Ideally we would need a survey of dozens of solar systems, hundreds, in order to see if there is a proportional/ratio trend in each system's planets, ie, Titus-Bode Law: http://www.titius-bode-law-explain.co.za/index.html
But we cannot do that anytime soon. Extrasolar planets are only detectable if they are giant. Small rocky worlds cannot be detected at this time, to my knowledge.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Ideally we would need a survey of dozens of solar systems, hundreds, in order to see if there is a proportional/ratio trend in each system's planets, ie, Titus-Bode Law: http://www.titius-bode-law-explain.co.za/index.html
But we cannot do that anytime soon. Extrasolar planets are only detectable if they are giant. Small rocky worlds cannot be detected at this time, to my knowledge.
Small rocky stars were detected. There are many dozens of them detected. They are black dwarf stars, stars at the very end of their evolution just like Earth.
As a matter of fact many hundreds of evolved stars have been detected that are even smaller in mass than Jupiter!
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.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, I don't follow to your conclusion that a vacuum is a perfect conductor, from your example. A vacuum would have maximum current regardless of gap....BUT, If you are sure about that, I'll just accept it and move on to the next mystery...
19 Jul 2012: The parent star is a triple (Santerne et al. 2012). The planet mass is 9.4 or 14.8 MJup depending which star the planet is transiting (Santerne et al. 2012).
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.
I don't follow still. If vacuum was a perfect conductor, then we could take a closed circuit, cut the wire in the closed circuit and the current would still flow, but it won't flow. Vacuum doesn't conduct electricity at all.
In this image the gap created at the right would represent the break in the current carrier. If you break a circuit in vacuum, the circuit does not keep perpetually open, because the vacuum is an insulator of 25,000 volts/inch. Vacuum is even a better insulator than air, because in air depending on the length of the gap, the current will jump the gap. This is why contacts inside of starters that I repair have pitting, because large sparks jump the gap before it closes all the way, to complete the circuit.
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?
I think you are referring to vacuum being an almost perfect conductor of radiation, not electricity. Thus you are actually referring to thermodynamics, not electrical current. This makes much more sense. In vacuum, there is nothing for radiation to heat up, thus it travels for as long as it wants, as far as it wants (with very little "resistance") This is why we can see objects that are many light years away.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Charles, I don't follow to your conclusion that a vacuum is a perfect conductor, from your example. A vacuum would have maximum current regardless of gap....BUT, If you are sure about that, I'll just accept it and move on to the next mystery...
19 Jul 2012: The parent star is a triple (Santerne et al. 2012). The planet mass is 9.4 or 14.8 MJup depending which star the planet is transiting (Santerne et al. 2012).
The arrangement of stars is irrelevant in this theory. A coincidence. A random pick of cards. A coin toss.
People are looking at the arrangment of them thinking that will bring answers, it will not. The only statistical relevance it has is the fact that for every "star" we see, it will be hosting a "planet". This is true, because as I said over and over, the "star" IS the "planet". Your scientists call older stars planets, and they call new planets "stars".
The ranges of masses/sizes is also irrelevant. Stars are not in thermodynamics equilibrium, they are radiating their mass away as they die. Thus, the less massive ones are clearly much older, as they have radiated most of their mass away as energy. This is basic mass-energy equivalence.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, I still don't follow. Guess that may be because I've never worked with a real vacuum....let me sleep on it tonight.....maybe I'll get up to speed with this thread by having a revelation...
gtsm is nonsense......,makes no sense at all....a complete delusion. ....fantasy for scify addicts....
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
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.
That's pretty straightforward.
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.
The only way to get charge separation between bodies such as Earth and the Sun would be if vacuum was a dielectric, but it isn't! Its vacuum, a great conductor of electricity! Again the idea of electrical scarring of black dwarfs is impossible!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Charles, I still don't follow. Guess that may be because I've never worked with a real vacuum....let me sleep on it tonight.....maybe I'll get up to speed with this thread by having a revelation...
gtsm is nonsense......,makes no sense at all....a complete delusion. ....fantasy for scify addicts....
Off topic.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So what we have here is double trouble for EU:
1. Vacuum is a great conductor, thus no charge separation in vacuum, thus nothing powering the Sun electrically because there is no voltage drop.
2. Vacuum is a great insulator, thus no charge equalization in vacuum, thus nothing powering the Sun electrically because the voltage drop is too great!
So it literally doesn't matter if vacuum is a great insulator or a great conductor! EU fails both ways! No wonder mainstream ignores electricity in outer space, even if vacuum was a great insulator or conductor neither work!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So what we have here is double trouble for EU:
More illogical nonsense! There is no vacuum! The solar system is electrically conducting! All stars are electrical! Plasma makes up 99% of the observable universe! Stars and large gas planets probably fission to release electrical stress, and leave behind other stars, planets, and moons. Stars probably do not die!!!!!! Only a distorted imagination can construct such a thing!!! The space between stars is really, really large.! We have no idea how far the edge of the observable universe is.! The electrical activity distorts the incoming spectrum, giving false readings. We are and exist in a sea of electrical currents, magnetic fields, and radiations.!
Still waiting for any, just one , example that suggests that stars die and/or that planets are burned out stars.;...
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@Charles
I am also wondering about the Sun radiating energy and releasing matter away from it. In order to conserve for energy and matter the Sun has to be absorbing just as much energy and matter as it releases, yet it is radiating and spewing matter.
Way more energy and matter is coming out of the Sun than what is going in. Besides, if matter was moving into the Sun would not the solar wind go in reverse? If radiation was going into the Sun, then there would need to be a hotter body providing it, because heat only flows in one direction the hotter to the colder!
Thus, if the Sun is to be powered externally:
1. The solar wind would need to go backwards to replace the matter lost to solar flares and radiation (mass-energy equivalence) 2. outer space itself has to be hotter than the Sun to keep it hot!
But neither of these things are true!
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! Its really bad to have a model which violates thermodynamics. We all know of other models that violate thermodynamics, big bang, black holes, the standard evolution of stars (they are not in LTE), etc.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Ideally we would need a survey of dozens of solar systems, hundreds, in order to see if there is a proportional/ratio trend in each system's planets, ie, Titus-Bode Law: http://www.titius-bode-law-explain.co.za/index.html
But we cannot do that anytime soon. Extrasolar planets are only detectable if they are giant. Small rocky worlds cannot be detected at this time, to my knowledge.
Small rocky stars were detected. There are many dozens of them detected. They are black dwarf stars, stars at the very end of their evolution just like Earth.
As a matter of fact many hundreds of evolved stars have been detected that are even smaller in mass than Jupiter!
gtsm is nonsense......,makes no sense at all....a complete delusion.
Its really bad to have a model which violates thermodynamics. We all know of other models that violate thermodynamics, big bang, black holes, the standard evolution of stars (they are not in LTE), etc.
