I guess I should start it out right now, just to give people an idea of what I'm looking for. Properly training people to see through thickly coated writings will be an essential skill during this revolution.
Here is the abstract text:
We present an alternative technique for measuring the precursor masses of transient events in stars undergoing late stage stellar evolution. We use the well-established techniques of stellar population modeling to age-date the stars surrounding the site of the recent transient event in NGC 300 (NGC 300 OT2008-1). The surrounding stars must share a common turnoff mass with the transient, since almost all stars form in stellar clusters that remain physically associated for periods longer than the lifetime of the most massive stars. We find that the precursor of NGC 300 OT2008-1 is surrounded by stars that formed in a single burst between 8 and 13 Myr ago, with 70% confidence. The transient was therefore likely to be due to a progenitor whose mass falls between the main sequence turnoff mass (12-17 M sun) and the maximum stellar mass (16-25 M sun) found for isochrones bounding this age range. We characterize the general applicability of this technique in identifying precursor masses of historic and future transients and supernovae (SNe), noting that it requires neither precursor imaging nor sub-arcsecond accuracy in the position of the transient. It is also based on the well-understood physics of the main sequence, and thus may be a more reliable source of precursor masses than fitting evolutionary tracks to precursor magnitudes. We speculate that if the progenitor mass is gsim17 M sun, there may be a connection between optical transients such as NGC 300 OT2008-1 and the missing type II-P SNe, known as the "red supergiant problem."
Starting off, "stars undergoing late stage evolution."
With stelmeta, late stage star evolution stars are black dwarfs, brown dwarfs and blue dwarfs such as Earth, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. These stars are losing mass to radiation. This is understood as basic mass-energy equivalence, and the conservation of energy.
In the establishment's late stages of star evolution, they have "red giants" being towards the end. They have lost no mass in their "main sequence", because they assume that stars are in LTE, or Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. This is a false assumption right off the bat, because it contradicts the first law of thermodynamics or the conservation of energy. In order to have a red giant even form towards the end of its life, the star cannot radiate. Thus no star will ever become a "red giant". This actually puts into question the hypothesis of there even being red giants, or if they are just really close red dwarfs.
Next is the phrase, "Well-established techniques of stellar-population modelling to age-date the stars".
In stelmeta, a star has its own age. Determining a star's age based off the ages of close stars is assuming that those stars formed at the same time. This is the same mentality of nebular hypothesis pundits, which assume that the stars in our system are all ~4.5 billion years old, regardless if they are clearly in different stages of evolution, just because they are "close" to each other.
Establishment age-dates their stars based off the assumed "creation event", in which everything exploded into something, also violating the 1st law of thermodynamics, in which energy cannot surreptitiously appear out of nothing. Energy doesn't just appear out of nothing, it can transform into matter, but energy appearing out of nothing violates basic physical understanding. As you will note, we now have two ways in which they have ignored the 1st law of thermodynamics, the Big Bang event they are measuring stars against to age-date them and assuming stars are in LTE even though they are radiating.
This abstract fails for neglect of basic anchoring to the 1st law of thermodynamics, not once, but twice. We can actually find many thousands of astrophysical papers lacking of basic anchoring to well-understood principles of physical reality. This should help readers in the future to determine if the paper is worthy of reading, I do not mean to single these people out, I just chose a paper at random.
Does anybody else have an example of an arxiv.org paper lacking sufficient anchoring to reality?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
jw:
Thus no star will ever become a "red giant". This actually puts into question the hypothesis of there even being red giants, or if they are just really close red dwarfs.
Gacrux is also considered the nearest red giant to Earth, at a distance of roughly 88 light years.
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: Skepticism of unsupported claims Critical thinking Relies on evidence and reason Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge Produces useful knowledge Testability: Performs controlled experiments Attempts to repeat experimental results. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis Self-correcting
Seeing Red Giants Dec 14, 2009 Many red giant stars exhibit variations in their luminosities over periods of several months to a few years. Recent observations "show that all the possible explanations…fail."
