CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
These points are not easily proved one way or the other, we could debate them for a week and not be in agreement, so I leave them for now and go for the easy one....
CharlesChandler wrote: I have questioned the equivalence of mass and energy.
I don't know how many particle accelerators there are in the world ? thousands? high school students have built them and cloud chambers. In these charged particles are accelerated faster and faster and when they approach the speed of light they cant get too much faster , but their energy ,momentum, still goes up and up because their mass increases. Here you can see a direct conversion of energy to mass , provable by allowing the particle to collide with something and measuring the results in a cloud chamber. Such experiments have been performed and witnessed by millions . I can't imagine where the error could be.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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?
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
oz93666 wrote: ......it merely assumes the conclusion. "If" a particle cannot exceed the speed of light (which is one of the axioms of GR)......
There is no assumption, we can measure the speed very accurately, we know the circumference of the accelerator and can register each time the particle goes round...
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: There is no assumption, we can measure the speed very accurately, we know the circumference of the accelerator and can register each time the particle goes round...
How? I'm not going to take your word for it.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Regarding Iron having the highest binding energy of any element , this explains why Iron is the most common element on/in Earth 32.1% . I think this is a good example how something like nuclear physics which is all figured out by experiments performed on Earth in colliders and such like can have a practical bearing on stellar metamorphosis. Although you say GR has nothing to do with SM I think it may do in ways we don't yet understand. Even with regard to redshift it's very important. I'm the first to admit I find GR very difficult to fully understand but I think like nuclear physics we have to stick at it, go over the basics again and again till we get it. Wikipedia covers it all very well. Back to the Earth, I remember reading somewhere that it's now thought that at the center of the earth is a sphere of molten uranium 1 or 2 km in diameter slowly undergoing fission , it makes sense since its denser than iron it would fall to the center . This conclusion was reached by catching gasses emitted by volcanoes the distribution of isotopes in the gasses could only have come from an active fission event, we are told.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
oz93666 wrote: There is no assumption, we can measure the speed very accurately, we know the circumference of the accelerator and can register each time the particle goes round...
How? I'm not going to take your word for it.
We know the circumference of accelerator by measuring it with a tape measure. If we consider the Synchrotron type of accelerator, particles are injected in a bunch , and go around and around all the time emitting synchrotron radiation (EM radiation from IR to X ray) if a detector is placed on the outside of the tube it will register a pulse each time the 'bunch' passes
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: If we consider the Synchrotron type of accelerator, particles are injected in a bunch , and go around and around all the time emitting synchrotron radiation (EM radiation from IR to X ray) if a detector is placed on the outside of the tube it will register a pulse each time the 'bunch' passes
So what is involved in the collision — a single particle, or the whole bunch, or something in-between?
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: So what is involved in the collision — a single particle, or the whole bunch, or something in-between?
The whole process is very satisfactory for doubting Thomas s such as us, we can see the whole thing ,particle by particle, real time, in a bubble chamber ,or cloud chamber. Anyone can make a cloud chamber with a jam jar, some dry ice , and acetone (I think that's right,I'm sure its on the web somewhere). You get it so the gas in the jar is just on the point of forming 'clouds' , then particles entering the gas form tiny trails in the gas as they 'seed the clouds' . You can 'see' cosmic rays as they streak through the gas in the jar. Professionals use bubble chambers(the size of a room), liquid hydrogen, the principal is similar but we get trails of tiny H bubbles in the liquid hydrogen as the particles shoot through . So the high energy particles are fired into the chamber, collide with one of the H atoms and send a shower of particles in all directions as things break up into muons and quarks and all sorts, and most of these form trails in the liquid hydrogen ,in addition a magnetic field is passes through the chamber ,which makes all charged particles spiral, measuring the curvature of the spiral indicates the amount of charge. With accelerators and bubble chambers a great deal has been figured out, all testable, repeatable. But we're digressing , not only has Einstein s mass energy equivalence been proved , but also the idea that time slows down when moving, particles with a known half-life live longer when moving at speed in these accelerators .
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: Regarding Iron having the highest binding energy of any element , this explains why Iron is the most common element on/in Earth 32.1% . I think this is a good example how something like nuclear physics which is all figured out by experiments performed on Earth in colliders and such like can have a practical bearing on stellar metamorphosis. Although you say GR has nothing to do with SM I think it may do in ways we don't yet understand. Even with regard to redshift it's very important. I'm the first to admit I find GR very difficult to fully understand but I think like nuclear physics we have to stick at it, go over the basics again and again till we get it. Wikipedia covers it all very well. Back to the Earth, I remember reading somewhere that it's now thought that at the center of the earth is a sphere of molten uranium 1 or 2 km in diameter slowly undergoing fission , it makes sense since its denser than iron it would fall to the center . This conclusion was reached by catching gasses emitted by volcanoes the distribution of isotopes in the gasses could only have come from an active fission event, we are told.
Yeah, it could be uranium, but then again, I'm not trying to make everything all difficult to understand. lol
the reason why I keep iron/nickel as the center elements because they:
1. Have the highest binding energy. (uranium's binding energy is lower, weaker) 2. Are very strong even under high temps and pressures (iron/nickel alloys are what they use in turbofans, not titanium alloys) (uranium is weaker) 3. Are magnetic, meaning they will clump together if an electric current is passed through them. (uranium is not ferromagnetic) 4. We can see the smashed up bit and pieces of the cores of old stars, they are called meteorites, and the ones that reach the Earth's surface from atmospheric entry are usually always of mostly iron/nickel composition, not uranium or other heavy elements.
