Saturday, November 22, 2008

Consensus and the Crab


X-Ray (electromagnetic radiation emitted by electrons) image of the Crab Nebula, NASA Chandra X-Ray Telescope
Credit: NASA/CXC/SAO/F.Seward et al

Mel Acheson: The Consensus and the Crab.

Gravity is a weak force, and it can generate only a dribble of energy. Yet throughout the universe we see floods of energy.

The consensus of opinion among astronomers is that the energies of the universe can only come from gravitational mechanisms. Because the force of gravity, and therefore its energy, is directly related to mass, the floods of energy require enormities of mass.

Because the consensus opinion holds that magnitude of mass is equivalent to amount of matter, many of the floods of energy require more matter than can fit into the observed sizes of their sources. Consensus opinion takes recourse in boosting densities: by ignoring all that is known empirically and much that is known theoretically about the compression of matter, the consensus opinion can believe that however much matter is needed can be crammed into the available volume.

The coincidence of such super-densities with the requirements for gravitational production of observed energies is accepted as prima facie proof that the consensus opinion is, in fact, a fact, despite the circular reasoning.

This is the fact that makes the central star in the Crab Nebula’s inner x-ray structure (above image) a pulsar. The press release for this new image states matter-of-factly: “The nebula is powered by a rapidly rotating, highly magnetized neutron star, or pulsar (white dot near the center). The combination of rapid rotating [sic] and strong magnetic field generates an intense electromagnetic field that creates jets of matter and antimatter moving away from the north and south poles of the pulsar, and an intense wind flowing out in the equatorial direction.”

A neutron star has so much matter squeezed into it that the electrons have been squeezed into the nucleus to combine with the protons there and form neutrons. The uncharged neutrons are then packed together, as congested as commuters at rush hour. The pulsations of the pulsar are attributed to a hot spot on its surface that sends a flash of radiation with each rotation of the star. Its operation is analogous to a lighthouse light, back when such lights were mechanically rotating devices, before they were converted to electrically pulsed lamps.

The Crab Nebula’s pulsar pulses 30 times a second. This would mean that the star rotates 30 times a second. This would mean that the centrifugal force is stronger than the star’s gravity … which would mean that the star tore itself apart a long time ago, except that consensus opinion crammed in additional matter to bump up the mass sufficiently to increase the gravitational force enough to hold it together.

Of course, another possibility, one not considered by consensus opinion, is that, as with modern lighthouses, electrical oscillations make the pulsar blink. Super-dense matter and super-fast rotation aren’t needed. The x-ray structure—the jets and rings and sharp boundaries of the diocotron instability around the periphery—are common characteristics of plasma discharges … as is the strong magnetic field, the origin of which consensus opinion neglects to explain. Externally driven electrical circuits provide a unified and coherent explanation that is consistent with electromagnetic theory and laboratory investigations. It’s an explanation that doesn’t require exceptions, circular reasoning, or a consensus of opinion.

16 comments:

diatreme said...

"Super-dense matter and super-fast rotation aren’t needed."

This board starts off with the premise that oil may be formed by something besides the conventional, textbook explanations. Most of the content posted here in support of that view can be read without offending the sensibilities of an average high-school graduate. But with increasing frequency.... this site leaps off into the abyss and rejects virtually every hard-won finding of modern science as if EVERYTHING that science has done in the past century can be safely ignored. This might be a great comfort to people who do not want to go through the trouble of learning what mainstream science believes and why scientists believe it, but to anyone who knows anything about, for instance, neutron stars, how they are formed, and the vast, coherent web of observations and theory that surrounds the general subject of collapsing stars... this anti-scientific tendency discredits the abiotic theory of oil and all the solid scientists who have labored to explore it.

A curious and sincere person should beware of both science-taught-as-dogma AND those who adopt fringe scientific theories without the slightest expenditure of effort to learn why the mainstream believes what it does. This is how fringe science gets labeled with the adjective: "lunatic" as in lunatic fringe.

