STELLAR METAMORPHOSIS 4
Star Formation, Dwarf Stars
https://skyyearth.blogspot.com/2023/04/what-are-brown-dwarfs.html
CONTENTS
CRITIQUE OF EU STAR POWER SOURCE
BB SPECTRA LED SOLAR SCIENCE ASTRAY
COLD BROWN DWARF
Astronomers Have Discovered A Star That's As Cold As Ice
by CharlesChandler » Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:20 pm
http://io9.com/astronomers-have-discovered-a-star-thats-as-cold-as-ice-1568183316
A very strange object called WISE J085510.83-071442.5 lies just 7.2 light-years from the earth. Discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), it is nominally one of those not-quite-planets-not-quite-stars known as a brown dwarf.
Because they are so much smaller and cooler than stars, brown dwarfs appear red and faint. But astronomer Kevin Luhman noticed that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 was very red and very faint...partly because it is small—perhaps only 2 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter—and partly because it is so cold. It's temperature, Luhman found, is only about 9° F (-13° C). That's well below the freezing point of water. In other words, the brown dwarf is literally ice cold. The fact that it is so cold is a clue to its age. If it started out at a few thousand degrees it would have taken somewhere between 1 and 10 billion years to have cooled to its present temperature.
Very strange indeed, by conventional standards, but not if this is the destiny of all stars.
CRITIQUE OF EU STAR POWER SOURCE
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Tue May 06, 2014 5:46 pm
nick c wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Where is the power source? Where is the Sun receiving its power from?
This is a philosophical question that has no answer. Similar types of questions can be asked of any model that humans can propose. The answer is that human understanding of the universe is limited. We do not how big the universe is, how old it is, or where the power comes from.
I'll grant you that a model that asserts a potential between near and far electrodes doesn't necessarily fail if it cannot provide detailed information on the far electrode, since the model asserts that the far electrode is too far away to measure accurately. But that doesn't mean that you're totally out of the woods.
What are the expected properties of an electric current at the near electrode (e.g., at the Sun)? Given that the breakdown voltage in space {is} less than 1 V/m, the current should easily graduate to an arc discharge, especially on the surface of the Sun itself, where the current density is greater. In fact, the Electric Sun model explicitly states that the Sun is a sustained arc discharge. But arcs quickly get pinched into narrow discharge channels, where the drift velocity becomes relativistic, and the magnetic pinch effect kicks in. This fact is acknowledged in many aspects of EU theory. So why doesn't the discharge on the surface of the Sun resolve into discrete discharge channels, where all of the charges drift at relativistic velocities? This is not a philosophical question -- in the Electric Sun model, the heliosphere should look like a plasma lamp, and no reason is given as to why it doesn't.
CRITIQUE OF EU THEORY
As Sparky noted correctly, science attempts to apply some of the following criteria. Here is my evaluation of the EU on these criteria:
Skepticism of unsupported claims
In general, the EU's debunking of mainstream models is good, though it could be better. On closer scrutiny, mainstream models can be thoroughly disproved -- not just dismissed due to problems.
Critical thinking
The EU is critical of others, but not of itself.
Relies on evidence and reason
EU theories are not tied directly to observations -- they mainly leverage the fallacy of the false dichotomy, in saying that because the mainstream is wrong, and EM is the next likeliest candidate, people should give it a chance. That's true, but on closer scrutiny, the EU models don't offer much specificity beyond the opening epiphanies.
…
Produces useful knowledge
It's too early to tell.
Testability: Performs controlled experiments
EU models ignore the available evidence. For example, the Electric Sun model can't explain why the Sun doesn't look like a plasma lamp.
Attempts to repeat experimental results.
The attempts that have been made (e.g., the blueberry experiment) did not display critical reasoning.
Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
Fail -- when questioned, EU proponents merely give "flood" responses, citing more examples that could be considered evidence of its assertions, never considering the flip side, that they might actually be missing something.
Self-correcting
Fail -- problems have been identified, but no attempt has been made to fix them.
The last couple of problems do not speak so well to the EU's existing position, but rather, to where it's headed, and are, in fact, the most serious problems of all. Being wrong is a short-term problem. Not wanting to get right is a long-term problem.
VOLTAGE IN SPACE
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed May 07, 2014 6:56 pm
_@Jeffrey: … I'm committed to answering all questions, just as you are….
JeffreyW wrote: I've always considered outer space to be an excellent vacuum. 25,000 volts per inch of breakdown voltage, which would translate to ~1,000,000 volts per meter, much different than 1V/m. Where did you get that number Charles?
I know I got it from somewhere, but I haven't found the citation yet. It can be extrapolated from data such as this, which shows the direct relationship between density and resistance: {{http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8819.html or https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=15364}}. It can also be extrapolated from the downward slope in a Paschen curve. But that doesn't produce the specific value of 1 V/m. So I'll keep looking.
EU NOT UNITED
Sparky wrote:
The EU is critical of others, but not of itself.
There are exceptions. And it depends on who you include in the EU. If EU includes you.....?
That's a good point. The "Electric Universe Community" is actually a motley crew that is not in complete agreement on everything, no matter how short the list of people you include. This is how it always was, and always will be. For example, did Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, and Juergens all agree on everything? No, they agreed on little. Still it concerns me when I see the community rallying to defend EU tenets, and not considering alternatives. I'm firmly committed to the premise that the Universe is electric, and I'm doing critical work, but have I gained any acceptance within the EU community?
Sparky wrote: Would it be possible for you to present views at one of their conferences?
I'm working on it. Right now I'm still working through the implications of my recent findings concerning the "like-likes-like" principle, discussed in the Re: Logic Programing to Check Scientific Theories? thread.
SUN IS NOT AN EU PLASMA LAMP
Sparky wrote:
EU models ignore the available evidence. For example, the Electric Sun model can't explain why the Sun doesn't look like a plasma lamp.
Interesting! Would your model present a sun as a plasma lamp?
