electrons moving upward/downward in the field should absorb only redshifted / blueshifted photons. But Pound & Rebka didn't look for spectral splitting. They tested for absorption of the redshifted downward photons, and confirmed their preformed conclusions by testing the absorption of blueshifted upward photons. To rule out spectral splitting because of an external field operating on the absorber (as with the Stark effect), they should have looked for both effects in both configurations. They should have known this, since the Stark effect was discovered in 1913, and they did their experiment in 1959. But none of the write-ups on this experiment mention this double-check, so we can only assume that it was neglected. As such, this is still an open issue.
GENERAL RELATIVITY IS FALSE
oz93666 wrote: Also stars have been shown to bend light by other experimental observation.
Here you're referring to work done by Eddington and others, which is highly contentious. The only known way to bend light is {to} pass it through a density gradient, producing a mirage effect, which is quite easy to see, in nature as well as in the laboratory. Since the light is bent toward the greater density, if light passes near the horizon of a planet or star with an atmosphere, and since the denser atmosphere is nearer the gravity source, the light is deflected in the direction of the gravity. But that doesn't mean that light in a vacuum would be deflected in a gravity field. Eddington didn't have the instrumentation to measure the density gradient in the atmosphere to a degree of accuracy greater than the deflection he observed. We still don't have such instrumentation. This means that the deflection of photons in gravity fields -- just because of the gravity and not because of the mirage effect -- is a premature conclusion. My conclusion is that if somebody does an experiment that seems to prove general relativity, without further scrutiny it is accepted as fact. Anything that seems to disprove it will never be accepted, no matter how rigorous and methodical the work. Only poorly built foundations have to be defended like that, so this to me is tantamount to proof that general relativity is false.
oz93666 wrote:...but lets look at things from another angle. It seems to me that a photon has to do some work in escaping the pull of a star, and the only way, is to shift its frequency down.
If a photon had mass, then you'd be right -- the gravity field would exert a force on it, slowing it down. If the speed of light is constant, then (somehow) the force acts on the frequency instead of the transmission speed. (I never quite understood that. Anyway...) But if a photon does not have mass, none of that is true.
oz93666 wrote: Now to dismiss this experiment you must invoke willful falsification of data...
I can go one better than that -- I'm not even going to look at any more "proofs" of general relativity. All of the ones that I have examined so far turned out to be specious, and when I questioned such things on more conventional forums, I got flamed really bad for questioning. Clearly, the mainstream has locked down on their tenets, and isn't willing to acknowledge that there are problems. So why should I make a full-time job out of finding errors that aren't going to get fixed anyway? That would be irrational.
oz93666 wrote: It seems to me if you dump general relativity you have to embrace the general theory of conspiracy, which holds that such confusions don't just happen, but are a directed concerted effort by those in control to deliberately mislead.
Not necessarily. I actually think that GR was an honest mistake. IMO, it can only be understood in its historical context. By the mid-1800s, everybody was sold on Newtonian mechanics, and Victorian materialism could do no wrong. But scientists like Faraday, Volta, Oersted, etc., who were studying EM, knew for a fact that they were dealing with non-Newtonian forces. Still, anybody claiming to be a scientist in that era without explicitly standing on Newton's shoulders was considered to be a fraud or a wannabe. You can hear the frustration in Maxwell, and more so in Lorentz. They tried to explain EM in Newtonian terms, but it just didn't work. Finally, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, society became disillusioned with materialism, and embraced the new idealism. The implication for science, as worked out by Einstein, was that an abstract, non-physical, idealist framework could break the Newtonian mold, and thereby open up all kinds of new avenues of research. The whole scientific community jumped at the chance, and society went along with it. All of a sudden, great strides were being made in EM, and in atomic theory, including the eventual discovery of nuclear forces. This never could have happened in the Victorian era. So the non-physical strategy broke the mold, progress was made, and Einstein was promoted to prophet. But now, scientific idealism isn't just a nonsensical abstraction that you use to think outside the box for a little while, so that you can make the next physical discovery. Rather, non-physical modeling has become The Paradigm, and anybody not explicitly standing on Einstein's shoulders is a fraud or a wannabe. It's ironic that scientists are now so committed to the Einsteinian method that they feel compelled to disagree with his physical work. For example, Einstein said that black holes were not possible, because the centrifugal force should prevent the collapse. He was thinking mechanically. But shortly after he died, scientists announced that black holes were a prediction of GR, and everybody bought it. Thinking mechanically is now taboo (even if you happen to be agreeing with Einstein), because Einstein's claim to fame was his mind-bending non-physical abstractions, not his rationality. …
oz93666 wrote: But to return to the main subject, I'm totally willing to believe it's all corrupted, but surely some of relativity is good? E=MC2? a hydrogen bomb does go bang after all...