Getting back to specifics, pulsars' high rates of rotation and enormous densities are scientific facts, and both features of neutron stars were predicted before the first such objects were discovered. Stars cannot generate light and heat as they do without consuming light elements during fusion reactions and thereby transforming those light elements into heavier ones. This does not and can not go on forever. This process has an end-point driven either by the limits of the internal temperature and pressure of a star (if it has low mass) or by the "binding-energy-per-nucleon" of the "ash" elements accumulating in a heavy star as it burns its way up from hydrogen into heavier and heavier elements. Eventually, more energy is consumed initiating fusion than is produced by the fusion, the core begins to absorb more energy than it produces and the interior of the star begins to contract under the same inexorable pressure that initially formed it millions of years earlier. If the star was heavy enough to reach the point at which it attempts to fuse iron... then the forces of contraction will be large enough to explosively ignite the onion-shell of lighter elements surrounding the inner core (so-called "core bounce"), and the resulting explosion crushes the core into a degenerate condition and propels the rest of the star into nearby space. Predictions of these processes were both well-developed and confirmed in the late 1980's when SN1987A was observed with both optical and, amazingly, neutrino telescopes.

In short, no evidence of pan-fried livers, sub-"sub-sub-sub atomic particles", Frank DeFord or the lost planet airmen. On the other hand, there is... lots of evidence... that: "The (Crab) nebula is powered by a rapidly rotating, highly magnetized neutron star, or pulsar.

OilIsMastery said...

Diatreme,

I do not reject "EVERYTHING that science has done in the past century" as you claim.

On the contrary, you will find the following quotes (none of which are rejected) on the side bar:

"You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track." -- Albert Einstein , physicist, March 1949

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, May 1920

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1914

I can assure you I am aware of "what mainstream science believes" indeed we are all familiar with mainstream orthodox religious Scripture as it is easily found on Wikipedia. My whole life I was taught falsehoods and brainwashed with lies, e.g biogenic petroleum origin, plate tectonics, and Newtonian gravity which is so primitive it does not even consider electromagnetism which is 10^39 times more powerful than it.

The problem is we don't know why they believe it even after we've made a thorough study of it, therefore we reject it.

We do not deny the existence of pulsars. What we are saying is that its magnetic field is electric. Gravity does not cause magnetic fields. Only electricity produces a magnetic field.

diatreme said...

"biogenic petroleum origin"

Things go around and come around. The alternative energy quest has uncovered strains of algae that are about 80% oil by weight. Imagine closed ocean basins teeming with that sort of stuff at the surface above stagnant anaerobic depths which would preserve the stuff during burial. It is possible that oil DOES have a biotic origin and that we still do not have a really decisive way to prove it one way or the other. I would say I am still unconvinced either way.

"plate tectonics"

The subduction parts "sucks" and by that, I am not referring to "slab-pull."

"...and Newtonian gravity"

Can you think of a single observation that Newton could have made in his day that could have contradicted the physics of gravity as he described it? I can't.

"...it does not even consider electromagnetism" which is 10^39 times more powerful than it."

EM might be that much stronger than gravity over atomic scales, but I can assure you that it is gravity holding you to the floor right now and not the electrical charge differential between you and earth. If there was ten-to-the-39th-power more electrical or magnetic field acting on you right now than gravity, you would be a cinder in a millisecond.

"My whole life I was taught falsehoods and brainwashed with lies"

If you would only believe them and passionately defend them, you would have a comfortable, successful life.

Voltaire: "To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered."

Lots of great men depend for their livings on the masses or mobs believing their every lie. And I fervently hope that someday they are ... hmmm... exposed to electric fields ten-to-the-39th-power times stronger than earth's gravity field.

OilIsMastery said...

I don't blame Newton. I blame his disciples who ignore what he actually said:

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses..." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1676

Anaconda said...

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

Is it just me or does the picture look like a cloud of smoke?

diatreme, what do you specifcally object to in regards to Plasma Universe theory?

Or is it simply general "discomfort" because the scientific theory that gravity is the primary "force" in the Universe is being successfully challenged?

It seems to me, you were okay (with Abiotic Oil theory), as long as "your" bull wasn't getting "gored", but now that your theory is taking the matador's sword, you start to belly ache.

So, again, I ask you: What do you object to in Plasma Universe theory?

Something specific?

Or the whole theory?

Please explain yourself.

diatreme said...

"What do you object to in Plasma Universe theory?"

I neither object to it nor promote it. And I do neither because I do not know of any data that are both poorly explained by conventional science and well-explained by this Plasma-Universe theory. I am not saying there are not data of that sort. Only that I am unaware of it.

