Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Requiem for Relativity
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Requiem for Relativity
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 12 Apr 2009 :  05:38:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, I did a google search for "maya 2012" and read a few of the hits for it. Not good at all! under the unwritten rules of guilt by association, there's no way that anybody with access to a large telescope is going to go anyway near the Mayan connection.

I then did a search for data on the crab supernova. Everybody must have seen it but people in Europe looked the other way. Though the brighter 1006 C.E. nova was remarked on. The smart money is on, that the Christian church was going through a major schism at the time of the crab nova, and it was thought politic not to comment on the guest star in the heavens. The Mayan culture must have had a view on this, if only because Venus was important to them, and the crab outshone Venus. Yet anything they wrote down must have been destroyed by Christian zealots.

If a brown dwarf in our solar system brightened by 25 magnitudes, then its luminosity goes up 10 billionfold. It has to increase its surface area, cool and create a lot of methane, puppy fat for a body with such a surface area to volume ratio. That has to be an explosion, and the body will lose mass. Billions of tonnes but still rather small beer.

My ball park figure is that the disk will expand to about 4 a.u. in diameter, I think that's way too big. It simply has to be much dimmer but still could be just visible in daylight. It would be hugely impressive to see, because it wouldn't be a point light source but would have a disk.

Still, I think you should drop the Mayan stuff like a hot potato. Why ally yourself to a bunch of "end of days" slightly cranky eccentrics? Even the most open minded of scientists will simply shrug and say, wait until 2012 then, put a bet on nothing horrible happening.

(Edited) Oops I worked that out for the radius and not the diameter, so that would mean about 8 a.u. Trouble is we just don't know enough about brown dwarfs, or at least I don't
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 14 Apr 2009 :  03:14:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I took a look at the 1054 crab explosion in starry night back yard and it would have been very impressive, as it would have appeared just under the new moon in July. If early watchers of the sky, were aware of periodic brightening of Joe's star, then they would have been bemused by the supernova events of the eleventh century. They'd be in the wrong place and would have to be commented on vis a vis Joe's star. Destroyed, lost or sitting in some museum misunderstood, it's anybodies guess.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 14 Apr 2009 :  06:04:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I thought I'd see what I could find on the 1006 C.E. nova and found this paper. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/JHA../0005//0000099.000.html Worth a read but if you haven't the time look at the conclusion. There seems to be a bit of a problem with where the 1054 crab nova and the 1006 nova are and were. A few degrees for the crab! Now that has to be worth a look at. If our solar system barycentre is out from what we normally believe it to be, then the historically reported nova positions should be out as well.

Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 14 Apr 2009 :  15:42:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The hexagonal "nanodiamonds" that formed at the Younger Dryas, might be toxic, or part of a destructive physical reaction. What if they weren't from a meteor, but were from an unknown force acting on the CO2 in our atmosphere? Maybe that's why it's important to get atmospheric CO2 levels down.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 16 Apr 2009 :  16:50:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
hexagonal nanodiamonds sound like slightly flattened icosahedrons, I can't see how they could be toxic, they shouldn't want to combine with anything in the body. The trouble is, that to make them we are talking about tremendous heat and pressure. yet there's no sign of a meteorite strike in the United States. Some sort of Tunguska like event is proposed but for the life of me I can't see how it could produce diamonds of any size. Perhaps we were hit by an airburst comet like fragment that already contained nanodiamonds? Again we have a problem, in that comets shouldn't contain them. So assume that they were picked up by some space bound object as a contaminant. No idea about this one at all.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 18 Apr 2009 :  04:55:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I took a look at the pressures and temperature need to produce synthetic diamonds in the lab. To do it indirectly, where a thin layer of metal, such as chromium is used with graphite, a pressure of 100 000 atmospheres and a temperature of 2500 C is needed. Directly, it needs 200 000 atmospheres at 5000 C

In the samples looked at we also have a number of fullerenes but I haven't seen a detailed breakdown of these. The only way I can think that we end up with layers of nanodiamond, given the absence of a massive great crater, is to assume that what hit us carried the nanodiamonds with it. That adds weight to Tom's exploding planet hypothesis. The question has to be, can we look at the spectrums of some asteroid bodies to see fullerenes?
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2009 :  04:50:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, I've been looking at these strange nanodiamonds. They can be made by smacking graphite sheets together but they can also be made from methane under pressure. The core of your planet can be made from diamond but a diamond in the hexagonal form (Lonsdaleite) then we'd probably have an "ocean" of fullerenes. The whole thing would superconduct. There would be electrical storms at the surface that would make Jupiter's storms look like balmy days. An Io near the planet would be torn apart by flux. Pure Lonsdaleite can e much stronger than diamond, about 58% stronger.