In stelmeta iron/nickel meteorites are the cores of ancient completely destroyed stars. What I'm saying is that the "falling stars" of the ancients WERE/ARE "falling star guts". LOL!!!
In stelmeta a core is formed only from the most stable elements. uranium is not stable, heck it is radioactive! lolol That would be like trying to build a house on quick sand! The first thing a star has to do to form a core is build from the bottom up, just like in construction. you don't build the pool on the building first, you build the foundation. In stelmeta the foundation, (the stuff that's heavier, stronger and more stable than bedrock), IS the iron/nickel core. You can't have star evolution without the star first forming a core. Without a stable core, there is nothing to layer the other elements on top of!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I look at the Earth as I would a construction project of a large building.
You build the interior or foundation first and then work your way outwards.
According to establishment, to make something like Earth, you push a whole bunch of rocks together because of gravity, and THEN heat them up, and THEN differentiate them.
They got it all wrong. The gravity isn't present to bring the rocks together (not to mention they assume gravity can chemically combine elements into rocks which is strange) to begin with. In outer space there is no gravitation outside of a gravitating body, yet they invoke gravity where ever they need it (this is also strange).
So they bring (preformed) rocks together because of gravity, even though there is no Earth present in the area to cause the gravitational field that the rocks are conglomerating inside of. This is a logical contradiction. There is no such thing as a gravitational field without a gravitating body. In math you can separate a gravitational field from the gravitating body (by inserting an equals sign) but not in physics.
Once the pre-formed rocks are clumped together with a gravity field that is absent a gravitating body, establishment mathematicians proceed to heat up the rocks absent a heat source. They say, "its radioactivity" that heats the rocks. Nope. Doesn't work. If it was radioactivity that was heating the rocks, then why do people not die from cancer when they study lava? Lava is clearly not heated via radioactivity. If lava was heated via radioactivity, would lava be radioactive?
After that, they then have iron sink to the center. This is the really bizarre part. Silver is in the crust and has a lower melting point and is HEAVIER than iron. Why is it still there? If this magical sinking of iron happened?
The answers to this are simple and do not require math or many dozens of years of schooling:
The gravity needed to keep all the stuff coherent as the core (planet) forms inside of it IS the star itself. Stars have strong gravitation fields!
The heat needed to melt the material comes from the star itself! Stars are hot! Kindergartners know this.
The iron catastrophe is bogus. You don't form an object and then differentiate it. The differentiation happens AS its forming. The elements that have the lowest ionization potential move to the center (iron/nickel), the highest ionization potentials move to the outside (hydrogen/helium).
After many billions of years of this differentiating process the star eventually dies and the core that it formed (planet) wanders the galaxy smashing into other cores creating debris fields. Its like the Lion King circle of life out there. lol
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz:
time slows down when moving,
That is an assumption, built upon the "relativity" speculation...
If matter is moving, then energy is applied to make it move and energy is taken from or given to the aether as it moves. The arrow of "time" is not a real thing, it is a term used to manipulate progression in matter equations.
Matter is affected by movement,not time...
The "Common sense" of jw's validates that!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: So what is involved in the collision — a single particle, or the whole bunch, or something in-between?
But we're digressing, not only has Einstein's mass energy equivalence been proved, but also the idea that time slows down when moving, particles with a known half-life live longer when moving at speed in these accelerators.
Ummm... you didn't answer my question.
To accelerate the discussion, the next question is: assuming that the particles are traveling in clumps, and that the velocity of the clump is accurately measured (because that sounded reasonable), how is the total energy in the collision measured?
The reason for the question is that 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.
Subsequent observations showed that the pulsar is in a close orbit with a white dwarf star, and that pair is in orbit with another, more-distant white dwarf.
Evidently these objects don't use the same "common sense" that predicts star evolution.
Subsequent observations showed that the pulsar is in a close orbit with a white dwarf star, and that pair is in orbit with another, more-distant white dwarf.
Evidently these objects don't use the same "common sense" that predicts star evolution.
I have reported you to the thread moderator. You have repeatedly made clear that you have no interest in discussing the thread title "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis". Please go to other threads, you are wasting my time and the time of those who are interested in the thread title.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Please go to other threads, you are wasting my time and the time of those who are interested in the thread title.
My apologies for the off-topic exchange between me & oz93666 on relativity. You said it doesn't figure in stelmeta; I said that GR is BS anyway; now me & oz93666 are going at it. But hey — it's an EU tradition — just pick whichever thread has been going the longest, and talk about whatever. But you're right that Sparky isn't contributing to this one, which is unusual, because he's generally pretty open-minded and amiable. Maybe he just doesn't like you. Anyway, the scrap between me & oz won't last much longer. When it comes to the simplest assertions of GR, if you start questioning, you don't get much in the way of answers. And it doesn't interest me enough to start another thread. So please forgive me for going OT on this one.
But you're right that Sparky isn't contributing to this one, which is unusual, because he's generally pretty open-minded and amiable. Maybe he just doesn't like you.