E=MC2 has never been proved to my satisfaction. The EM radiation released in a nuclear explosion comes from vibrating protons in the disrupted nucleus. This doesn't affect mass. Splitting an atom releases EM radiation. Fusing atoms releases EM radiation. If every time a nuclear reaction occurred, and energy was released, and thus the atoms lost mass, I don't see why there would still be any mass left in the Universe, since we have every reason to believe that every single atom in the Universe has been through this process many times. So something doesn't add up. I tend to think that EM waves are created simply by the movement of charged particles, with no effect on mass. For example, a wood stove doesn't lose mass just because the atoms in the crystal lattice are vibrating due to heat, and emitting infrared radiation. Analogously, a speaker cone doesn't lose mass because it is creating sound waves in the air. Energy and mass are two different things. IMO, the mass differences due to fission/fusion are evidence of some sort of particle other than protons and neutrons.
E=MC2 was blindly accepted by the scientific community as soon as Einstein published it. Had it been verified? It still hasn't. Why was it accepted? Because scientists were falling all over themselves to get on board with relativity, because it was a new paradigm that broke the Newtonian mold. Does anybody actually use this formula to solve real-world problems? No. How do you estimate the energy to be released in a nuclear reaction: by general relativity, or by experimentation? The answer is: experimentation. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics are notoriously poor at making accurate predictions. So if you really want to know what's going to happen, you just go ahead and do it, and find out that way. Then you adjust the formulas after the fact.
oz93666 wrote: ... and you haven't dealt with the Perihelion precession of Mercury can't we check that ourselves?
Yes, we can check this ourselves. But just because some ad hoc formulas in general relativity "predict" this doesn't mean anything. Good scientific method involves the elimination of all known forces before concluding that something new has been discovered. A gravitational anomaly was detected. OK, so are there any other forces operative at the macroscopic level? Yes -- the electric and magnetic forces. Were those checked? No. Those should be checked. If either of those can account for the anomaly, the problem is solved, and Occam's Razor will do the rest. How should we proceed? Precession takes two forces: angular momentum, and then a force applied along the axis. For example, when a spinning top starts to precess, the angular momentum comes from the spinning, and the precession comes from the force of gravity, which is trying to get the top to lay down on its side. So we should be looking for an electric or magnetic force applied parallel to the axis of rotation. Maybe there is a galactic magnetic field that is accelerating or decelerating the solar system. Different degrees of precession in different planets might match up with different strengths of planetary dynamos. Or different degrees of planetary charge. I haven't pursued this, but that's where I'd start. And until that work has been done, I'll accept no fancier solution.
… So, I have questioned Eddington's "gravitational lensing" conclusions, because I'm not satisfied that the mirage effect was properly ruled out, to anywhere near the degree of accuracy that Eddington claimed. I never get a response past that point. I have questioned the Pound-Rebka experiment, on the grounds that frequency splitting due to an external field was not ruled out. I never get a response past that point on that issue either. I have questioned the equivalence of mass and energy. The absorption of energy in breaking something up, and the release of energy in the formation of aggregates, is one of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics, and does not constitute proof of a conversion between mass and energy. And all that I ever get when I question GR or QM is insistence on the benefit of the doubt. IMO, the whole thing needs to be thoroughly reviewed, and nothing in it should be taken on faith.
oz93666 wrote: I can't imagine where the error could be.