No -- my model has a current divider, where there is a negative layer sandwiched between two positive layers (one of them deeper inside the Sun, and the other being the heliosphere). This makes it possible for there to be a discharge from a broad surface, not pinched into a finite number of discrete channels, and where the particles accelerate as they move away from the current divider, explaining the temperatures in the corona that increase with distance from the Sun. …
nick c wrote: As far as the Sun appearing as a filament instead of ball, well there is no requirement for that, it is your own strawman.
What do you mean by "no requirement"? The Electric Sun model doesn't include it, hence its proponents don't have it as a requirement. But that doesn't make it a strawman attack. The behaviors of electric currents in low density media do have this requirement. There isn't enough resistance to prevent the acceleration of electrons to relativistic velocities, even in a weak electric field. And at such velocities, the electrons should get pinched into discrete channels. And once the arc discharge starts, the resistance drops even more, resulting in the further consolidation of neighboring currents. The result should be a finite number of discrete filaments, and the footpoints of these discharges should be the brightest points on the surface of the Sun. What we actually see is a broadly distributed discharge, which defies the laws of electrodynamics. As an analogy, in the electric field under a thunderstorm, we get arc discharges (a.k.a., lightning). We don't get a glowing surface of the Earth, much less a surface in arc mode, and a dark discharge up into the cloud. This is because of the magnetic pinch effect, which consolidates currents into discrete channels. So any hypothesis that asserts that the Sun is in arc mode has to answer this question.
nick c wrote: Note the terella experiment was powered by an external electric current.
It reproduced aurora-like discharges, and in a different configuration, something similar to coronal loops. It did not reproduce a broadly distributed arc discharge from the entire surface that did not resolve into a plasma-lamp-like set of discrete discharge channels.
nick c wrote: Thornhill has proposed an "experimentum cruscis". This can be found on the Holoscience site.
An experimentum cruscis rules out all other possibilities, and demonstrates that the hypothesis in question is the only one that can fulfill all of the requirements. If you're talking about "Saturn’s Strange Hot Spot Explained", I hardly see how that rules out all other possibilities -- it really only ventures an explanation for something that cannot be explained with conventional science. To call that an experimentum cruscis would be the fallacy of a false dichotomy.
SPACE IS A CONDUCTOR
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 08, 2014 2:32 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Thus regarding the above statement, there is no equation or function that I know of to describe the breakdown voltage in near vacuum. It is just assumed to not really have a breakdown voltage, as there is nothing to conduct the electricity!
That's precisely the mistake that the mainstream makes when interpreting the Paschen curve, and which has led to so much confusion, even within the EU community, concerning electric currents in space. At lower and lower pressures, it gets harder and harder to get a spark -- therefore, a vacuum must be an insulator. But this is not correct. A vacuum is actually a conductor, and the reason that it won't produce a spark is that there isn't enough resistance to set up the instability of a breakdown voltage, because there is nothing to break down. Proving this is easy -- get set up to measure the Paschen curve, but instead of just measuring pressure and the gap distance at which sparks occur, also hook up an ammeter to measure the current. At too much of a gap, there is too much resistance. So there is no spark, and very little current. At just the right gap, you get a spark, and there will be a surge in current. At too small of a gap, you won't get a spark, but look at the ammeter -- it will show that all of the current available is flowing through the wires and across the gap -- it just doesn't encounter enough resistance to have to tunnel through it with a spark. So perfect vacuums are perfect conductors, and electric currents in space don't need to find a nearby filament to act as a wire -- they would flow more easily through the less dense surroundings. But electric currents in space are rare, because it's tough to get a charge separation within a near-perfect conductor. Without any capacitance, the force that separates charges has to be dynamic and sustained.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 08, 2014 4:34 pm
JeffreyW wrote: What it sounds like you are saying is that if there are any electrical components in vacuum, there would be no way to shut them off, because vacuum is a excellent conductor?
That's exactly what I'm saying. In your image, the circuit is opened by the introduction of the resistance of the air. Out in space, that circuit wouldn't be open at all. So switches out in space have to do more than just provide a gap -- if that's how they work, they have to be inside a sealed chamber filled with a resistive gas or oil.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 08, 2014 6:28 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Assuming that is correct then, vacuum is an excellent conductor of electricity, then it would mean all the charge would have already dissipated, thus no charge separation! thus, no net flow of electricity in vacuum! If something is a very good conductor of electricity, then there should be no resistance! thus, no interplanetary lightning and nothing actively powering the Sun electrically, because the charge separation has already equalized in vacuum because it is an excellent conductor.
Exactly! So the resting state is quasi-neutrality (i.e., the matter might be ionized, but the charges were never separated). To get a charge separation, you need to identify the force(s) responsible. For example, extreme pressure can separate charges, due to electron degeneracy pressure. I'm contending that this happens inside the Sun, and also inside the Earth. But such celestial orbs are themselves net neutral, of necessity, because of the conductivity between them and the other orbs.
Sparky wrote: There is no vacuum! The solar system is electrically conducting! All stars are electrical! Plasma makes up 99% of the observable universe!
Well, it all depends on how you define a vacuum. In deep space, the distance between atoms can be several or many centimeters. Between the atoms, where there is a whole lot of nothingness, is a pure vacuum. For a current to flow through the inter-atomic space, a vacuum has to be a conductor. For that matter, for current to flow through a copper wire, the hop through the inter-atomic space has to be through a conducting vacuum, and even inside a crystal lattice it's mostly empty space, so I don't see how any currents at all would be possible if a vacuum was a perfect insulator. And in fact resistance in gases increases with the density of the gases, regardless of which gas it is. So yes, the solar system is electrically conducting, because of the long mean free path, or where the plasma is hot enough to not latch onto electrons and slow them down. It isn't electrical, because it just has to be for the Sun to be externally powered.
