Stellar Remnants

[michaelmozina]

I was referring to where he laid out the groundwork of his theory, in the beginning...the first half or so of the references are at least 75% his own papers, and your website. You can't build a theory on top of a flawed foundation.

Well, you would need to demonstrate that some of his earlier material was "flawed" to claim it was built on top of a flawed foundation. FYI I read a lot of papers where the author cites his own papers. That is particular true in heliosiesmology papers (where the number of experts is limited) and more "exotic" theories in general.

I'm not attacking you personally, I am just stating why I do not put any stock in what you are saying. I have said the physical/scientific reasons that give me doubts, and most of those questions still haven't been answered. Remember, this thread is about harry's assertion that stars that supernova and leave behind a remnant will collapse back in on themselves and make a "rejuvenated" star, which I believe is quite different(and somehow even more wrong) than what you/Manuel are asserting.

As you note, that is actually a somewhat different premise than what Manuel has suggested. Manuel's scenario doesn't depend on a the remnant collapsing back into "itself", rather it is dependent upon *any* (potentially new) material falling into the remaining core, potentially including previously ejected material, but not necessarily limited to previously ejected materials.

 

[drwayne]

"FYI I read a lot of papers where the author cites his own papers."

Of course. This a natural fallout of the fact that an author tends to carry areas of interest and favored
analysis methods forward through their career, and citing previous papers is a way of effeciently
incorporating that legacy work into new work. Nothing insidious there.

What one likes to see however is that one's papers are noticed by others, and that is the value of having
citations other than your own. That is the metric that I was referring to earlier.

By this criteria, much of my work fits into the "Tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it"
category.

 

[UFmbutler]

Well, you would need to demonstrate that some of his earlier material was "flawed" to claim it was built on top of a flawed foundation.

But that's the problem. Alternative theorists just repeat themselves to whoever will listen for long enough and say "prove me wrong". Science is about proving yourself to be correct...if you want to force the mainstream to respond and tell you why you are wrong, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal that is well-read and respected, such as ApJ. You say there are other people who mostly refer to themselves in small subfields, which is fine, but...how is this a small subfield? Stellar structure and star formation is one of the biggest and most active fields in astronomy. Saying that we are all wrong about the very basic parts of it would garner a LOT of attention and references...if it were a valid assertion.

The plight of the alternative theorist is self-perpetuating. You always claim to want people to prove you wrong, but you don't take the necessary steps to do this. Submit one of your unpublished works to ApJ or A&A, or AJ even, and the referees are required to provide a detailed report explaining what is right/wrong with the paper.

 

[michaelmozina]

By this criteria, much of my work fits into the "Tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it"
category.

Understood. Keep in mind however that Manuel's ideas are pretty much the antithesis of contemporary thinking. When I was a child in school I was taught that galaxies did not even form for 'billion(s)' (plural) of years after the bang. The idea was that all heavier elements, neutron cores and "black holes" were created by the first hydrogen suns that formed.

Manuel's theory works the problem from the opposite direction, suggesting that neutron material was always present and became the binding force of galaxies and the primary cause of star formation. Only in more recent satellite and ground based images has it become apparent that galaxies were present within less than a billion years after the bang, and still there is an assumption that only hydrogen and light elements existed right after the bang. Even if his theories are correct, it would be quite different than what has been assumed from many decades. In other words, it could be several more decades before people start noticing the missing tree.

 

[michaelmozina]

But that's the problem. Alternative theorists just repeat themselves to whoever will listen for long enough and say "prove me wrong".

Nobody is requiring you to "prove him wrong" unless of course you claim that his work is wrong. I agree that the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim, but negative claims are also claims. Whether it's right or wrong remains to be seen IMO. If you believe it to be wrong however, then there is a different burden of proof required to demonstrate that claim.

Science is about proving yourself to be correct...if you want to force the mainstream to respond and tell you why you are wrong, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal that is well-read and respected, such as ApJ.

Ok. Then again, the notion of "why it's wrong" becomes a bit subjective after awhile. For instance, many people believe that I am 'wrong' about my interpretation of the RD and Doppler images on my website. What I never heard are valid explanations of these images based on standard solar theory. Often folks will cite standard theory to attempt to demonstrate my interpretation is incorrect, but that tends to fall into the category of a logical "appeal to popularity" fallacy rather than an actual disproof. Theories that are 'different' tend to be difficult to publish in mainstream publications. Even Alfven had problems getting the mainstream publications to publish his early papers.