That said, it is fair for me to demand of the opposition that they present the facts which are poorly explained in "textbook" theory, and wonderfully explained in their new theory. In other words, show the world what is "broken" before proposing a fix. And be prepared to show that the "fix" does not introduce more problems than it solves. And just about any radical departure from mainstream science is going to require the revision or abandonment of vast amounts of published work. This revision or abandonment will not and should not happen unless the medicine is better than the disease. Fringe theories should face a burden of evidence before they can or should displace conventional theories.

While plate-tectonics is a scientific-abomination-waiting-to-collapse, I do NOT accept that the astrophysics of stars, or celestial mechanics is similarly built on a teetering house of cards. I suspect that our knowledge of the internal processes within stars (particularly those super-massive stars which explode and thus reveal their entrails for examination after their deaths...) may be more secure than our knowledge of the internal processes operating within the earth.

How could it be that we could know more about stars than our own planet? The difference I think results from the number of samples that can be studied. Stars can be observed with spectrographs at all stages of development, while we still only know of one, single planet like Earth. This means there is more opportunity for contradiction of any theory regarding the life cycles of stars, and that there is NO observational opportunity for contradiction of geophysical theories through direct observations of Earth-like planets at earlier stages of development. So, thanks to the number of samples, Nature herself grades the papers of astrophysicists, while there is no "one" around to grade the papers turned in by those writing about the history of Earth. So, in her absence, the mice run-amok and the psychological effects demonstrated by Milgram and Asche reign supreme.

By the way, General Relativity has endured every test so far. Einstein's himself imagined the universe without either. And Henri Poincare lived a hundred years too soon (maybe 125 years too soon) to partake in a meaningful, data-based debate on the underlying causes for the manifestation that we describe as "mass." This latter debate is taking place around the existence of the Higgs boson, and the fat-collider has not yet sung.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

I appreciate your response.

It depends on what you think flows from General Relativity theory.

"Big bang"?

"Something out of nothing." Nothing more than creationism in another name.

"Black holes"?
Never been observed and is a "point". No such thing as a point in space. A "point" is nothing more than a mathematical abstraction.

Enough of falsifying "big bang, black hole" theory.

Remember, Plasma Universe theory agrees there is gravity and it's important, but the dominate force, the dynamic force is electromagnetism.

diatreme stated: "[regarding abiotic oil] Things go around and come around."

In other words, "if you attack my theory, I'll attack your theory."

That's not the scientific method -- that's the "playground method".

Even so, a couple of things. I'm glad diatreme states: "Most of the content posted here in support of that view can be read without offending the sensibilities of an average high-school graduate."

I take this to mean a couple of things. First, the science is so straight forward and simple, it passes the Occam's Razor test and the science supporting it is forceful and compelling. This is on the plus side of the ledger. Second, Abiotic Oil theory is easy to understand, but when abiotic oil theorists attempt to dabble in the "High Temple" of astronomy and astrophysics, it's over their heads. This is on the minus side of the ledger (arrogance is not becoming).

In response to diatreme's specific points: "The alternative energy quest has uncovered strains of algae that are about 80% oil by weight. Imagine closed ocean basins teeming with that sort of stuff at the surface above stagnant anaerobic depths which would preserve the stuff during burial."

I'm aware of a genetically engineered (read artificial) algae that produces oil, that's not something I'd hang my hat on. Also, I'm aware of a rare Amazon jungle algae that lives on trees, which produces a piece of the alkane series hydrocarbons (not even close to the whole suite of hydrocarbons found in natural petroleum).

So these two examples don't cut it (if you're thinking of something else, cite it, so I can track it down).

In addition, the algae diatreme describes (if it exists) would float on water, oil being lighter than water, thus this oil would never sink to the bottom to be buried in sediment and any volatiles would evaporate at the surface.

In conclusion, diatreme's attempt to make "what goes around, comes around" not convincing and instead comes off slightly petulant.

diatreme states: "And I do neither because I do not know of any data that are both poorly explained by conventional science ["big bang, black hole theory"] and well-explained by this Plasma-Universe theory."

Then you haven't been looking very hard. Willful blindness doesn't count.

Besides, Plasma Universe theory is "conventional science" when one defines conventional science as science backed up by observations in the field and demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory.

"Big bang, black hole" theory has taken some "tripple backflips" (dark matter, strange matter) to keep close to viable, which really means it's not viable at all.

That's what happens to scientific theory when mathematics becomes unhinged from observation.