SUN IS INTERNALLY POWERED
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 08, 2014 8:53 pm
JeffreyW wrote: 1. The solar wind is moving AWAY from the Sun and (including the poles)
2. outer space itself is much colder than the Sun! (heat flows from the hotter to the colder)
Thus to believe the Sun is externally powered is to violate not only the 1st law of thermodynamics, but also the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
I agree on both points. Clearly the energy is coming from the Sun itself, which means that it is some sort of energy conversion, from potential to kinetics. IMO, when the dusty plasma collapsed, the momenta in the implosion got converted to hydrostatic potential. All other factors being the same, the dusty plasma should have just bounced off of itself, wherein the hydrostatic potential would have gotten reconverted back to outward momentum, as all over-pressurized gases/plasmas tend to do. So something other than Newtonian mechanics had to kick in. That something IMO was a force feedback loop, involving gravity and electricity. The pressure in the implosion was so great that electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) kicked in, separating matter into charged double-layers, with the core being positive, surrounded by a negative shell. Because EDP was the prime mover, the charged double-layers couldn't recombine, meaning that they were current-free double-layers (CFDLs). Once these were set up, they started inducing additional layers of alternating charge around them. The two primary layers were the positive core and the negative sheath. Then the negative sheath induced a positive charge in a sheath around itself, and this induced a negative charge in yet another layer further out. (Induced double-layers theoretically go on forever, but in a radial configuration, the field density weakens with each successive layer, so there's a practical limit.) Anyway, the electric force between these charged double-layers constituted yet another thing pulling the matter together, further increasing the density of the gravity field, which made the CFDLs even more robust. The electric field between the double-layers also removed degrees of freedom from the plasma, thereby lowering the effective temperature, and thus reducing the hydrostatic pressure.
So the momentum in the implosion got converted to hydrostatic potential, which was then converted to electrostatic potential. Now we've got this super-dense star, which has all of the potential of an imploded dusty plasma, but which might actually be quite cold inside, because of the forceful electric fields. How does that potential get reconverted to heat & light?
STAR => PLANET + PLASMA
With mass loss to the solar winds, the force feedback loop relaxes, and charges can recombine. So the electrostatic potential gets reconverted to heat & light. Eventually, the Sun will have regenerated the dusty plasma from which it originally condensed, minus the core that might be left behind, as a planetary remnant of the former star. For example, the Earth still has (IMO) charged double-layers. But the surface isn't in arc mode, so it isn't expelling any wind, and thus there is no mass loss, and no charge recombination as the force feedback loop relaxes. So some of the potential has yet to be released. But the Earth is probably very small compared to the star that it once was. So yes, we have to sanity-check the energy budgets, and keep dismissing models until we're left with only candidates that can pass the most basic of tests, at the very least.
REFUTING ERIC DOLLARD
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri May 09, 2014 1:31 am
viscount aero wrote: Per Eric Dollard...
… When anticipating data that haven't been collected yet, you don't get the luxury of adjusting the scope of an hypothesis to suit the data. So there have to be rules defining the scope of each aspect of the hypothesis, and you have to follow the rules, or it wasn't a prediction. To highlight the point, if Dollard hadn't already been confronted with solar phenomena that he believed couldn't be adequately explained with conventional physics, would he have predicted that stuff would come from another dimension to become stars? It's hard to imagine why anybody would even think that in advance. So no, Dollard doesn't have a rule-based framework for assimilating existing data and making predictions. He just has a way of making illogical statements that are tough to refute. But there isn't any value in something like that. The classical method is the way to go. When confronted with an anomaly, you first have to see if you already have the answer in the body of principles that you already understand. If, after an exhaustive review, a phenomenon still cannot be explained with conventional science, then you have definitive proof that you have discovered something new. But if you don't eliminate all of the known possibilities, you haven't proved anything at all.
PROPER SCIENTIFIC METHOD
When applied to the study of astrophysics, I have found that gravity alone falls well short of explaining everything in the Universe. But that doesn't mean that it's already time to start thinking about time/space getting warped, or there being hidden dimensions (or branes, or whatever). First we have to exhaust the known possibilities. Are there any other forces operative at the macroscopic level? Yes -- the electric and magnetic forces. Have all of their permutations been considered? No. So a necessary step is to work through all of the EM possibilities. And this would be true, whether we get any joy out of it or not. Either it answers the question, or proves that the question cannot be answered with any known force operative at the macroscopic level, in which case we have definitive proof of the existence of another force.
FRUITS OF PROPER METHOD
Sounds simple enough. I thought that everybody understood this. I learned it in high school science class. Maybe they don't teach science this way anymore, but this is the only way to do rigorous science. Interestingly, it seems that it has been a long time since somebody used such a method, because I'm finding all kinds of low-lying fruit. I mean to tell you that this is just too freaking easy. Everybody else wants to follow in Einstein's footsteps, thinking as far outside the box as possible. So everything is some sort of extension of QM, GR, MHD, CDM, dark energy, dim branes, shallow mines, or whatever the latest thing is these days. But what if all of the answers were sitting right there in front of us, and we couldn't see them in plain sight, because they were inside the box, and nobody was looking there? Go riding off into the sunset, searching for hidden dimensions of reality if you want, but I'm getting more than my fair share of joy out of testing simple mechanistic principles as applied to astrophysics. Ironically, if anybody is actually going to discover a new force, it isn't going to be somebody following in the footsteps of Einstein, or Velikovsky, or Dollard, or Mathis, because their methods can't isolate new forces. Rather, I'm the one using a method that can prove the existence of something new. So IMO, this is the way to go.
CRAB NEBULA
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri May 09, 2014 1:55 am
JeffreyW wrote: A good example of where actual conversion of energy to matter is in the Crab Nebula. This is NOT an exploded star.
I agree. I think that it's a collapsing dusty plasma. And the supernova is what set it off. And those stringy things in there are the filaments that we see elsewhere when dusty plasmas collapse after a nearby supernova. …
HOLLOW SUN PROBLEM
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri May 09, 2014 3:06 am
viscount aero wrote: I summarized findings by Dollard specific to the Sun in context of it being a hollow spherical energy converter.
My question concerning all hollow Sun theories is, "How do you pack all of the mass of the Sun into something that isn't even contiguous?" With an average density of 1408 kg/m3, you start with something that's virtually impossible to explain with just hydrogen and helium as the primary constituents. And then you hollow out the center, where the standard model has a much greater density, to try to make up for the much lower density of H and He observed at the surface. So what are the elemental abundances in Dollard's model, and how does he account for the average density of 1408 kg/m3?