You say there are other people who mostly refer to themselves in small subfields, which is fine, but...how is this a small subfield? Stellar structure and star formation is one of the biggest and most active fields in astronomy.

Maybe so, but most of those folks base their theories and beliefs upon a hydrogen/helium gas model solar theory. Manuel's theory begins with an entirely different assumption about solar composition. It's a very different animal.

Saying that we are all wrong about the very basic parts of it would garner a LOT of attention and references...if it were a valid assertion.

Not necessarily. When Manuel first started publishing these theories, there really wasn't a lot of corroborating evidence outside of the realm of nuclear chemistry. Only in the past 5 or six years has there been any sort of evidence from other fields of science, and even these pieces of evidence are open to interpretation. You and I might interpret the heliosiesmology data quite differently for instance. To overturn long standing beliefs requires a lot of effort, a lot of patience, and a lot of different types of evidence. I would argue that until recently only one type of evidence existed to support Manuel's theories, whereas now there are more pieces of evidence to corroborate such ideas. Even still, those pieces of evidence are open to subjective interpretation. His ideas have garnered some attention, but not everyone is interested in them to the point of caring to refute or agree with them in a published paper.

The plight of the alternative theorist is self-perpetuating. You always claim to want people to prove you wrong, but you don't take the necessary steps to do this. Submit one of your unpublished works to ApJ or A&A, or AJ even, and the referees are required to provide a detailed report explaining what is right/wrong with the paper.

Again, nobody is asking you to prove Manuel is wrong unless of course you are claiming that he is wrong. It seems to me that the "necessary steps" often involve building up some momentum along the way. I think it's also somewhat dubious to suggest that only a few publications are capable of determining what is right or wrong about a given paper or that astronomy publications are necessarily the only publications that matter, or even the best publications to review a specific type of material. Most of Manuel's earlier papers were so heavily focused on nuclear chemistry that it's unclear whether the publications you cite were even capable of peer reviewing his material properly. That isn't as true of the papers that I've been involved in, but I would say that was true for much of his earliest work. Most of it revolved around nuclear chemistry analysis and the publications where his work was published were in fact focused on that specific field of science. Since he has a track record with these publications now, it is in fact "easier" to publish his work in publications related to nuclear chemistry.

You are correct however that in order to overturn mainstream theory, it will be necessary to publish some work in the mainstream astronomy publications. Until recently however, I don't personally believe there was enough information to even begin to do that. With the advent of satellites in space devoted to solar imaging, that is slowly changing but even still, change takes time. Alfven and Bruce published many papers related to solar activities in many different publications. That doesn't mean their work is considered "mainstream", nor did they personally overturn mainstream thinking related to coronal loop activities, CME's etc. More recent papers like the two papers I cited a few weeks ago do tend to favor their discharge theories, but even still, how much attention have they received from the mainstream?

Most solar theorists today resist even the concept of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere being responsible for CME's and coronal loops and flare events. These are actually the single most 'visible' and demonstrable aspect of our solar theories and even that concept is highly disputed today. Instead the concept of "magnetic reconnection" has garnered most of the attention in mainstream publications. The standard solar theory has built up a lot of momentum over the last five or six decades and it's not likely that folks will immediately change their opinions based on a few papers. That one paper I cited for instance even looked at 'magnetic reconnection' theories and eliminated them from consideration due to the observations being analyzed. I've seen no refutations of that paper, and no citations yet either. Rome wasn't built in a day, and change takes time.

 

[UFmbutler]

But you are presenting it as evidence...you have, and have always had, this burden of proof thing backwards. The reason there is a "mainstream" view of science is because mainstream science has been reviewed, tested, critiqued, and approved by the community on a scientific basis. It is NOT a popularity contest. There are scientists that are quite unpopular, yet their work is respected. We have the peer review process to prevent things like this from wasting the community's time.