If the planet has a ring system this could be made up of dust and ice but also nanodiamond, thrown out by storm sprites. These are not nice gleaming gems but a dull yellow. High refractive index though, they should red shift background stars.

On Tom's exploding planet hypothesis, there's still the problem of why there's so much organic matter in carbonaceous meteors. Here the biomass is about 100 million times less than the planet mass, for the asteroid belt it's about one percent.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2200 Posts

Posted - 20 Apr 2009 :  09:57:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Stoat] "Here the biomass is about 100 million times less than the planet mass, for the asteroid belt it's about one percent."

Do you have any comment on Tom's explanation for this?

It seems fairly straight forward to me. IOW, based on the EPH this outcome should be expected.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 21 Apr 2009 :  05:07:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Larry, Joe's planet can change its diameter by a radical amount. it cools very rapidly at first, it's like a baby, its skin surface area to volume ratio is high. When the surface temperature reaches about 1500 K it can produce methane and that alters the opacity of the dwarf. The dwarf then expands explosively to retain its equilibrium. It's a sort of mini nova. Now, Joe wants this to have been a daylight visible object to ancient people. I think that's too much of a modern way of thinking. If we need a "Joe the plumber" quote then the shepherd in Oedipus Rex is pretty good. he talks about the rising of Arcturus, time to bring the sheep down from the mountain pastures. The Athenian city folk would have smiled at this rustic digression but they would have understood it. People lived their lives by the stars. The brighter Joe's planet, the larger the diameter had to be. the more likely then that mass would be lost, and that would mean some gravitational collapse due to a decrease in the core volume where nuclear activity, lithium burning, occurs.

This is an explosion but it's, relatively, small beer,it would only look impressive because it would be reflecting back the light of our sun, a blood red star until its material falls back in. I don't think that me and Joe so much disagree here on what can happen but rather on the scale of happening. Small beer but you wouldn't want to e anywhere within about one a.u. of it, it would be pretty horrendous.

Now let's try and explode a gas giant. The only reason it's there is because e.m force and gravity are at stalemate. The client wants it totally vaporised, so that means we cannot use some sort of nova. Even a supernova leaves an above sol mass core behind. A planet is not a simple pressurised container, it's more like a russian doll. The only way to vaporise a gas giant is to switch off gravity!! People like Tom's theory, it seems to work in so many ways but the how to explode the thing remains a mystery.

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2200 Posts

Posted - 21 Apr 2009 :  14:25:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
That's OK. There is no need to be embarrassed because you do not know a specific detail like this.

But perhaps you do know what Tom has to say about planetary explosion mehcanisms? Hint - he identified three realistic possibilities and discussed their pros and cons in some detail. I'd like to hear your comments about them.

Regards,
LB
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 22 Apr 2009 :  05:27:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, this paper on lensing by a brown dwarf should be of interest. http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0249

Okay, I take the hint Larry, consider this my last post.
Go to Top of Page

MarkVitrone

USA
387 Posts

Posted - 22 Apr 2009 :  06:50:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Fellas, let's take a breath and not hurt each other's feelings - there has been too much hurt recently.

Mark
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2200 Posts

Posted - 22 Apr 2009 :  09:26:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Stoat] " ... I take the hint Larry ... "

Actually you seem to have missed the point. I'm trying to get more out of you, not less.

Meta Research and Deep Relaity Physics needs the input of individuals like you. You have the brains and the talent but you have been taking the easy road and not using them. I'm just challenging you to rise above youself. Or at least the "self" that you have been showing in public. If you bring yourself up to speed on things like EPH you will find that the universe becomes noticeably less mysterious.

  • Instead of wondering how the asteroids can have a larger percentage of organic material(*) than a planet that blew up to create the asteroids, you will know the processes involved and you will know why it ought to be that way.

  • Instead of continuing to believe (presumably because the mainstream experts say so) that there is no way for a planet to explode, you will know a number of physically reasonable processes that can lead to that outcome. And you will know the circumstances (initial parameters, etc) under which each of them can or cannot lead to an explosion.

Stop letting yourself be spoon-fed by the establishment. They are usually "surprized" by the "unexpected" data each time a new observational result becomes available. DRP usually smiles and says "yep, that makes perfect sense".

They rely on physical models that appear to not match physical reality (leading frequently to the "damn, that was unexpected" response). DRP uses physical models that appear to be a close match (leading frequently to the "all right, nailed another one" response).

Educate yourself. Think.

===

As always, our offer to help by answering specific questions stands.

LB

(*) BTW, bio mass is the wrong term to use in this context
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1833 Posts

Posted - 22 Apr 2009 :  13:50:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It would be better if a new thread was spun out to deal with data and theories related to EPH since that detail has no relative value to the topic here. Maybe several new threads can be started that would bo of interest from the static this thread has attracted.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2200 Posts

Posted - 22 Apr 2009 :  14:39:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You may be right, Jim. However Stoat mentioned EPH here so I assume he sees some relevance. And I am hoping he will go into more detail. We can't do it all. You guys can make some valuable contributions, if you will just try.
Go to Top of Page

shando

Canada
208 Posts

Posted - 23 Apr 2009 :  07:46:14  Show Profile  Visit shando's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

The only way I can think that we end up with layers of nanodiamond, given the absence of a massive great crater,



Come on back, Stoat. Regarding the massive great crater, this is explained quite well in a book ISBN-10:59143-061-5, THE CYCLE OF COSMIC CATASTROPHES, by Richard Firestone, et. al.

This book describes the evidence for bombardment of earth by a large bolide striking North America around Lake Michigan and/or Hudson's Bay when both were covered by miles of ice, thereby leaving only a shallow crater. Fits quite well with Keller's conjecture.
Go to Top of Page

cosmicsurfer

USA
507 Posts

Posted - 24 Apr 2009 :  04:01:36  Show Profile  Visit cosmicsurfer's Homepage  Send cosmicsurfer a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MarkVitrone

Fellas, let's take a breath and not hurt each other's feelings - there has been too much hurt recently.

Mark



I agree Mark. Please keep posting Stoat, I don't want to loose anyone else from our group! John Rickey
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 27 Apr 2009 :  15:38:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Hi Joe, this paper on lensing by a brown dwarf should be of interest. http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0249



Hi Bob!

Thanks for this novel and helpful article!

(April 27, 2009)

I'm the first speaker at the North Central Region Astronomical League (NCRAL) ( ncral.net ) 2009 convention, May 1-2, 2009, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Last year's group photo showed ~60 people.

This year the convention is hosted by the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, astronomy club, the Cedar Amateur Astronomers, www.cedar-astronomers.org . My talk, 35 minutes long, is at 7:30PM CDT in the (apparently large, judging by the building's photo) meeting room of their observatory, halfway between Cedar Rapids & Iowa City (watch out for deer on the highway).

The talks the next day are in a conference room at the Clarion Hotel in Cedar Rapids. Basically, it's amateurs Friday night at the observatory meeting room, and U. of Iowa professors Saturday at the hotel.

Registration begins Friday afternoon at the Clarion. Registration costs $66 and one can register onsite or by mail. It includes a banquet and also some snacks or light meals.

The convention schedule does not appear on the NCRAL website (the NCRAL includes seven states of the U.S. "Upper Midwest"). The NCRAL website has only an abbreviated schedule which omits the four Friday PM speakers, and mentions only the keynote and banquet speakers.

The full schedule, listing my speech, "Evidence for the Location and Properties of Percival Lowells Planet X" appears only (obscurely) on the Cedar Amateur Astronomers website (click on "Events", then "NCRAL 2009 convention"; sometimes that link doesn't work, but if it does, then click on "schedule" on the lower right).

Any interest or publicity that can be generated, I'd appreciate. Some things I might not have time to do myself include:

1. Join and message all astronomy messageboards including Yahoo groups, LinkedIn groups, etc. Please email me privately through this site if you'd like the notice I'm sending. A post from someone other than me, might get past the ALPO messageboard censors.

2. Call the newspaper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and the TV and radio stations in Cedar Rapids, asking if they've "heard about the discovery of Percival Lowell's Planet X, which is connected with 2012 and will be covered in a talk at that astronomy convention in Cedar Rapids this weekend".

3. Email or phone all acquaintances who might like to attend.


I'll spend about two days just before the meeting, to leaflet the nearby cities and colleges. My slides (~50 Ektachromes) are done.

more information:

Cedar Amateur Astronomers, www.cedar-astronomers.org
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 02 May 2009 :  09:51:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
NCRAL conference report:

I included two major facts in my talk at the NCRAL conference last night, that I haven't yet posted here.

1. Bauval, and independently later Brophy, have calculated that Orion's belt would have corresponded to the layout of the Great Pyramids, c. 11,000 yr BP (I think Brophy differed from Bauval by about 1000 yr). This depends on what one means by "correspond". If the Pyramids are on the site of older temples originally surveyed by sighting Orion's belt stars over a stick (or kite) and then reflecting EW to resemble the belt more (and maybe also magnified by surveying methods), then the two angles made, are correct for only one position of Earth's pole. This position occurs at 7723 BC (c. 9730 yr BP)(assuming the present period of equinox precession, 25771.5 yr) but only if Earth's obliquity is 27.95 deg. This suggests that Earth's obliquity decreased 4.5 deg, perhaps c. 6300 yr BP. This would give yet another true meaning of the Tortuguero statement, "Barbarossa descends" (i.e., in Declination due to sudden obliquity decrease).

2. The Miller (and Michelson-Morley) non-null results can be explained as a "pseudo-drift", proportional to the cross product of acceleration and velocity. This accounts for not only the main "drift" effect, but also the circular annual variation, and the hitherto unexplained (usually) eastward azimuth. To account quantitatively for these effects, it must be assumed that the solar apex motion has the usually measured direction but only 1/3 the usually measured magnitude. The so-called motion connected with the CMB dipole (or the 100 Mpc "convergence" of galaxies' Hubble flow to that vector) must be omitted from the accounting.

Many of the amateurs present complimented me on my talk (the introductory speaker ended about 3 min late and I was 10-3=7 min late to finish). I had to abbreviate my talk; unabbreviated, it would have been an hour. I didn't notice any of the professors I visited, at the U. of Iowa, Coe, and Cornell, at the talk, though I might have missed them in the crowd of ~ 80. I gathered that none of the professors and other professional astronomers speaking at the hotel today, attended Friday evening.

I visited the Masonic headquarters Friday morning, meeting three high Masonic officials (I am not a Mason), and telling two of them a summary of my talk. Both seemed to understand immediately. They said they would encourage brothers to attend.

When I was canvassing Coe College, as I went to visit the Physical Chemistry professor on the second floor (he was an avid amateur astronomer) I noticed that there was exactly one word neatly written in big red print on the erasable board in the hall. The word was "Illuminatti" (spelled with two t's).

I'm missing the introductory comments, to write this, but will attend all the other talks today. I plan to skip the banquet, to have more time to drive home.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 02 May 2009 :  11:23:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've mentioned here that color (wavelength response) might be why Barbarossa/Frey are absent from Blue sky surveys, and to some extent from CCD photos. At my talk last night, I mentioned another reason Barbarossa/Frey might be absent from Blue sky surveys and (maybe) from most CCD photos: the luminance might be mostly intermittent. The Red and IR survey plates were exposed an hour or almost that, the Blue only 10 min or a little more. The CCD photos are mostly 2 minute photos, median stacked so that the one of the ten or so, that might record something, is discarded. I also mentioned last night that this intermittent luminance, if briefer than the 30ms timescale of typical atmospheric fluctuations, would automatically give the result obtained by adaptive optics, of a smaller sharper image with more pronounced Eberhard (micro-edge intensification) effect, which generally is seen in the Barbarossa/Frey survey images. Also, I called attention in my slides at the meeting, to two Frey submoons in both 1954 & 1986, three (possible) in 1997, and the possible conjunction with a submoon (explaining the elongation and ~doubled luminance) of Frey in 1987.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.91 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03