ELEMENTS IN STAR FORMATION
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Fri May 09, 2014 2:23 pm
JeffreyW wrote: In this explanation Charles, which elements are where? They all have different properties as well, are we talking plasma? Gas? Solids? Liquids?
During the collapse & "clink" phases (when the force feedback loop kicks in, and the matter clinks together instead of bouncing off itself), it's an undifferentiated mix of whatever elements were in the dusty plasma. A couple million years later, the heavier elements will have settled to the bottom, leaving hydrogen & helium at the top. But even after mass separation, I can demonstrate that everything below the level of the solar granules is a supercritical fluid.
JeffreyW wrote: A few things that I would like you to make for the QDL site while we are at it:
1. Illustrations that show the actual physical differences of young stars between models. (which elements are where and in what phase transition they are in)
2. Illustrations that show the pressures and temperatures of young stars in the different models.
My model gives detailed assertions on the stratification within the Sun, made possible by fully leveraging the complete inventory of information that we have, including the overall mass of the Sun, and what we can glean from helioseismology about the interior. The "best fit" model that takes all of this into account puts osmium & platinum in the core, nickel & iron in the radiative zone, and helium & hydrogen in the convective zone. With 6th period elements in the core, the fusion furnace went out a long time ago, meaning that the energy sources are much closer to the surface, which are identified as arc discharges occurring where the boundaries between charged double-layers are getting disturbed. Specific depths are given for these discharges.
No other model (to my knowledge) is anywhere near as specific. The standard model says that the Sun is all thoroughly mixed helium & hydrogen. But then it can't explain the distinct boundaries inside the Sun revealed by helioseismology. It also can't explain how gamma rays from fusion in the Sun's core get stepped down to 6000 K black-body radiation, which is something that helium & hydrogen are incapable of doing. So standard optical model of the Sun has a wide variety of elements, which absorb and re-radiate photons, with slight phase shifts along the way, to accomplish the conversion of gamma rays to 6000 K BB radiation. But the standard density model has only hydrogen & helium behaving according to the ideal gas laws, and not acknowledging the Coulomb barrier at the densities it predicts. This would be something that any nuclear physicist would include, but solar physicists do not. And then, the power source is nuclear fusion. So the standard model pretty much has the head of a horse, the body of a bear, and the legs of a lion, and nobody is supposed to notice that it cannot possibly be a real animal.
JeffreyW wrote: We can reverse engineer Earth to find out what the Sun must be like, of course without skipping all the other steps of star evolution.
Yes!
JeffreyW wrote: This means that young stars simply also have to be comprised of those similar elemental abundances, because in this theory stars are not matter creation reactors.
HEAVY STELLAR ELEMENTS
I still believe that heavy elements are getting fused inside extremely heavy stars (e.g., blue giants). I don't believe that heavy elements (especially those heavier than iron) are fused in supernovae -- a thermonuclear explosion on a stellar scale would generate the collisional energies necessary to split every atom present. And if all of these heavy elements were in the supernova ejecta, how did a rocky planet like the Earth condense from the interplanetary medium, which is mostly hydrogen & helium? Any condensation should show the same abundances as the plasma from which it condensed. So I think that whatever lighter elements are in the dusty plasma get rammed together into a star, and then fusion (in the core of extremely heavy stars, and in discharge channels nearer the surface in all stars) manufactures the heavy elements in situ.
QUASAR ENERGY NOT => MATTER
JeffreyW wrote: Matter creation is in quasar cores, in which pure energy becomes matter, not just "energy becomes mass".
If I understand you correctly, I think that I disagree. It sounds like you're following Halton Arp with the idea of mass variability in quasars. It would be tough to disprove, but I'm just not sure that it's necessary, so I don't use this as a premise.
JeffreyW wrote:...energy in large amounts can mimic mass.
I don't buy into the whole energy~mass equivalence thing. I think that energy is conserved, and so is mass, but that they cannot be exchanged.
SUPERNOVA FLAREUPS
JeffreyW wrote: Since stars don't explode randomly, they are stable objects in stellar meta.. What event, what chain reaction, could cause such a massive blast seen in "supernova" explosions in different galaxies?
A runaway thermonuclear explosion is always possible, though I agree that it won't leave a remnant. (Nick C: don't go there, buddy.) A collision is always possible too, though we'd expect that to be rare. An electrical flare-up would seem to be more likely, and would be capable of leaving a remnant behind.
GR IS WRONG & E ≠ mc^2
viscount aero wrote: =mc^2
My problem with that is that it hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction. In the Relativity thread, GR proponents were questioned on how GR was proved, and with each of the experiments that were discussed, the GR crew just basically went into a rhetorical tailspin. Now, I don't generally toss an hypothesis just because somebody does a poor job of defending it. But when it has been the working hypothesis for 100 years, getting the lion's share of the funding, and getting taught as the standard model in the schools, there ought to be somebody who can explain with a critical process how the experiments were designed, conducted, and interpreted. But I have yet to find anybody who accepts GR, and who has applied critical scrutiny to it. I could summarize their whole position by quoting Einstein, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." That isn't what I call critical reasoning. So while I'm willing to give any hypothesis a chance, and I'm slow to conclude that it cannot possibly be made to work, 100 years is enough time to get there, even at the slowest rate of advancing skepticism. So I have concluded that if GR was going to be proved, it already would have been, and I don't base any of my work on it.
ELECTRIC SOLAR WIND
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sat May 10, 2014 12:54 pm
JeffreyW wrote: My money is on that thing being a dissipative structure at this moment because all DC current is flowing out of it in the form of free electrons and other particles.