Of course, what consensus astronomers think is possible excludes the possibilities from dissenters and other sciences. The consensus model attributes the luminosity variations to mechanical pulsations: the star expands and contracts, growing brighter and dimmer, its light output bouncing like a lid on a boiling pot. The boiling pot is the assumption that defines the consensus: a star is a gravitationally bound and internally heated ball of gas.
Complicating the consensus model is a longer-period secondary variability in some of the stars. As well, the stars eject an abundance of matter or surround themselves with expanding rings. It's hard to stretch the Victorian-era theories of gravity and gas around those observations, and the sharp details of the new observations have poked holes in the theories' coherence.
The Electric Universe is one of the dissenters: a star is an electromagnetically bound and externally powered discharge in plasma. A red giant is a star without a photosphere. Instead of the high-current-density arcs, or anode tufts, that radiate heat and light at high temperatures from the "surfaces" of stars like the Sun, a low-temperature chromosphere has expanded to scavenge enough electrons to maintain the red giant's discharge. Without a photosphere, the star lacks the regulatory mechanism that maintains a constant output in sun-like stars. (See "Transistor Action at the Solar Surface" in The Electric Sky by Donald Scott, p. 96.) Variations in the supply current cause the chromosphere to expand and contract, balancing the electron flow. The current density—and so the luminosity—vary in step.
The same effect occurs on the Sun above the (regulated) photosphere. The corona is exposed to the unmoderated supply current, and its luminosity varies accordingly. Since the Sun is much smaller than a red giant, the current density at the corona is much larger and the radiation is in the ultraviolet and x-ray range. In those wavelengths, the corona is dim at solar minimum and bright at solar maximum.
The chromosphere of a red giant is cool, so it is loaded with molecules and dust (clumps of molecules). It acts as an anode in the discharge, and the molecules and dust are positively charged. They act as charge carriers in the same way that protons do in the hotter discharge current (called, in consensus theory, a "wind") of the Sun. Astronomers see this flow of material and call it mass ejection, ignoring its electrical nature.
The acceleration of the charge carriers away from the anode—a characteristic that contradicts the idea of mechanical mass ejection—is due to the electric field. Naturally, as the driving voltage varies, the current—and hence the loss of matter—varies. The rings seen around some red giants appear when the dusty and molecular plasma of the positive current collects in the toroidal or ring currents that form around the discharge axes.
A persistent current requires a circuit, otherwise the positive charges build up at one end and the negative at the other until the electric field between them cancels out the driving voltage and the current stops. The presence of other elements in the circuit along with the red giant's chromosphere can produce oscillations in the current. Those other elements are such things as double layers, which may be invisible and which have capacitive properties, and the galactic Birkeland currents that act as transmission cables, which have inductive properties. Thus the periodic variations in the red giants' luminosity are neither unexpected nor difficult to explain: Our radio and television technologies are based on the fundamental ability of capacitors and inductors to cause oscillations in current flows.
These circuits can be traced in the spiral arms and magnetic fields of galaxies and between galaxies. The Electric Universe insight that a star is a plasma discharge in an external circuit provides a vision of the cosmos that is the diametrical opposite of the consensus vision. In the latter, the cosmos is a scattering of isolated specks in a vast emptiness; in the former, it is an interconnected web of coupled circuits.
Mel Acheson
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw:
Thus no star will ever become a "red giant". This actually puts into question the hypothesis of there even being red giants, or if they are just really close red dwarfs.
Gacrux is also considered the nearest red giant to Earth, at a distance of roughly 88 light years.
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: Skepticism of unsupported claims Critical thinking Relies on evidence and reason Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge Produces useful knowledge Testability: Performs controlled experiments Attempts to repeat experimental results. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis Self-correcting
You have failed to address the analysis of the abstract.
The analysis includes stars as not being in LTE or Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, thus meaning Red Giants are theoretical constructs that ignore the first law of thermodynamics.
Seeing Red Giants Dec 14, 2009 Many red giant stars exhibit variations in their luminosities over periods of several months to a few years. Recent observations "show that all the possible explanations…fail."
