Requiem for Relativity

More
16 years 2 months ago #15360 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Addendum, to Defense of Cruttenden, Part II

The value H = 72.70 km/s/Mpc, becomes 72.65 when all of the e^(2*n) terms are included.

The Bessel functions of order +/- 1/3 are related to the Airy functions, which often appear in mathematical physics, e.g. in Airy's original application, the caustics of light rays (Watson, Theory of Bessel Fns., sec. 6.4, p. 188; same for 1922 ed. or 2nd ed., 1952). Also, Bessel functions of large order can be approximated, by algebraic functions multiplied by Bessel functions of order +/- 1/3 (Watson, sec. 8.43, eq. 1, p. 249; either edition). In such approximations, the argument of the one-third order Bessel fn., is an algebraic function (of the original independent variable) which might approximate a logarithmic transformation. So, the pattern I noticed in Part II above, might occur because the actual "extra" force is a large-order Bessel function.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 2 months ago #15361 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Im sure Joe wants to continue with his calculations and just make a note of supernovas and their effects upon star formation. Maybe another thread someplace?

((Major aside) Thinking about balls of jelly and the cores of neutron stars, ignore this bit, as its just a note to myself to look into something. We have the light speed being absolute lorentzian of Einstein, then we have a lorentzian for the possible speed of gravity, call it b. So, 1 - c^2 / b^2 = (1 / h *2GM) / rc^2 The h is just to scale things to my proposed speed of gravity. We get, rc^2 / (1 / h *2G) - rc^4 / (1 / h *2G *b^2) = M

The first term has to equal one, at the speed of light. The second term has to equal h at the speed of light. There has to be a variable missing in that first term, or h varies from its value to the value one.)

About supernovas, the estimates are that there are about one hundred million neutron stars in our galaxy.

Could all of the stars in the galaxy fit into a ball of the radius of plutos orbit? Yes.

Is most of the energy e.m? No, the explosion is busy making new heavy elements, which release em energy but we are not seeing total mass to energy conversion at any appreciable level. The explosion envelope is mainly matter doing more than 1000 km per second. A Neptune has a heat shield atmosphere but this wall of gas and heat that hits it is truly mind blowing.

The star that remains after the event is still going to be more massive than our sun. The orbit of any planets that survive are going to change but they cannot escape. Planets within twenty a.u. can be slung shot out of the system. The chances of our capturing one are minute, the effects of one hurtling through our solar system would be minute also.

(Edited) I just took a look at the orbital velocities of our planets, they are way too low. Their orbital eccentricities would alter but they wouldn't escape. The only thing that could would be a binary companion star.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 1 month ago #20379 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Sloat, The SN event is real and the neutron star is a model. The real event seems to indicate mass is ejected if stuff astronomers believe are SNRs really are that. There must have been billions of SN events and if half the mass of a star is ejected in the SN event there is billions of solar masses of matter flying through the universe and a very tiny fraction must come our way. It might be the SN event happens at that rare and unlikely meeting of stuff flying at just the right parameters and just the right star. If a butterfly can start a chain of events---?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 1 month ago #20381 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Jim, I suspect that the estimate of how many neutron stars there are; and hence how many supernova, theres been, is based on the big bang theory. In another thread I argued that to get a one to one correspondence between gravitational space and electromagnetic space, the radius of the electromagnetic universe had to multiplied by eight thousand.

This was to allow light, travelling extremely slowly vis a vis gravity, to move a distance equal to the Compton wavelength.

The upshot is that our galaxy can be much older than is thought. It would have graveyards of neutron stars. These things are the mass of a sun but they have been crushed into something about the size of the Earth. They are therefore hard to see. There would be more of them than the stars we can see. I get about 8% of the galaxys mass being ordinary stars and the rest dead neutron stars.

The down side of this argument, is that neutron stars make an almighty row. They spin so fast that radio telescopes pick up their noise. Of course thats not all of them, their poles have to be roughly pointing towards us. The other points to bear in mind are, what is the mean birth rate of stars, and how many totally dead white dwarfs i.e. black cinders, are there.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 1 month ago #15364 by nemesis
Replied by nemesis on topic Reply from
Stoat, white dwarfs are about the size of Earth. Neutron stars are much smaller, a few kilometers across, smaller than many large cities. Also, the "noisy" ones are very young, a few centuries to around a million years old. A very old one, billions of years old, would have become quiescent and cooled to maybe a dull red heat. It would be very difficult to detect, even if nearby.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 1 month ago #20931 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Nemesis, yeah youre right, I was being a bit sloppy but I was just after rough sizes to see whether JIms model could hold up.

From the equation I gave a couple of posts up we can work out the Schwarzschild radius. For a sun of six solar masses, 1 - h = 2GM/r c^2 Might as well ignore that h and say its one. We get about 18 km radius. Now if we say that at that radius the refractive index of space becomes negative then we can alter the lorentzian to become 1 + hx up to the speed of gravity, which will give us 2 = 2GM/r c^2 Dump that two from both sides and we have another radius exactly half the Schwarzschild radius.

Instead of having a gravity well shaped like a V rotated round its vertical axis, we would have a gravity well shaped like a W. It can never become a black hole.

Now the idea that a white dwarf can radiate away to a black dwarf is fine. We wouldnt know where they are, even if they were pretty close. Neutron stars are a different ball game though. They will lose angular momentum in time, through the ginormous electrical fields they generate. I cant see them losing their energy fast. They are so close to that important radius that light has a hard job getting out, it will be red shifted enormously. As the star slows the red shift will drop over time, the problem then becomes one of, how does neutronium work?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.761 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum