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.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
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.
Does supercritical hydrogen reach the other temperatures of the other stars that we have measured?
The Sun is cool (type G, 5200-6000 K) compared to these bad boys:
Type F, 6000-7500 K Type A, 7500-10,000 K Type B, 10,000-30,000 K
And finally the hottest:
Type O, >30,000
Are we sure there is even anything liquid or solid at all at those temperatures, or even in the same class as "supercritical"? If we are to explain the BB radiation, we have to include not only the Sun, but the hottest stars. In other words, we are missing something very important here. An additional question, does a lighting bolt emit BB radiation?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
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:
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:
CharlesChandler wrote: Yes — the only theoretical limit to the temperature of supercritical hydrogen is how violent the atomic collisions can be before it disintegrates into quarks.
I personally think quark theory is pseudoscience. I'll have you know Charles I personally remember when I was 12 years old and I got a hold of Stephen Hawking's book called "A Brief History of Time". My grandfather had it on his coffee table. I remember talking to him about that stuff, and he mostly was skeptical of it all. He was a civil engineer and a pilot.
I think it mentioned quark theory in there and as a 12 year old I thought it was nonsense. How does one take a fundamental particle and make more "fundamental particles"? I have always consider quark theory to be garbage. It was the 1996 version, so yea, I was born in 1984, so I was 12 years old.
Quarks don't make any sense. What does "up" or "strange" really mean anyways? I think we can safely ignore that garbage. One person's treasure is another's trash, well, quark theory is treasure to particle physicists, trash to a natural philosopher.
JeffreyW wrote: If we are to explain the BB radiation, we have to include not only the Sun, but the hottest stars.
CharlesChandler wrote: I'm also convinced that the BB radiation is coming from +ions, which are electron-poor,
What if that is what BB radiation is? Just +ions? Is that not what Marklund Convection is? Check it out its on the wikipedia page for Marklund Convection:
"Hannes Alfvén showed that elements with the lowest ionization potential are brought closest to the axis, and form concentric hollow cylinders whose radii increase with ionization potential. The drift of ionized matter from the surroundings into the rope means that the rope acts as an ion pump, which evacuates surrounding regions, producing areas of extremely low density."
It just means the BB spectrum is just the intensity of the ion pump. It also means as the ions are pumped out of the Sun, it makes a young star a vacuum in its interior and absent a "core". Am I missing something? Wrong somewhere?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
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.
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.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: sub-atomic physics is due for an overhaul.
Yes, it is. Have you read Mr. Unzicker's book on the Higgs Fake? There's a lot more to it than meets the eye and Mr. Unzicker really nails those people to the wall.
CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
I do not think the "atomic nuclei" are the nucleus of the atom, I think the nuclei could be the atom itself according to Larson's argument.http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm Which I also believe needs to be put on QDL just in case establishment goons try to erase it. Rutherford's scattering experiment somehow concluded that the particles were being deflected by the atom, and that they also passed through parts of the atom. I think that was incorrect. I think the scattering experiments found out the true "size" of the atom, in that the nucleus IS the atom itself. Thus, the atom does not have a nucleus, and the coulomb barrier IS the proposed diameter of each different kind of "element" according to establishment.
An "atom" containing a nucleus begets an even smaller structure and that's where I think the "particle physicists" started going crazy. I think the REAL diameter of an atom IS the diameter of the nucleus of establishment. Thus, it could be the actual SIZE of the coulomb barrier that gives atoms their different electromagnetic and physical properties. This is going into a whole other thing, I don't want to get too far off topic here.
CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
I have had the worst problem with photons as well btw. Microwaves are not expressed in photons, radio waves aren't, gamma rays aren't, infrared radiation isn't, why is it just visible light that is expressed in photons? I think this is the root of mathematical particle-wave duality, there isn't any duality. They invented the "particle" to quantize light, but light is continuous structure! It is not a quantized entity such as "photon"! That is also another off topic issue that deserves attention. I think the mathematicians have bastardized reality again by making a naturally continuous structure, light, as quantized bits of matter to make their dear math work. They need to be fired!!
CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
What do you mean relativistic jets? What does this mean? Like a water sprinkler? What do you mean by non-relativistic velocities? Everytime I hear you say "relativistic jets" I think of matter creation itself in which quasars grow their arms and become galaxies:
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
For example, here's the power distribution for argon at increasing temperatures and pressures:
I do not like the log scale on the left, it makes the right appear distorted. I have noticed the misuse of graphs a lot in scientific literature and in global warming propaganda. The make the differences appear very large by allowing very small percentages on the left hand scale, and things appear all sorts of messed up by even introducing functions on the Y-axis as well.
I do not intend to confuse readers with this stuff. Causing confusion is the goal of establishment for career security of its in-group, I want to make everything I consider easy to read and understand. If it cannot be easily understood, then I do not want anything to do with it. I have wasted enough time trying to make sense of General Relativity, just to find out it is actually general pseudoscience.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
When matter is emitted at speeds approaching the speed of light, these jets are called relativistic jets.
Black-body radiation is the type of electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, or emitted by a black body (an opaque and non-reflective body) held at constant, uniform temperature. The radiation has a specific spectrum and intensity that depends only on the temperature of the body.---------At higher temperatures, black bodies glow with increasing intensity and colors that range from dull red to blindingly brilliant blue-white as the temperature increases.