I agree that the Sun is dissipating stored energy, but I think that the DC current problem is much more fundamental. How do you get a sustained DC current in an excellent conductor? That's actually one heckuva problem when conceived in a fully mechanical framework. (Just think like an engineer and imagine trying to build one from parts.) IMO, CMEs eject positive ions, and then there is a sustained electron drift chasing after the +ions. Averaged over the entire solar cycle, there isn't any net current -- just the expulsion of a large volume of quasi-neutral matter. But at any given instant, if you're inside a CME, you're measuring a flux of +ions. At all other times, you're measuring electron drift. And the potential between the Sun and the heliosphere created by the CMEs isn't discharged instantaneously because the electrons in the topmost negative layer in the Sun are being held down by their attraction to an underlying positive layer. This means that the negative layer is sandwiched between two positive layers -- one deeper inside the Sun, and the other being the heliosphere. Such a tripolar field puts the electrons on a current divider, where they could go either way. This explains the slow drift away from the Sun, and the acceleration in the direction of the drift through the corona. The further the electrons get from the current divider, the less ambiguous the field. I don't know of another EM configuration that can fulfill all of those requirements, so IMO, this is "it".
BB SPECTRA LED SOLAR SCIENCE ASTRAY
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Sun May 11, 2014 9:00 pm
JeffreyW wrote: For mathematical purposes (general relativity mostly) they have put the Sun in a big box and called it quits!
I tend to think that one of the things that helped them get lost in this mess is that the primary question in astronomy since the late 1800s was figuring out how stars produce black-body radiation. Earlier in the 1800s, scientists had figured out that all elements radiate at specific frequencies (which Niels Bohr later explained with his concept of electron shells, where an electron absorbing a photon jumps to a larger shell, and where it emits the same photon when it falls back into the inner shell). In the late 1800s, Balfour Stewart, and more famously Gustav Kirchhoff, found that photons inside a box in a thermal equilibrium emitted not distinct frequencies, but rather, a smooth continuum, which came to be known as black-body radiation, because it required at least a little bit of soot to be inside the box. So somehow, a star had to be in thermal equilibrium, at least locally, in order to be radiating like that, and thus a bait-and-switch was set up. The Sun has to be in a local equilibrium, so it can produce black-body radiation, but then that radiation propagates outward and heats the rest of the solar system -- problem solved, as long as you don't notice that the solution precludes its own premise -- a heating element inside a far larger box, where a complete equilibrium has not been achieved, does not issue black-body radiation. D'oh!
They never even figured out the physical mechanism that generates black-body radiation. Bohr provided a highly detailed model that explained emission/absorption frequencies. But before any of that had happened, Einstein had already grabbed ahold of the black-body problem, and used it as an excuse for Quantum Mechanics, which treats everything with ad hoc maths and evades all of the mechanical questions. Robitaille is the first scientist in 100 years to explore the physical mechanisms responsible for black-body radiation. And guess what? The Sun is not an accountant or a statistician -- to Robitaille, it's a physical object! Without mention of QM, Robitaille shows that the distinctive crystal lattice in graphite, and in supercritical hydrogen, is capable of a smooth continuum of vibrational modes, with the result being radiation in a black-body curve. And no, neither the graphite nor the hydrogen has to be inside a box at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings -- it just has to have that distinctive lattice, and some reason to be vibrating. So you're right that the essential principles of thermodynamics are applicable to the Sun, and that the energy budget can be sanity checked that way. If that leaves us without energy sources where we need them, we go looking for what we're missing, and we make discoveries. We don't just bastardize thermodynamics, or ignore it altogether, because Einstein couldn't make sense of it.
FROM STAR TO RED DWARF
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon May 12, 2014 7:20 am
JeffreyW wrote: What mechanism in your model can explain what the structure of the Sun will become as it cools and dies? Surely it will join ranks with the millions of red dwarfs in our galaxy as predicted via stellar meta?
Yes -- in my model, as a star loses mass to its stellar winds, the force feedback loop holding it together gradually relaxes. (With less mass, there is less charge separation, and less electric force pulling the charged double-layers together.) So the density relaxes. To an external observer, this will make the star appear cooler, and thus redder, but not exactly for obvious reasons -- the apparent temperature of a star is just the temperature of the visible surface (i.e., the plasma above the optical depth). In a tightly packed star, such as a blue giant, with a very vigorous force feedback loop holding it together, we get a supercritical fluid all of the way up to the surface, so it looks very hot. If the star was loosely packed, there would be a cooler atmosphere hovering above supercritical fluids at greater depths, making the star look cooler. The net result is that heavy stars are very bright, and emit high-frequency black-body radiation from their supercritical hydrogen surfaces, while lighter stars emit redder BB radiation from their atmospheres that is less bright. But the redness isn't just a simple product of heat dissipation -- it's more a function of the density gradient at the surface.
I'm not sure about the "flare-up" stage -- I think that it's possible. I have identified 5 charged layers within the Sun (3 positive and 2 negative). It's possible that with mass loss, eventually the Sun will not have the field densities necessary to hold onto all of those layers, and it might lose 2 of them in a catastrophic flare-up, where all of the remaining potentials in those 2 layers gets discharged. But I'm not sure that the "red giant" scenario is how it would happen. I'd rather think that it would be bright white, but for a very short period of time. Maybe the double-layers that just recombined would cool as they expanded, producing a larger but redder star for a while. But I'm not sure that I'm talking about the same thing as a "red giant". In particular, the red giant stage seems to last for a million years or so, and I don't see a double-layer recombination lasting that long -- I think that it would be all over in just a couple of years at most, and the whole process might only take a couple of weeks. In that kind of timeframe, the flare-up sounds more like a supernova than a red giant phase. And if it's just a stable star shedding a few outer layers in a relatively non-violent way, that would explain how there could be a remnant left behind when it's done -- it isn't a thermonuclear explosion from the inside out, but rather, just a flare-up in the outermost layers, that leave the inner layers undisturbed. So that's the avenue I'll be exploring as concerns late-stage stars. But I don't see any guarantee that there would have to be a flare-up at all -- I could see the whole thing winding down gradually. And red giants might actually be birthing instead of dying -- they might be blue giants in the making, where the collapsing dusty plasma is just starting to heat up.
STELLAR MASS & COLOR
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon May 12, 2014 10:44 am
JeffreyW wrote: Clearly "mass" is directly related to the star's spectral characteristics. Or is this just a coincidence? If it was only a matter of charge, and layered material, why have there not been found Earth mass stars with spectrums in the O, B, A, F, G or K classes?