For the sake of "big bang, black hole" theory people better hope "...the fat-collider has not yet sung."

Because it's the bottom of the ninth and the home team is down by a run with two outs and nobody on base.

If the science is wrong, it doesn't matter how many "books" need to get thrown in the trash bin.

Getting the science right is the thing that counts above all else.

The rest be damned.

I'm sure the church felt the same way when Galieo stated the Earth revolves around the Sun...

"...but all our beautiful theory and church writings will be worthless..."

Too bad!

"100 years of scientific progress" isn't really progress at all, if it's only imaginary dogma that leads men astray from real scientific achievement.

And besides, diatreme is being melodramatic, anyway, because applied material science is where Man has done "wonderous" things based on objective experimental work in the laboratory.

And you know what a lot of that is based on?

You got it.

Electromagnetism!

Quantum_Flux said...

On one side of things: Neutronium (5N) is a proven state of matter. The rapid revolutions of a neutron star is not enough to break the bonds of the nuclear forces, especially in the absense of repulsive proton binding in the core (well, hypothetically speaking).

On the other side of things: The equations used to model gravitation are sufficiently lacking to warrant other hypothesis to explain the commonly observed phenomina.

diatreme said...

Electromagnetism Uber Alles !!

Electromagnetism, Electromagnetism above everything,
Above everything in the world,
When, for protection and defence (against other forces like gravity), it always
takes a brotherly stand together.
From the Prius to the Insight,
From the Blackhole to the Pulsar,
|: Electromagnetism, Electromagnetism above everything,
Above everything in the world. :|

*********************************************

"Something out of nothing." Nothing more than creationism in another name.

Most astrophysicists would be deeply offended by that assertion.

"Second, Abiotic Oil theory is easy to understand, but when abiotic oil theorists attempt to dabble in the "High Temple" of astronomy and astrophysics, it's over their heads."

It doesn't matter whether you believe in abiotic oil or not. Black holes are the ONLY things that explain the phenomena attributed to them - whether of stellar mass, or galactic mass.

Why is it so hard to fathom that there are limits to the amount of force that can be resisted by the repulsions between the shells of electrons around atoms, limits to the amount of force that be resisted by the repulsion between protons, and limits to the amount of force that can be resisted by the structure and physics of neutrons? These limits exist and pardon this potential offense of your "EM-Uber-Alles-Weltanschauung", but GRAVITY is capable of causing the collapse of the cores of stars and galaxies into density conditions where no known forces can resist. And as far as an outside observer is concerned, the result is NOT a point, it is a volume defined by something called an event horizon where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. I do not know why people are so offended by this idea. Maybe they would be less offended if they had any idea how graphic and dynamic the evidence for Black Holes has become, and how robust the theory is concerning how and why they form.

"Petulance? " That would not produce verbose replies such as these.

Natural algae, without genetic engineering, can be 80% oil by weight. But if that were lower, big deal. The oceans are huge, sunlight has been around for a long time, there have been times when the Earth's atmosphere was far richer in CO2 than now, and in some times of cataclysm, large impact events further enriched the atmosphere and ocean with nutrients that could have turned oceans into scum pounds. Sediments in the oceans also demonstrate instances when the waters became anoxic. Closed seas like the Black Sea are always anoxic at depth. And I have had fish tanks for most of my life and observe algae living on the bottom and sinking there all the time.

"100 years of scientific progress" isn't really progress at all, if it's only imaginary dogma that leads men astray from real scientific achievement.

Nothing imaginary about telescopes observing the spinning core of the Crab Nebula, or watching giant stars orbiting a million-solar-mass black hole at the core of our galaxy. Nothing imaginary about the physics which often has succeeded in predicting phenomena (like Neutron stars or the cosmic microwave background) before they were observed. And nothing imaginary about gravitational forces or nuclear forces that generate phenomena that cannot be explained by electromagnetism.
Imaginary, come to think of it, is what I would call the "sub-sub-sub atomic particles" mentioned elsewhere on this website a couple weeks back. Where is the smidgeon of evidence for such nonsense? And how does such babble qualify as science?

To paraphrase the Dobie Brothers: electromagnetism is "just all right with me" ... but so are the other fundamental forces.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

Perhaps, I have been too forceful in my opinions, I'm a bit a bull in a china shop. In politics, they might describe me as a guy with sharp elbows.