Most scientists do not seek to "overturn" science, they seek to improve it. Look at the MOND people...not many people think it could possibly be correct, but they still get attention because they submit their work for mainstream peer review on a regular basis. They are not afraid of being challenged...I can't speak for Manuel because I've never spoken with him(though I've seen some of his forums postings and find them to be pretty similar...) but you and other alternative people have a persecution complex, where you assume that because the mainstream isn't listening to you on some forum on the internet or on a personal website, they are closed-minded. How are they supposed to know about your theories if you don't give it to them for consideration and judgement? Is it because you don't want to be proven wrong on an idea you have been fighting for for years, so you guys just hide out in minor journals and websites where nobody will EVER put in the effort necessary to convince you you are wrong?

The reason everybody believes magnetic reconnection is correct is because of the body of evidence behind it. When I look for "evidence" of this electrical discharge stuff, I find things like a picture of a lightning bolt stuck next to a picture of a CME/galaxy jet/even the Grand Canyon and they see "clearly this represents an electrical discharge!" That is not science. The surface of the sun may "look like" it has a solid surface in some images...but using that fact to say that it does have a solid surface is not science. Do you really think anyone is going to believe you when your argument usually boils down to "look at a plasma ball from walmart"? Science requires evidence.

"Looks like" is not science.

 

[michaelmozina]

But you are presenting it as evidence...you have, and have always had, this burden of proof thing backwards. The reason there is a "mainstream" view of science is because mainstream science has been reviewed, tested, critiqued, and approved by the community on a scientific basis. It is NOT a popularity contest. There are scientists that are quite unpopular, yet their work is respected. We have the peer review process to prevent things like this from wasting the community's time.

Most scientists do not seek to "overturn" science, they seek to improve it. Look at the MOND people...not many people think it could possibly be correct, but they still get attention because they submit their work for mainstream peer review on a regular basis.

IMO you're sort of refuting your own statements here a bit. The publication of an idea in a mainstream publication is not a valid barometer of "accuracy" or "acceptance" as the MOND theory demonstrates. An idea can pass a peer review process yet not receive much attention or much acceptance by the mainstream.

They are not afraid of being challenged...I can't speak for Manuel because I've never spoken with him(though I've seen some of his forums postings and find them to be pretty similar...) but you and other alternative people have a persecution complex, where you assume that because the mainstream isn't listening to you on some forum on the internet or on a personal website, they are closed-minded.

Alfven had a tough time getting the mainstream publications to pick up his early work. He therefore resorted to 'second tear' publications to get his work "out there" so it could be reviewed and seen by others. That doesn't mean that he was afraid of being challenged, he was simply intent on having his papers published *somewhere* if not in the mainstream publications so that others could find and review the material. I think you're confusing "fear' with "desire for publication even if the mainstream won't do it".

How are they supposed to know about your theories if you don't give it to them for consideration and judgement?

The same way they found Alfven's theories.

Is it because you don't want to be proven wrong on an idea you have been fighting for for years, so you guys just hide out in minor journals and websites where nobody will EVER put in the effort necessary to convince you you are wrong?

If I didn't want to be "proven wrong" (or right) I wouldn't have published any papers at all. It's not a matter of "hiding out", it's a matter of getting it published, one way or another. I've personally posted on every major astronomy website I could find, and I know that others in those papers have also done the same. None of us are 'hiding out" from public scrutiny or public debate. Nobody ever seems to put in the effort to explain those satellite images, or that heliosiesmology data using a standard solar model, so how could I ever know if I was right or wrong?

The reason everybody believes magnetic reconnection is correct is because of the body of evidence behind it.

I would say that discharge theory has a large body of evidence behind it, including all of Birkeland's work, all of Alfven's work, all of Bruce's work and several recent papers on this topic, including two published papers I just recently posted here. That does not however guarantee that it will achieve "mainstream" status.

When I look for "evidence" of this electrical discharge stuff, I find things like a picture of a lightning bolt stuck next to a picture of a CME/galaxy jet/even the Grand Canyon and they see "clearly this represents an electrical discharge!" That is not science.

It's comments like this that are sort of a "turn off" from the perspective of the EU community. I've posted other papers here for your consideration that had nothing to do with me or Manuel. They are focused on solar events, not events here on Earth. This sort of argument sounds like a gross oversimplification and a question of "cherry picking" the papers you want to respond to, and ignoring the ones you don't wish to address.