Of course, what consensus astronomers think is possible excludes the possibilities from dissenters and other sciences. The consensus model attributes the luminosity variations to mechanical pulsations: the star expands and contracts, growing brighter and dimmer, its light output bouncing like a lid on a boiling pot. The boiling pot is the assumption that defines the consensus: a star is a gravitationally bound and internally heated ball of gas.
Complicating the consensus model is a longer-period secondary variability in some of the stars. As well, the stars eject an abundance of matter or surround themselves with expanding rings. It's hard to stretch the Victorian-era theories of gravity and gas around those observations, and the sharp details of the new observations have poked holes in the theories' coherence.
The Electric Universe is one of the dissenters: a star is an electromagnetically bound and externally powered discharge in plasma. A red giant is a star without a photosphere. Instead of the high-current-density arcs, or anode tufts, that radiate heat and light at high temperatures from the "surfaces" of stars like the Sun, a low-temperature chromosphere has expanded to scavenge enough electrons to maintain the red giant's discharge. Without a photosphere, the star lacks the regulatory mechanism that maintains a constant output in sun-like stars. (See "Transistor Action at the Solar Surface" in The Electric Sky by Donald Scott, p. 96.) Variations in the supply current cause the chromosphere to expand and contract, balancing the electron flow. The current density—and so the luminosity—vary in step.
The same effect occurs on the Sun above the (regulated) photosphere. The corona is exposed to the unmoderated supply current, and its luminosity varies accordingly. Since the Sun is much smaller than a red giant, the current density at the corona is much larger and the radiation is in the ultraviolet and x-ray range. In those wavelengths, the corona is dim at solar minimum and bright at solar maximum.
The chromosphere of a red giant is cool, so it is loaded with molecules and dust (clumps of molecules). It acts as an anode in the discharge, and the molecules and dust are positively charged. They act as charge carriers in the same way that protons do in the hotter discharge current (called, in consensus theory, a "wind") of the Sun. Astronomers see this flow of material and call it mass ejection, ignoring its electrical nature.
The acceleration of the charge carriers away from the anode—a characteristic that contradicts the idea of mechanical mass ejection—is due to the electric field. Naturally, as the driving voltage varies, the current—and hence the loss of matter—varies. The rings seen around some red giants appear when the dusty and molecular plasma of the positive current collects in the toroidal or ring currents that form around the discharge axes.
A persistent current requires a circuit, otherwise the positive charges build up at one end and the negative at the other until the electric field between them cancels out the driving voltage and the current stops. The presence of other elements in the circuit along with the red giant's chromosphere can produce oscillations in the current. Those other elements are such things as double layers, which may be invisible and which have capacitive properties, and the galactic Birkeland currents that act as transmission cables, which have inductive properties. Thus the periodic variations in the red giants' luminosity are neither unexpected nor difficult to explain: Our radio and television technologies are based on the fundamental ability of capacitors and inductors to cause oscillations in current flows.
These circuits can be traced in the spiral arms and magnetic fields of galaxies and between galaxies. The Electric Universe insight that a star is a plasma discharge in an external circuit provides a vision of the cosmos that is the diametrical opposite of the consensus vision. In the latter, the cosmos is a scattering of isolated specks in a vast emptiness; in the former, it is an interconnected web of coupled circuits.
Mel Acheson
This also fails to address the analysis of the topic at hand. Red Giants are theoretical constructs that were invented to explain what supposedly happens to the other theoretical construct called "main sequence". Both the concepts of red giant and main sequence fail as they assume stars are in local thermodynamic equilibrium, or LTE. Thus, they ignore the first law of thermodynamics. This means they are unsound both in theory and in reality, as all stars shine, they are not in LTE.
This is the abstract page which I am referring to. I am currently showing readers that abstracts can,
1. Lack anchors to their theories, and 2. Ignore basic understood laws of physics
If there is further analysis of this abstracts issues please contribute if you will the lines in which stellar metamorphosis is compared and contrasted, and note the other assumptions. I will note the other assumptions in a little while, I had to get the first parts out of the way.
The Electric Star theory provides another explanation. An explanation that relies on the electrical connection stars have with their galactic neighborhood, and with the Universe. Stars shine because electricity flows through each galaxy. As has been written in these pages many times, stars can be thought of as giant spheres of slow-motion lightning. It is this simple hypothesis that best matches observational evidence.