Grace and patients are not my strong suit...

diatreme your first ditti seems to work boths ways: Can't it be said that "big bang, black hole" theory takes the exact same attitude and with much less scientific evidence to support its pretensions.

After all, aren't we spending literaly billions of dollars on a super-collider to attempt to prove a theory that, so far, hasn't been proved at all.

That's the height of pretension in my book.

And much less results: This computer on which I type this moment owes it power to electromagnetism, and so do most of our other wonderous inventions.

Other than the constant and static force of gravity (no small thing) what on this planet at Man's disposal is due to "big bang, black hole" theory?

As I stated in my previous comment: "Remember, Plasma Universe theory agrees there is gravity and it's important, but the dominate force, the dynamic force is electromagnetism."

Offer me some actual scientific evidence that shows my statement isn't dead on the mark and I'll backoff.

diatreme, you take exception to my statement: "Something out of nothing." Nothing more than creationism in another name.

diatreme states: "Most astrophysicists would be deeply offended by that assertion."

How so? I'm serious as a heart attack.

At base, isn't that exactly what the "big bang" is?

Maybe you don't like my comment because it lays in stark relief just how silly "big bang, black hole" theory really is?

diatreme states:

"Black holes are the ONLY things that explain the phenomena attributed to them - whether of stellar mass, or galactic mass."

No.

They are the only explanation if you think gravity is the only force that explains the dynamics of the Universe.

If you admit all the stellar and interstellar observations that have been made recently, electromagnetism explains most if not all of them.

That's the thing, I'm convinced of the validity of Plasma Universe theory based on experimental observations in the laboratory and observations of the Cosmos that are consitent with those laboratory observations which in turn explain the phenomenon's mechanics observed in the Cosmos.

Have you familiarized yourself with the body of scientific work that supports Plasma Universe theory?

Until you do, it's hard to object to Plasma Universe theory, isn't it?

diatreme gives the readers a "thumbnail" sketch of "big bang, black hole" theory:

"Why is it so hard to fathom that there are limits to the amount of force that can be resisted by the repulsions between the shells of electrons around atoms, limits to the amount of force that be resisted by the repulsion between protons, and limits to the amount of force that can be resisted by the structure and physics of neutrons? These limits exist and pardon this potential offense of your "EM-Uber-Alles-Weltanschauung", but GRAVITY is capable of causing the collapse of the cores of stars and galaxies into density conditions where no known forces can resist. And as far as an outside observer is concerned, the result is NOT a point, it is a volume defined by something called an event horizon where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light..."

There's a huge gaping problem with your sketch...oh, its accurate enough...of the theory.

The problem is it's all based on assumptions, every last jot and tittle.

Begging your pardon:

diatreme states: "These limits exist..."

How do we know?

Any experiments...

I'd be surprised if there were any experiments. And I'm not talking thought experiments, here, with a bunch of mathematical equations.

No, this is all based on theoretical mathematics divorced from any validating experiments.

The assumptions are implicit in the equations because a man or men had to make basic assumptions in order to fashion the mathematical equations.

Before you jump on me in righteous indignation, I recognize mathematics is important. I subscribe to Galileo's statement: "Mathematics is the language of Nature.

I've presented Galileo's quote on this website.

But...

Mathematics is the servant to experiments in the laboratory or field observations of actual physical phenomenon.

Mathematics is NEVER the master.

And, that's what "big bang, black hole" theory has done: It's turned mathematics into the master, divorced from physical observations.

That's how you get a guy saying there is an alternative universe because the math says there should be.

Science doesn't do miracles, but that's what the "big bang" is at it's nub.

diatreme states:

"Maybe they would be less offended if they had any idea how graphic and dynamic the evidence for Black Holes has become, and how robust the theory is concerning how and why they form."

How graphic and dynamic is the evidence for black holes? How robust is the theory for how and why they form?

Then why do jets of charged particles and electromagnetic energy stream from where black holes are theorized to reside?

How do stars reside as "kissing cousins" with supposed black holes without being sucked in?

That's another problem, the theory has evolved with increasing adhoc formulations to explain phenomenon observed that didn't fit the theory: Dark matter, strange matter, dark energy and so on.

Anything to keep the theory viable.

And you were complaining that some Expanding Earth theorists were relying on sub-atomic particles?