Although planets and stars are neither in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings nor perfect black bodies, black-body radiation is used as a first approximation for the energy they emit.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
So relativistic jets means really fast and non-relativistic jets means slow.
What would be the cut off? 99.9% the speed of light? 99% the speed of light? 99.999% the speed of light?
I looked on the wikipedia page "astrophysical jet" and it has velocities of .23c for SS433.
Yet in the same area it has relativistic jet as being .99995c
To to people who understand special relativity, .23c is snails pace compared to .99995c. That is like comparing the velocity of a snail to a comet.
It is NOT the difference between 23 miles per hour and 99.9 miles an hour, velocity is exponential as one approaches the speed of light. I'm not too sure if the people on this forum will understand this.
In other words, they have super slow jets at .23c as relativistic and .99995c as relativistic as well.
.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.
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?
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.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: So maybe magic happens at 99% c, but we really don't know.
I think it does, but that is off topic. Our buddies from outside of our solar system use this basic principle when travelling from star system to star system. I guess for my readers I do have to explain this:
1. 99% light speed is incredibly fast (but not fast enough)
2. 99.9% light speed is 10X, 10 times faster than 99%
3. 99.99% light speed is 100X, 100 times faster than 99%
4. 99.999% light speed is 1000X, 1000 times faster than 99%
5. 99.9999% light speed is 10,000X, 10,000 times faster than 99%
In other words, as the approach to light speed is reached, time itself stops being a variable as the space in front of the craft collapses, and the structure of the craft itself starts changing. Thus, light speed itself is not a velocity. It was such an incredible understanding at the time that Einstein was thrust into the spotlight. (Unfortunately all his other ideas were given too much credence, barf.)Thus we can travel anywhere in the galaxy within a few days, given we know the coordinates of our destination, and the future position of the destination we will be travelling to, and our travel time is significantly cut down based on our velocity on approach to light speed.
Those who really understand what light speed means understand that it isn't a "speed" in classical terms, or length by distance travelling, because on the approach to light speed, the length contracts, thus time travelled itself also collapses.
I didn't understand this at first when I started looking into it, but now I do understand it. Gravitation travels at the "speed of light", thus it's pull is instantaneous. It doesn't appear to be instantaneous to our frame of reference, but I assure you, if you were riding the light beam from the Sun to the Earth travel time would be instantaneous, not 8 minutes or whatever in which we observe it.
It is really ironic though, because GR tries to "use" special relativity to explain gravitation, on the contrary, GR contradicts special relativity. The light doesn't bend at all, because its travel time is instantaneous from object to object. The light is straight as an arrow in vacuum.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Saturn Nova?
Lloyd: 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?
CC: 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 [Explosively?]. 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.
- Would you care to walk us (and maybe yourself) through a Saturn Nova? - How many CFDLs would Saturn have started with outside the solar system and how many would it have now? - Would it now have the same number as the Earth? - Since planets and stars have different sizes, does that mean the outer double layer can build up or tear down partway, rather than totally? - Would Saturn's outer layer have been positive when it entered the heliosphere? - Would the negative layer of the heliosphere at the heliopause react explosively as Saturn's outer layer penetrated it? - And how would Saturn's outer layer then react to the positive inner layer at the heliopause? - Cardona has said that Saturn likely entered the heliosphere at a shallow angle. Do you have a way to calculate how much more mass Saturn may have had before entering the heliosphere? - If Earth and Mars were trailing behind Saturn, would they likely have lost atmosphere in the process of entering the heliosphere? - If Saturn had bipolar jets, as Cardona says many brown dwarfs do at times, do you have ideas about when such jets would form and what effects they'd have during entry into the solar system? Cardona says the polar column was likely half of a bipolar jet. - And do you have ideas about how the Saturn system would have broken up near Jupiter or the asteroid belt? Cardona thinks the asteroid belt resulted from the breakup.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Would you care to walk us (and maybe yourself) through a Saturn Nova?
I haven't explicitly studied the gas giants yet, so I wouldn't be able to start guessing at the number of double-layers, or the charges between them, or anything like that. I was just saying that generically speaking, a charged object passing rapidly through a large voltage drop would likely light up.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote: Saturn Nova?
Lloyd: 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?
CC: 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 [Explosively?]. 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.
- Would you care to walk us (and maybe yourself) through a Saturn Nova? - How many CFDLs would Saturn have started with outside the solar system and how many would it have now? - Would it now have the same number as the Earth? - Since planets and stars have different sizes, does that mean the outer double layer can build up or tear down partway, rather than totally? - Would Saturn's outer layer have been positive when it entered the heliosphere? - Would the negative layer of the heliosphere at the heliopause react explosively as Saturn's outer layer penetrated it? - And how would Saturn's outer layer then react to the positive inner layer at the heliopause? - Cardona has said that Saturn likely entered the heliosphere at a shallow angle. Do you have a way to calculate how much more mass Saturn may have had before entering the heliosphere? - If Earth and Mars were trailing behind Saturn, would they likely have lost atmosphere in the process of entering the heliosphere? - If Saturn had bipolar jets, as Cardona says many brown dwarfs do at times, do you have ideas about when such jets would form and what effects they'd have during entry into the solar system? Cardona says the polar column was likely half of a bipolar jet. - And do you have ideas about how the Saturn system would have broken up near Jupiter or the asteroid belt? Cardona thinks the asteroid belt resulted from the breakup.
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.
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.