Retired Professor of Electrical Engineering Don Scott wrote in his acclaimed book The Electric Sky that a star's size, luminosity, and color have little to do with its age. Stars fall into position on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram because of the input they receive from galactic electrical circuits. As Dr. Scott wrote, the primary indicator for a star's behavior is the current density at its surface. Stars do not rely on internally generated fusion fires to supply them with energy.
Red giant stars are relatively cool but extremely bright, so they are interpreted to be quite large. Scott proposes that the "giant" characteristic is a result of an exceptionally broad corona and not because the stellar disc is oversized. The star might be small inside its extended, energetic atmosphere. The fact that Betelgeuse has a temperature measurement of about 2900 Celsius calls into question the thermonuclear model of stars. How can such cool temperatures create a radiative output that is so extreme?
Physicist and Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill also proposes an electrical model for Betelgeuse, and red supergiant stars, in general. Electric currents in space are primarily due to the flow of electrons through interstellar plasma, and not the movement of positive ions. This means that stars are lacking in electrons because of a charge separation process. Stars can be considered "positive anodes in a galactic glow discharge." Therefore:
"Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma. So the star expands the surface area over which it collects electrons by growing a large plasma sheath that becomes the effective collecting area of the stellar anode in space. The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger. Electrons caught up in the field are accelerated to ever-greater energies. Before long, they become energetic enough to excite neutral particles they chance to collide with, and the huge sheath takes on a uniform 'red anode glow.' It becomes a red giant star."
Betelgeuse is an electric star, and the bright regions are areas where electric currents are flowing with the greatest Amperage.
Stephen Smith
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky,
You have failed to address the analysis yet again.
For readers of this thread, we have now come to the clear conclusion that Sparky does not wish to engage in analysis of the topic at hand, but only to quote irrelevant ideas which do not address the issue of thermodynamics. Nowhere in any articles that Sparky has posted addresses anything concerning the issue of violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, either in star evolution or determining the ages of stars.
If there are people who wish to address the issue please feel free to comment. I am keeping this thread on task and focused as best as I can. Again, here is the abstract in which I am focusing on:
irrelevant ideas which do not address the issue of thermodynamics. Nowhere in any articles that Sparky has posted addresses anything concerning the issue of violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics
I am pointing at "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis", with more viable speculations, than the speculations you present.
jw:
I am keeping this thread on task and focused as best as I can. Again,
That is an obvious hypocritical statement. You have taken this thread off onto various "off topic" areas, mostly the demeaning of those who oppose your highly speculative hypothesis.
I have pointed out some of your unscientific statements, which conform to these loose rules of science.
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: Skepticism of unsupported claims ( You only are skeptical of standard and EU models.) Critical thinking (You exhibit no critical thinking. Mostly self serving melodrama and "diarrhea of the mouth transferred here as writing", as aero pointed out) Relies on evidence and reason (You have no evidence and show little reason.) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge (Your entire tirade is a claim to have absolute and certain knowledge.) Produces useful knowledge NOPE! Testability: Performs controlled experimentsNOPE! Attempts to repeat experimental results.NOPE! Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis( If you have, I missed it. Besides, I don't think that your lack of critical thinking and evidence to compare to, along with your "fragile ego", which aero suggested would allow you to examine, without extreme bias, the alternatives. Self-correctingNO WAY! You have driven yourself off the cliff and near the bottom, refuse to admit the highly speculative nature of your hypothesis! Sad!
If you want to talk about thermodynamics, you could start a thread about that.
But, you said that you would not post to "Anonymous" members!
Sorry, Vincent Aero, you are on jw's black list.....
aaero to jw:
If anything this entire thread is the filibuster of the century. The premise has been restated 500 times.
How true!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: :roll:
You have failed to address the subject at hand again.
A continuation of the subject at hand, the further analysis of the abstraction page concerning the NGC 300 transient.