In my model, there is a direct relationship between mass, luminosity, and color. But it isn't just the mass that matters. There is a force feedback loop involving gravity and the electric force, where gravity separates the charges (via electron degeneracy pressure), and then the electric force removes the degrees of freedom from the matter, reducing the hydrostatic pressure, and then the matter can be compressed even more than if it was neutrally charged. The greater density then concentrates the gravity field, hence the feedback loop. And the heavier the star, the more exponentially powerful this feedback loop is. But it isn't the mass, or even the average density, that is responsible for the luminosity, or for the color. Rather, these are functions of the state of the outer layer of the star. No matter the core temperature, a star with a thick, cool atmosphere will be red, while a star with an exposed supercritical liquid at its surface will be blue. So how do you get exposed supercritical fluid? That can only be evidence of the electric force.
To highlight the point, we should acknowledge that by the standard model of the Sun, all stars should be the same color. The reason is that the density gradient of the Sun is thought to be defined by the ideal gas laws. If all stars were like this, heavy stars would be very large, and light stars would be small, but the outer layer of all stars should have pretty much the same characteristics. In the ideal gas laws, if gravity is the containing force, the density tapers off to nothing at an infinite distance from the center of gravity. As the density tapers off, so does the temperature. For a heavy star, the outermost layer is very far from the center, while in a light star it isn't so far away. But either way, the density of that top layer, and thus the temperature, will be pretty much the same, because it is tapering off to the density and temperature of the interstellar medium. Well, if the outer layer of all stars is the same temperature, and if that's the layer that issues the visible photons, all stars should be the same color. The only way to get around this roadblock is to go outside of the ideal gas laws for the defining characteristics of the outermost layers. And what else is there? Only EM. How could EM affect the density gradient? With charged double-layers clinging together due to the electric force.
Read what Robitaille is saying about the proofs that the surface of the Sun is liquid-like. The ideal gas laws do not allow for this, since the density has to taper off gradually. It doesn't matter if the interior of the Sun is dense enough to be liquid by the ideal gas laws -- that doesn't change the fact that the Sun should be covered with a gradually thinning atmosphere. So how could there be an exposed liquid-like surface? In the ideal gas laws, there can't be. But if that top layer (i.e., the photosphere) is charged, and it's being held down firmly to an opposite charge, you could get a liquid, or even a supercritical fluid, at or very near the surface. The more powerful the charge, the greater the density of that supercritical fluid. And the greater the density, the shorter the mean free path between oscillating particles, hence the hotter the black-body temperature. So everything fits, with no spare parts, if you include charged double-layers. And the charge separation mechanism is gravity. So heavier stars have a more dense supercritical fluid surface issuing hotter BB radiation from a larger surface area, meaning greater luminosity. Smaller stars have a thinner fluid at the surface, meaning cooler BB radiation, from a smaller surface area, meaning less luminosity.
SUN’S CFDL TRANSITIONS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon May 12, 2014 6:24 pm
JeffreyW wrote: An additional question, where exactly do specific phase transitions happen inside of the star?
That's an excellent question! To know where the phase transitions occur, we'd have to know the internal temperatures, which is information that we do not have. It's made tougher to discern by the extreme pressures, meaning that most of the Sun is probably a supercritical fluid. IMO, the granular layer on the Sun is 4 Mm deep, and is made up of plasma at near supercriticality, while everything below that is supercritical. So it has the compressibility of a gas or plasma, but hydrodynamics of a liquid, and the density and conductivity (both thermal and electrical) of a solid. Further still, powerful electric fields remove the degrees of freedom, bringing in the properties of cryogenic superconductors. So I think that the core is actually at absolute zero, if you measure temperature by atomic motion, though in such unusual conditions, the whole concept of temperature isn't terribly meaningful.
JeffreyW wrote: What would convince the material in your model to require osmium versus iron and nickel, to move to the center and settle out in the star first? What properties of osmium besides being heavy dictate why it should comprise the center of stars instead of iron and nickel, which have lower ionization potentials (they recombine at higher temperatures)? In other words, do the ionization energies of specific elements/molecules play a part in the differentiation process in stellar evolution, a.k.a. Marklund Convection?
It wasn't ionization that dictated the elemental abundances in my model. Rather, I took the abundances in the photosphere, and calculated the density of the Sun. That came out way, way too light, using 75% hydrogen, 24% helium, and 1% traces of heavier elements. So I just re-scaled the abundances, reducing the relative amounts of light elements, and increasing the heavier elements, assuming that if there are traces of heavy elements in the photosphere, there are larger quantities of those elements deeper down. When I found the scaling factor that produced the proper overall density (i.e., 1408 kg/m3), it also produced three distinct layers, with 6th period elements in the core (osmium & platinum), 4th period elements in the radiative zone (nickel & iron), and 1st period elements in the convective zone (helium & hydrogen). These steps in mass would explain the helioseismic boundaries inside the Sun at .27 and .7 of the solar radius. And the additional information that we have about convection near the surface (especially supergranulation) fit neatly into the model. So it might not be a lot of information, but this model assimilates all of the information that we do have, and it all fits. So I'm going with it. …
CFDL’S ARE LIKE MAGNETS
Imagine the surface of the Earth as a heating element, at something like 1000 degrees C, but with a thick atmosphere, capable of blocking direct infrared radiation from the surface. From another planet, what would be the apparent temperature of the Earth? Well, it would be the temperature of the topmost layer of that thick atmosphere, at the edge of space, which is near absolute zero. So you think that it's a cold planet. Now imagine that you could magnetize the layers in the atmosphere, and polarize them, and the solid surface, such that they are all attracted to each other. Now the layers of the atmosphere would all slam down against the surface like so many refrigerator magnets stacked on top of each other. Under such a force, the atmosphere will be compacted into a solid right on top of the surface. And if the surface is running 1000 degrees C, and if all of that "atmosphere" now has the thermal conductivity of a solid, it will now be running at 1000 degrees C as well. Thus the apparent temperature of the Earth from elsewhere in space goes from near absolute zero to 1000 degrees C, even if the total thermal energy of the Earth was exactly the same as before, if you introduce another force that artificially alters the density near the surface. So this is what I'm saying about charged double-layers in the Sun, though it's the electric force, not the magnetic force.