Really...people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Turning back to Abiotic Oil theory, my original purpose for commenting on this website:

diatreme states:

"Natural algae, without genetic engineering, can be 80% oil by weight. But if that were lower, big deal. The oceans are huge, sunlight has been around for a long time, there have been times when the Earth's atmosphere was far richer in CO2 than now, and in some times of cataclysm, large impact events further enriched the atmosphere and ocean with nutrients that could have turned oceans into scum pounds."

Sorry, diatreme, I already called you on your algae claim -- you can't pass that off, here, without a citation to something, a magazine article, news report, or scientific paper.

Algae can't turn into heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330, the "active" ingredient in kerogen under the pressure and temperature regime of the sediments. it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

There simply isn't the energy to turn a low potential chemical energy molecule like algae, organic detritus, into a high potential chemical energy like heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330, which is exactly what "fossil" theory claims happens.

It's never been done in the laboratory, and -- you should like this since you are a man of mathematical equations -- there are no chemical equations expressed which fall within physical and chemical constraints.

That's right "fossil" theory doesn't even have a theoretically described mathematical chemical equation.

Nothing.

diatreme states:

"Nothing imaginary about telescopes observing the spinning core of the Crab Nebula, or watching giant stars orbiting a million-solar-mass black hole at the core of our galaxy. Nothing imaginary about the physics which often has succeeded in predicting phenomena (like Neutron stars or the cosmic microwave background) before they were observed. And nothing imaginary about gravitational forces or nuclear forces that generate phenomena that cannot be explained by electromagnetism."

Sorry, gravitaional theories don't explain the phenomenon you state above. Those are assumptions divised in the minds of men who turned around and constructed mathematical equations to justify their imaginations.

Electromagnetism, on the other hand, does expain the mechanics; and the principles of those mechanics have been demonstrated in experiments in the laboratory.

Anaconda said...

BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD REQUIRES WEAKNESSES IN A THEORY MUST BE STATED PLAINLY

The one weakness that Plasma Universe theory has in my mind is the idea that nuclear reactions play a small or non-existent role in Nature.

Man has caused nuclear reactions, both fission and fussion, we know that to be the case, possibly to our ultimate detriment.

It is almost inconceivable that what Man can cause, the nuclear chain reaction, nature can not, or that it plays a minor role in Nature's mechanism.

I'm passionate about the scientific method, in being true to that method it's encumbent that weaknesses be presented by the proponents of a theory even if we are convinced of that theory's validity,

In that spirit I bring forward what I see as a weakness in Plasma Universe theory.

Perhaps, one more steeped in Plasma Universe theory can explain why this isn't a weakness or explain what role nuclear reactions play in Plasma Universe theory.

Is Man to have the power of causing nuclear reactions and nature not -- hard to think that could be so.

No matter what we hold to believe in the scientific realm and why we believe it, our beliefs must be subject and secondary to the scientific method.

BF said...

"Is Man to have the power of causing nuclear reactions and nature not -- hard to think that could be so."

Nuclear chemist, Oliver Manuel, whose work may be of interest to you with respect to your question, has proposed that the universe may cycle nuclear matter between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion. His work I believe is given serious consideration by the plasma people and some of it is discussed on the Thunderbolts website.

See: The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse, and Dissociation; O.Manuel, M.Mozina and Ratcliffe, H.

From here: http://www.omatumr.com/index1.html

Anaconda said...

BF:
Thanks for the link, it was informative and provided food for thought requiring digestion.

BF, could you be so kind as to give directions to the Thunderbolt discussion on nuclear reactions, I wasn't able to find what you referred to. In fact, where I looked, it was conspicuous by its absense.

(I'm concerned I wasn't able to find the discussion.)

While I have to digest the paper you cited, a couple general thoughts:

There seems to be a conflict as to observations in space. The author of the paper stated that neutron stars have been observed, but Electric Universe says neutron stars haven't been observed.

(I understand "big bang, black hole" theory claims there are enough 'indirect' observations to say neutron stars "exist", but Electric Universe theory provides substantial scientific evidence to support their alternative interpretation, more observations and confirming laboratory experiments than "big bang, black hole" has provided.)

The author's main contention, besides the Sun having an Iron core much like Earth, is that the Sun has a "neutron star" in its interior.

Apparently, the author subscribes to at least part of the assumptions of "big bang, black hole" theory, even though at the same time he acknowledges neutron repulsion, which seemingly contradicts the possibilty of neutron stars.