That might just be the limits of your imagination, or the power of your assumptions. For example, the "proof" of GR, based on high energy collisions, actually isn't proof at all, because it merely assumes the conclusion. "If" a particle cannot exceed the speed of light (which is one of the axioms of GR), and if you continue to supply the energy to accelerate it, you go up against a mathematical barrier that your GR formulas can't cross. The only other variable in the equation is mass, so the energy must be getting converted to mass. You get the energy back out in the bubble chamber collision, and you conclude that GR is proved. But you haven't proved GR at all. You have merely confirmed the conservation of energy. Newton would have gotten the same results using F=m*a. If you assume that the particle never exceeded the speed of light, you have to accept that the mass is variable, or the conservation of energy is violated. But how did you proof that particles cannot exceed the speed of light?
… I can easily think of a way that energy could get stored in something other than momentum, and other than mass, giving the illusion that GR had been proved, when really, it hadn't. The energy could get converted to electrostatic potential by a z-pinch. To explain the question, I'll start with a metaphor. Let's consider a supersonic aircraft, that has adjustable wings, which are perpendicular to the aircraft in subsonic flight, but which get tucked parallel to the aircraft for supersonic flight (such as the US F-14). Now let's suppose that this is accomplished just by making the wings spring-loaded, such that with increased drag on the wings, they tuck themselves in when approaching the speed of sound. This would mean than in tucked position, some of the thrust has been converted to elastic potential. If the drag is reduced, that potential can get released, getting the wings to spread out again. So if the plane is instantaneously decelerated (because it hit something), there is of course all of the momentum of its forward motion, but there is also the release of that elastic potential. This would make it look like the plane was releasing more potential than just its resting mass times its forward velocity.
Similarly, charged particles at relativistic velocities undergo a z-pinch, in which despite their electrostatic repulsion, the magnetic pressure forces them together. If they could ever achieve the speed of light, the magnetic force would become equal to the electric force, and the particles would fuse (even without any spins that create relative motions in a charge stream, encouraging fusion). Of course, actually accelerating particles to the speed of light is tough, because the accelerator is EM fields, which travel at the speed of light. So while energy is still building up in momentum, or being lost in particle spins, the forward velocity is less than the speed of light. But there is another force that needs to be overcome to achieve the speed of light, other than the particle clump's resting inertial force, and any Lorentz forces due to conflicting magnetic fields, and that's the Coulomb force between the particles. So as you pump energy into those particles, and they get going faster and faster, as you approach the speed of light, you start seeing energy absorption beyond what shows up in forward motion, or in particle spins. Where did the energy go? And then, on collision, all of the input energy is released, beyond just what you'd get from the forward motion. So where did that energy come from? A portion of the energy release on collision will be electrostatic potential re-converted to kinetic energy, because as soon as the particles are decelerated on collision, the z-pinch goes away, and the electrostatic repulsion takes over, accelerating the particles away from each other. In other words, there will be a Coulomb explosion. This might look a whole lot like the conversion of forward motion to radial motion in an explosion. But the energy will exceed that of the forward motion. So you do the F=m*a thing, where you know the force of the explosion, and you know the incoming velocity, and you adjust the mass accordingly, and you think that you have proved GR. Oops, you didn't take the Coulomb explosion into account. So, in order for me to be convinced that energy is being converted to mass, I need to see where they're explicitly acknowledging electrostatic potential as an energy store. Otherwise, I'll conclude that they (once again) forgot to take a known force into account, which created a discrepancy, which they then called proof of GR, but which actually is just proof of their sloppy method.
… To clarify the questions: 1) Is the mass-energy equivalence apparent in the excess energy of a single particle, or is it only apparent in the total energy of a clump? 2) If the excess energy can be observed in individual particle collisions, how is that energy measured? 3) If the excess energy is only apparent in a clump, has a Coulomb explosion been ruled out? 4) If so, where can I find literature on how it was ruled out?
Sparky wrote: All the evidence that I have seen and had presented to me supports an electric star that fissions.