JeffreyW wrote: AS long as their models don't violate basic thermodynamics, and have the process of stellar evolution being THE process of planet formation, meaning a star is a young planet, and a planet is an ancient evolving dying star, I am satisfied.
I agree!
SATURN FLARE AT HELIOPAUSE
Lloyd wrote: Cardona said that Saturn was a brown dwarf that flared upon reaching the heliosphere from outside and it then became a gas giant. If the data are accurate, do you see anything at the heliopause that would trigger a flare and the loss of a double layer etc from Saturn?
There is an electrical double-layer at the heliopause that might be relevant. Particles streaming in from the interstellar wind have their electrons stripped off in collisions, while the +ions burrow deeper into the heliosphere, due to the greater momentum. This leaves a layer of negative charge around the outside, with a layer of positive charge on the inside of the heliopause. Anything passing through the heliopause would get exposed to rapid changes in electrical potentials. That could certainly disrupt its own layers, possibly resulting in a flare-up, with disrupted layers recombining. And under those conditions, it wouldn't be just one big spark -- it would be a sustained flare-up, where recombination generated heat, that caused lower layers to expand, which reduced their density, which enabled them to recombine as well. It would have made an impressive sight.
VARIOUS MODELS
Lloyd wrote: Interstellar Currents
For those interested, I continue to flesh out my description of the various models, with for/against points. I really think that our time would be better spent laying out all of the reasoning for each model, rather than repeating ourselves over and over. In some cases, it has taken me years to discover the for/against points for some of the models, because they aren't all listed in one place. Like the "EU model" -- which EU model? I can't help but think that some of the ideas that I have neglected actually have more going for them, but the people who were so convinced that they were right and I was wrong didn't realize that there were things that they knew that I did not. So we need to lay these things out. Here's the folder for the Electric Star hypothesis: QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy / Stellar/Solar Models / Stellar Energy Sources / Hypotheses / Wal Thornhill: galactic electric currents thru stars lights them up.
MATTER FALLING INTO THE SUN
Lloyd wrote: There are figures available on how much is being radiated away, but I don't know about infalling matter. Does anyone?
From what I've seen, reliable numbers aren't available for that. Brant would know. IMO, the Sun undergoes a net mass loss to the solar winds, so it's dissipating. But for stellar theory in general, we should acknowledge that stars don't just keep accumulating matter until they have all that they will ever have, and then they wait a few seconds, and then they ignite themselves. Rather, "ignition" occurs when the compression of the matter creates temperatures sufficient for luminosity, which is surely when the "star" is still just a collapsing dusty plasma. The mainstream acknowledges that stars are formed this way, and that the temperatures exceed several thousand kelvins long before anything resembling a star gets organized. But they do not acknowledge that this should be visible in the night sky as a red giant. Perhaps that would get them too close to the realization that the dusty plasma should just bounce off of itself, so they fast-forward through that part, and their theory picks back up once all of the matter has accumulated in the center, when presto! the light bulb comes on.
BB RADIATION
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Mon May 12, 2014 9:43 pm
gamma ray wrote: So are you saying that carbon was always present during measurement of black body radiation experiments and so the cause of black body radiation is the heating of carbon, the element?
Yes, carbon was always present, and nobody ever produced black-body radiation in the lab without it (until just recently, when it was produced with supercritical hydrogen as well). But it wasn't carbon the element -- atomic carbon has emission/absorption lines just like all other elements. It has to be a graphene-like molecule, which emits/absorbs across a broad band of frequencies without any gaps (i.e., BB radiation). That includes graphite and supercritical hydrogen. (See Robitaille, P., 2008: Blackbody Radiation and the Carbon Particle. Progress in Physics, 3: 36-55)
As for the possibility that the Sun is incandescent carbon, there is certainly enough carbon there, since it's the 4th most abundant element in the photosphere. (See Anders, E.; Grevesse, N., 1989: Abundances of the elements: Meteoritic and solar. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53 (1): 197-214) But the temperature is a problem. Measured normal to the surface of the Sun, the temperature is 6400 K, but graphite sublimes at 5800 K. That might knock carbon out of the race, leaving supercritical hydrogen as the only contender.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Tue May 13, 2014 12:24 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Does supercritical hydrogen reach the other temperatures of the other stars that we have measured?
Yes -- the only theoretical limit to the temperature of supercritical hydrogen is how violent the atomic collisions can be before it disintegrates into quarks.
JeffreyW wrote: Are we sure there is even anything liquid or solid at all at those temperatures, or even in the same class as "supercritical"?
Supercritical is its own phase. It merges properties of solids, liquids, gases, and plasmas, while breaking the rules of all of them in one respect or another. So it doesn't have the same limits.
BB STRUCTURE
JeffreyW wrote: If we are to explain the BB radiation, we have to include not only the Sun, but the hottest stars.
Robitaille believes that it is the graphene-like molecular structure of hydrogen that is responsible for stellar BB radiation, but I'm not convinced that molecular structures are possible at 6,000 K, much less at 30,000 K. I'm also convinced that the BB radiation is coming from +ions, which are electron-poor, and thus less likely to be found in molecular arrangements. So I think that the BB radiation is coming from atoms vibrating within the constraints of Coulomb forces between +ions. So it isn't a crystal lattice -- it's a Coulomb lattice, so to say. In fact, I don't even think that it has to be hydrogen -- all elements lose their distinct spectral lines and start emitting/absorbing in broadband mode in the supercritical phase. For example, here's the power distribution for argon at increasing temperatures and pressures: {Link broke.}
JeffreyW wrote: An additional question, does a lighting bolt emit BB radiation?
I hadn't studied it before, but that's a great question, and that does appear to be the case. Here are some curves from lightning on Saturn, which clearly lack the distinct emission/absorption lines of a normal spectrum: https://transientskp.org/science/figures/planets4c.jpg
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Tue May 13, 2014 3:20 pm
JeffreyW wrote: Quarks don't make any sense. What does "up" or "strange" really mean anyways? I think we can safely ignore that garbage.