On a positive note, an Iron core would be conducive to a Plasma Cosmological view of the sun. And even has implications for Abiotic Oil theory, Iron being an experimentally identified catalyst in the chemical formation of abiotic oil.

While the author mentions electromagnetism, it's obvious, in his view its a secondary force, rather than a primary driving force (that he reserves to neutron repulsion).

Also, the author, mentions that heavy atomic weight charged particles (plasma) are ejected from the Sun in the solar wind, which would seem to provide a little more evidence for my hypothesis of charged particles from the Sun causing expansion of the Earth.

Which brings up another consideration:

It seems every scientist has a hypothesis they are trying to sell.

(Hell, I do, and I'm not even a scientist!)

Also, it leads to another question that needs to be discussed by Plasma Cosmology: What 'causes' the electrical flow required for the Electric Universe?

Generally, you need somekind of a "dynamo" to produce an electric current.

It seems every theory has its "knowns" and its "unknowns".

And the proponents of any given theory are most reluctant to bring the "unknowns" out of the theoretical closet.

This tendency must be forcefully rejected, it's alien to the Scientific Method.

As I said, food for thought.

BF, your comments are few, but your contributions are large.

Thanks again.

BF said...

Anaconda: Thank you for the kind words. And thank you for contributing so eloquently on the various discussions here, you add greatly to the pleasure of reading them.

Link to discussion on Thunderbolts.

The "Iron Sun" Debate (1)
Nuclear Reactions at the Solar Surface
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060120solar1.htm

Some additional information with regard to your comments - the author (Oliver Manuel) is standing firm, because, as he has explained elsewhere, his position rests not on calculations of invisible matter, but rather on measurements of visible matter.

Rejection of big bang:

"A BIG BANG story of creation that is no more scientific than the book of Genesis: "Once upon a time, nothing exploded and made everything: Some VISIBLE, even more INVISIBLE!"

and this:

"Repulsive interactions between neutrons in compact stellar cores cause luminosity and a steady outflow of hydrogen from stellar surfaces.  Neutron repulsion in more massive compact objects made by gravitational collapse produces violent, energetic, cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission).  This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures." —  (Abstract) Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) page 107.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051

Anaconda said...

BF:
Thanks for the kind words and the web address.

It's interesting reading, and takes what makes sense in the Iron Sun and explains the problems with the theory.

It also provides an excellent explanation why the "neutron star" hypothesis fails in many important respects. This link is to the first in a four part series: The "Iron Sun" Debate (1)
Nuclear Reactions at the Solar Surface, January 20, 2006 (thunderbolts.info)


"Proponents of the "Iron Sun", a theory widely represented on the Internet in recent months, challenge the popular idea that the Sun is powered by thermonuclear reactions at its core. And they point to nuclear reactions on the Sun's surface, something considered impossible under the standard model."

One important point brought up in the article is that the "neutron star" hypothesis was first postulated in the 1930's and largely rejected by the astrophysical community, then in the 1960's with the oscillating or fluxtuating light observed from the center of nebula, the "neutron star" was resurrected to explain the rapid flashing light as a rapid spin (in some nebula as fast as a dentist's drill) that would tear any body apart. Neutronium was theorized as a material that had the density and gavitational "strengh" to not fly apart at extreme spin rates.

(So, in a sense the "neutron star" hypothesis was adopted as a necessity to preserve "big bang, black hole" theory.)

BF, I also saw something of interest regarding nuclear reactions. The nuclear reactions happen at above the surface of the Sun in a "generating kitchen". Where have we seen that little gem before? But, here, in this context it makes much more sense than in "fossil" theory.

The magnetic fields are so strong they contain nuclear reactions, which in a loose way are simply a continuation of electricity acting as a catalyst to promote chemical reactions, plasma reactions, and nuclear reactions in ascending order.

Also, in the forth part of the series (each article links to the next) meteorites were explained according to Electric Universe theory. While not mentioned, it's known meteorites have carbonaceous and hydrocarbons as constituent parts. The article suggests that electrical energy impacts the meteorites, which possibly may account for the hydrocarbons.

(This would also suggest plasma energy in the crust encourages abiotic oil production.)

This four part series mostly answers my concerns regarding nuclear reactions -- thanks for putting my mind to rest.

Anaconda said...

The link in the above comment failed. My apology. Let's try again thunderbolts.info