What "evidence"? The existence of multiple stars and/or planets is not evidence of fissioning, any more than a crowd of people is evidence that there must have been only one person there to start, and then they starting fissioning into multiple people. I don't think that such is how people come into existence, and I think that you need more than that to come to any conclusion at all. So we look for possible ways of people, and stars, to come into existence. Having only snapshots, and familiarity with physics, this isn't easy. But you can't just see a snapshot of two objects, and call that evidence of one object that split. Personally, I think that the physics of stars withering away into planets is a lot more robust than fissioning. An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern. It doesn't split down the middle into two objects.
An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern.
Why?! Why wouldn't it be like a really large CME?
Because excess charges repel each other, and they therefore distribute themselves evenly around the outside of the object. There are exceptions. For example, if you have a sphere with a needle sticking out of it, the electric field will be much greater at the tip of the needle, since it focuses more lines of force on itself. Assuming that the work function of the whole thing is the same, more charge transfer will happen at the tip of the needle than on the surface of the sphere elsewhere. The Sun, of course, is a near perfect sphere, so there is no concentration of electric field. But interestingly, I'm convinced that a sunspot does alter the work function, enabling more current by reducing the resistance. But I don't see the matter accumulating elsewhere, after streaming out of sunspots. CMEs are related, but there again, there isn't any accumulation of matter elsewhere in the solar system from CMEs. So if you were to say that the Moon fissioned from the Earth by a process similar to CMEs being ejected from the Sun, I'd have to disagree.
Lloyd wrote: Why wouldn't the initial accretion of a "nebula", or region of dusty plasma, produce more than one object, some large and some small? And why wouldn't a lot of relatively smaller objects be the results of collisions? Don't you think the asteroids are the result of one or more collisions? Do you have an idea what would be the largest size possible for an object that is a remnant of a collision? Could the Moon be a collision remnant? What about Mars, Venus, or Earth etc?
I don't know if you meant this for me, or for Jeffrey, but I'll chip in my 2 cents. I "think" that Jeffrey & I are in agreement that multiple objects could accrete at the same time, in different regions of the same dust cloud. Jeffrey doesn't like the accretion disc model, but I'm OK with it. Either way, multiple star~planets could get formed, all for the same reasons, but independently of each other. So there doesn't have to be a singular star at the center, from which all else is derived. IMO, the overall rotation within the stellar system comes from the rotation of the accretion disc. So all planets orbit in the same direction, because that's how the disc was rotating. Anyway, I agree that the asteroid belts look like the results of collisions, but I have no idea what size objects could be left over from a collision. It's certainly possible that the Moon was the result of a collision, but it wouldn't have to be. The main "evidence" of this is that it is chemically similar to the Earth. But if it simply condensed from the same batch of matter, in a chemically differentiated accretion disc, it would be similar, without ever having been part of the Earth. As for the planets, the product of a collision would tend to fall into a highly elliptical orbit, so I'm less convinced that the planets could have suffered planet-size impacts.
STAR FISSIONING
Sparky wrote: My understanding is that a highly stressed sun would be needed to fission. Like a resistor being loaded more than it's rating will expand and explode. What would it take for a really large "cme like" ejection to be collected and contained?
An overloaded resistor explodes because of the current flowing through it, which builds up heat. Then the casing contains the pressure, making an explosion possible. But fissioning due to an excess of charge would be electrostatics, not electrodynamics. And an unshielded capacitor isn't really a capacitor -- the excess charge in a celestial body should bleed off before amounting to anything. CMEs are an exception, where apparently a charge separation has occurred, and then there is an arc discharge just below the surface, ejecting material. But this gets sprayed outward, and I don't know of any way that this material could be collected into anything somewhere else.
viscount aero wrote: As it is described in the Standard Model, the alleged core accretion is a fantasy scenario.