I'll go along with that. Sub-atomic physics is actually off of my radar screen. I just mentioned quarks by way of saying that protons are stable at stellar temperatures. I definitely agree that QM doesn't make any sense, and we are certainly not alone in thinking that sub-atomic physics is due for an overhaul.
JeffreyW wrote: What if that is what BB radiation is? Just +ions?
BB radiation is broad-band EM waves. Robitaille & I agree that it comes from the random oscillations of atomic nuclei, which generate waves due to their positive charge, and which don't have a specific frequency because of the randomness of the motion. Robitaille thinks that the nuclei are inside a crystal lattice oscillating within the constraints of covalent bonds, such as in this image:
I think that in stars, the +ions are free particles bouncing off of other +ions due to the Coulomb force. But either way, BB radiation is photons, not the particles that created them.
MARKLUND CONVECTION
As concerns Marklund Convection, just remember that magnetic pinches powerful enough to act as ion pumps only occur in relativistic jets. At non-relativistic velocities, the magnetic fields just aren't that powerful, and other factors take precedence, such as inertial, gravitational, and/or electric forces.
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Wed May 14, 2014 2:58 pm
JeffreyW wrote: I've always considered outer space to be an excellent vacuum. 25,000 volts per inch of breakdown voltage, which would translate to ~1,000,000 volts per meter, much different than 1V/m. Where did you get that number Charles?
Here's the reference for that: McBreen, B.; Winston, E.; McBreen, S.; Hanlon, L., 2005: Gamma-ray bursts and other sources of giant lightning discharges in protoplanetary systems. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 429: L41-L45
RELATIVISTIC VELOCITY
JeffreyW wrote: .23c is not relativistic. For the purposes of this thread, I think relativistic velocities are at least .99c and faster. The top 1% is where the magic happens, not .23c, that is nonsense gibberish.
You're right -- "relativistic" is a vague term. I use it in a vague way too. For example, the electrons in a lightning strike achieve roughly 1/10 the speed of light, and this is sufficient to generate a magnetic pinch that consolidates the charge stream into a narrow channel. It is also sufficient to be called "relativistic", at only 1/10 c. Likewise, bipolar jets from quasars, at .23 c, are moving fast enough to get magnetically pinched. But if you're talking about 99% c, then there isn't anything that has ever been observed that qualifies as "relativistic". So maybe magic happens at 99% c, but we really don't know.
SATURN THEORY PROBLEMS
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 15, 2014 9:07 am
JeffreyW wrote :Naw, free floating brown dwarfs are not lit up. If it was a matter of a brown dwarf coming into another hotter stars' heliosphere then the WISE telescope would have found stars in the brown dwarf mass ranges that shine with the same intensity of the Sun. They don't. So the idea of Saturn or Jupiter moving outside of the solar system and then "lighting up" so to speak is false.
Well, it might not be every day that a brown dwarf gets captured by a stellar system -- that might be a very rare event. And the flare-up stage might only last a couple of weeks or so. And I don't think that it would have been the same intensity as the Sun. So I don't find that part to be impossible. A bigger problem would be answering how Saturn got captured, and then fell into a nearly circular orbit around the Sun. Captured objects are supposed to be in highly elliptical orbits. I "think" that the answer to that is that there was a collision, which had two effects: 1) it left Saturn in a nearly circular orbit, and 2) it created a huge debris field, from which we get comets & asteroids. Now, the chance of a stellar system capturing a rogue brown dwarf is quite slight. Then, the chance of a collision in space is quite slight. So now we're talking about quite slight squared. Still, that doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
But where I get off is with the part about this all happening within human memory, and that the Earth was a moon of Saturn. I just don't see how the conditions would have been stable enough for humans to have survived all of that -- going from the moon of a rogue star, to that star getting captured by the Sun, through the flare-up as Saturn and the Earth passed through the heliopause, to Saturn hitting something, to the Earth falling into orbit around the Sun, and all the while, the "goldilocks" conditions on Earth persisted, such that humans could just sit and watch all of this -- I just can't get there. All of that is possible (though highly improbably), except for the temperature on Earth to stay within the habitable range. So, I've been wrong before, but that's my opinion.
YOUNG EARTH
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
by CharlesChandler » Thu May 15, 2014 6:33 pm
Lloyd wrote: The strongest proof, I think, that the surface is young is the fact that there is very little sediment on the ocean floors, only a few thousand years' worth, and that the current rate of erosion of the continents would erode them all completely under sea level within 20 million years, so the continents cannot be that old. Formation of rock strata, coal, oil, fossils etc has been proven to occur rapidly and dinosaur bones have been carbon dated to between 20 and 30 thousand years. … Earth may well have had a much thicker atmosphere before entering the solar system, which may have helped the transition.
That's interesting. A thicker atmosphere would also increase the buoyancy of objects such as dinosaurs. Some people are saying that dinosaur bones weren't strong enough to support their mass, nor is there any way to get tendons to stay connected when carrying that much weight, nor could their stomach linings have kept their internal organs in place. The conclusion is that the Earth must have been lighter when the dinos were running around. But more atmospheric pressure would increase the buoyancy, thereby relaxing the weight on the bones, and relieving the strain on the tendons, stomach linings, etc. It would also explain a redder Sun. Hmmm...
Lloyd wrote: If ancient humans weren't completely insane, making up ridiculous stories about human origins and absurd creatures etc, and if comparative mythology is able to find improbable common themes among myths of all ancient peoples, and if ancient drawings resemble plasma phenomena observed in modern labs etc, then the probability can be greatly increased over what it would otherwise be.
There we definitely agree -- something happened within human memory. But I favor the Younger Dryas Event as the catastrophe that got preserved in ancient myths and symbols. There would have been a fireball, and then huge chunks of the Laurentide Ice Sheet hurtling through space, carving out the Carolina Bays. And the atmosphere would have been filled with ice crystals, causing all kinds if prismatic effects. So I'm considering the possibility that a lot of what Talbott and Cardona have said about Saturn was true, but mis-attributed. But we both know that I'm just guessing here...
… I just wanted to mention that the above wasn't my idea. See DinosaurTheory.com, or Lloyd's summary on QDL, for more info.