This statement stands out as well:
"The transient was therefore likely to be due to a progenitor whose mass falls between the main sequence turnoff mass (12-17 M sun) and the maximum stellar mass (16-25 M sun) found for isochrones bounding this age range."
Stating that a "progenitor" is included assumes that they already understand the models of star evolution, inside of their again theoretical assumed "main sequence turnoff mass" and theoretical assumed "maximum stellar mass". These series of statements are simply a more elaborate repeating of their original assumption of stellar evolution being "well-understood", even though they neglect the reality that stars are not in LTE, or Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.
As well, for the readers it should be explained now what exactly a stellar "isochrone" really is. It is a track on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Here is an example of the isochrone tracks:
Two things concerning this series of isochrone tracks:
1. The isochrone tracks form absent any objects being present. They just appear out of nothing and disintegrate into nothing. They are born as stars and then they disappear as stars. In other words, they are completely mutually exclusive anything "planet" related, which is in line with accepted standard solar models. In accepted standard solar models they posit gravitational fields being present absent matter, Mr. Crothers overviews this contradiction extensively in his writings on the failure of General Relativity. Here is Mr. Crothers's website:
2. The isochrone tracks are helpful for a mathematical description if stars did not lose or gain any appreciable mass during their lifetimes, thus the tracks are clearly based on mathematical models which neglect the 1st law of thermodynamics, stars are radiating, thus are losing vast amounts of mass over their life time.
Comparing stelmeta and the standard model we see stelmeta is not based on mathematical models which ignore thermodynamics, if any math person is reading this, we can calculate the eventual age of the Sun as plotted against its rate of mass loss, given the mass loss or radiating nature of the Sun will diminish asymptotically.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jw
irrelevant ideas which do not address the issue of thermodynamics. Nowhere in any articles that Sparky has posted addresses anything concerning the issue of violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics
I am pointing at "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis", with more viable speculations, than the speculations you present.
jw:
I am keeping this thread on task and focused as best as I can. Again,
That is an obvious hypocritical statement. You have taken this thread off onto various "off topic" areas, mostly the demeaning of those who oppose your highly speculative hypothesis.
I have pointed out some of your unscientific statements, which conform to these loose rules of science.
Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria: Skepticism of unsupported claims ( You only are skeptical of standard and EU models.) Critical thinking (You exhibit no critical thinking. Mostly self serving melodrama and "diarrhea of the mouth transferred here as writing", as aero pointed out) Relies on evidence and reason (You have no evidence and show little reason.) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge (Your entire tirade is a claim to have absolute and certain knowledge.) Produces useful knowledge NOPE! Testability: Performs controlled experimentsNOPE! Attempts to repeat experimental results.NOPE! Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis( If you have, I missed it. Besides, I don't think that your lack of critical thinking and evidence to compare to, along with your "fragile ego", which aero suggested would allow you to examine, without extreme bias, the alternatives. Self-correctingNO WAY! You have driven yourself off the cliff and near the bottom, refuse to admit the highly speculative nature of your hypothesis! Sad!
If you want to talk about thermodynamics, you could start a thread about that.
But, you said that you would not post to "Anonymous" members!
Sorry, Vincent Aero, you are on jw's black list.....
aaero to jw:
If anything this entire thread is the filibuster of the century. The premise has been restated 500 times.
How true!
jeffrey, where is the manipulative tirade, the gibberish , and the nonsensical, off topic distracting pseudoscience , which we need to evaluate your hypothesis?
jw:
are radiating, thus are losing vast amounts of mass over their life time.
A speculation that has become an assumption for you... But can they gain any?
Have you thought that maybe using standard science to support your hypothesis, while dismissing it is a bit odd?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: jeffrey, where is the manipulative tirade, the gibberish , and the nonsensical, off topic distracting pseudoscience , which we need to evaluate your hypothesis?
You have failed to address the subject at hand again.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In other words, there is only one real isochrone track in stelmeta, in the standard model there can be many hundreds of theoretical tracks.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I can't defend standard theory, but that seems to be inaccurate, especially when you have no method of star production, thus age of star is unknown.
You have taken this thread off onto various "off topic" areas, mostly the demeaning of those who oppose your highly speculative hypothesis.