Agreed. The way I'd put it is that it is an observation passed off as an explanation. The discs exist, but the Newtonian reasons for them do not.
viscount aero wrote: You have this cold matter adrift in the cosmos and it then begins to twirl, clump, spin, and then coalesce into a dusty disk. And this persists for time periods that is, for all human purposes, infinite in scope. What is the mechanical causal agent for the alleged coalescence? (Don't say "gravity" because gravity must be working in a specific direction upon the mass in order for something to collapse into a shape).
I agree that it ain't gravity. First, it's too weak of a force. Second, in Newtonian mechanics, there IS NO gravitational instability, where stuff can collapse under its own weight. If stuff does start to get pulled together, it's true that the gravity gets stronger, because it obeys the inverse square law. But at the same time, the hydrostatic pressure goes up, which is a direct function of volume, which is a cubic function. The pressure also goes up as the stuff heats up, due to thermalized collisions. As a consequence, the pressure goes up faster than the gravity, resulting in a hydrostatic equilibrium being achieved. And an equilibrium is the opposite of an instability. I recently ran some numbers on how the electric force is responsible for the implosion of dusty plasmas. … That still begs the question of what causes the rotation. There are a couple of possibilities, but my current favorite is that the dusty plasma is moving through a galactic magnetic field, and it picks up a Lorentz force that gets it spinning. Then the body force that causes it to collapse tightens the spin into a spiral. This explains why the orbits in our solar system, and the rotations in planetary nebulae, tend to line up with the B-fields in galactic arms.
viscount aero wrote: NASA intermixes mention of scant traces of "magnetism" and such (for good measure), whilst insisting--matter of factly--that this is a dying star. It NEVER occurs to them this is a birthing process.
Right -- gotta have some magnetism in there, because they can do just about anything they want with MHD, and still call it "physical science" (even if they have magnetism but no electricity, and thus no prime mover). And right again -- this is a birthing process, not a dying process. Like Jeffrey says, an explosion is like when stuff goes ba-boom, and then stuff is flying outward, away from the center -- it isn't like when stuff condenses or anything like that. Maybe Merlin the Magician could toss a smoke bomb into a room and then run in behind the smoke, and when the smoke clears, he's standing there, like he appeared out of nothing. But the "physics" there isn't what it seems, and no, a thermonuclear explosion doesn't leave a little glowing ember behind.
IMPLOSION WITHOUT RE-EXPLOSION
My model of star formation has a powerful force feedback loop, without which stars would not be possible. When an imploding dusty plasma overshoots the hydrostatic equilibrium and generates enough pressure that charges start to get separated (due to electron degeneracy pressure), the electric force between charged double-layers binds the whole thing together. Otherwise, the imploding dusty plasma, having overshot the hydrostatic equilibrium, would just rebound back out to its original dimensions, like a superball bouncing on a sidewalk. Only with a positive feedback loop can a dusty plasma implode and not explode again, leaving nothing but sparse dusty plasma in the center. So when this feedback loop kicks in, we can expect some oscillations, just like the way atoms oscillate when they form into molecules, because their degrees of freedom have become limited, but they still have inertial forces, so they bounce around for a little while, within the constraints of the molecular bonds. So what I'm saying is that in the Cat's Eye Nebula, a dusty plasma imploded, and the pressure became sufficient for electron degeneracy pressure, which separated the charges into charged double-layers, and then the whole thing clanked together. And with the concentric shells, we're seeing oscillations associated with that clanking. So yes, this is a birthing process.
The question is whether or not there is a physical process that can produce just such a nebula, and still leave a remnant in the center. If there just isn't any way for that much material to be expelled from an explosion that by definition originated in the center, without evacuating the center, then it simply wasn't an explosion originating from the center -- period. So it wasn't a thermonuclear supernova that produced this. And that's all the standard model has, so the standard model goes out the window.
Now, if not that, then what was it actually? It was certainly violent, and it released an enormous amount of energy, as well as expelling an enormous amount of matter, at an extremely high speed. And this happened many times, and in a variety of ways, producing the pulsed outer shells, and then something different going on nearer the center. And yet the star at the very center persists. I'm going with birthing, but you're right -- it's all speculation.
Thanks for reading Electric Astrophysics! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