The surface of the sun may "look like" it has a solid surface in some images...but using that fact to say that it does have a solid surface is not science.

There is heliosiesmology evidence to support the fact that at 4800KM or so, all mass flows go horizontal and there is evidence of a subsurface stratification at .995. All idea are open to "intepretation" however.

Do you really think anyone is going to believe you when your argument usually boils down to "look at a plasma ball from walmart"? Science requires evidence.

"Looks like" is not science.

That heliosiesmology data is not "looks like", it's based on mathematical analysis galore. If you oversimplify the process to the point of absurdity, it's possible to ridicule pretty much every theory under the sun.

 

[UFmbutler]

IMO you're sort of refuting your own statements here a bit. The publication of an idea in a mainstream publication is not a valid barometer of "accuracy" or "acceptance" as the MOND theory demonstrates. An idea can pass a peer review process yet not receive much attention or much acceptance by the mainstream.

You missed the point entirely...MOND theory does work, but most would argue it is just a curve fit rather than real physics. The reason why it gets attention is because it presents a new way to look at the problem, and by doing so they were able to plug some holes and clarify things in the current theory. It helped improve our understanding of the problem. They don't necessarily always claim that it is actually the case, they are just throwing it out there and say "hey, look at this, this works", believing that if something fits the observations it is worthy of consideration...which it is. It doesn't mean the idea is correct, but the fact that it does fit some of the observations has been shown to be, and that's what matters and all that the papers are trying to say.

Alfven had a tough time getting the mainstream publications to pick up his early work. He therefore resorted to 'second tear' publications to get his work "out there" so it could be reviewed and seen by others. That doesn't mean that he was afraid of being challenged, he was simply intent on having his papers published *somewhere* if not in the mainstream publications so that others could find and review the material. I think you're confusing "fear' with "desire for publication even if the mainstream won't do it".

When was the last time you or Manuel submitted your EU/iron sun stuff to a mainstream journal? You can't just skip that step. The ironic/funny thing would be if you submitted to ApJ and I ended up having to referee it since any authors can be chosen to do so

If I didn't want to be "proven wrong" (or right) I wouldn't have published any papers at all. It's not a matter of "hiding out", it's a matter of getting it published, one way or another. I've personally posted on every major astronomy website I could find, and I know that others in those papers have also done the same. None of us are 'hiding out" from public scrutiny or public debate. Nobody ever seems to put in the effort to explain those satellite images, or that heliosiesmology data using a standard solar model, so how could I ever know if I was right or wrong?

By submitting it to someone who is REQUIRED to do so. It is not the responsibility of random people on the internet to prove you wrong.

It's comments like this that are sort of a "turn off" from the perspective of the EU community.

Then why do they post images like that on EU websites? I wasn't making that up, there literally are pictures of lightning bolts next to pictures of the grand canyon.

That heliosiesmology data is not "looks like", it's based on mathematical analysis galore. If you oversimplify the process to the point of absurdity, it's possible to ridicule pretty much every theory under the sun.

But you mostly use those satellite images as your evidence. You've never provided mathematical support to your assertions, or a paper that adequately does so either.

The main difference between you/Manuel/etc and Alfven is Alfven had a HUGE amount of respect from his peers, and still does, whereas to most of the mainstream all this EU stuff is just pseudoscientific babble on the internet. Until you submit it to them for consideration, and actually listen to their suggestions, you will never get anywhere. The bottom line is, you have always consistently used "looks like" arguments to back up EU, and consistently failed to provide promised mathematical evidence, just like harry is failing to provide further explanation which he promised to do. This thread is about him and not EU, but I consider it one and the same at this point...it is just alternative for the sake of being alternative.

 

[origin]

Well we have finally hit the "Birkeland/Alfven/Bruce" threshold. So now the circular arguments and obfuscation can begin in earnest!!

As just an innocent bystander at this point, I would think that it is time to consider moving this rapidly developing train wreck to the unexplained. But hey that's just *IMO*.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I would consider that good advice. Since EU has nothing really to do with harry's Stellar remnants discussion, two options are approaching. One is to dump the whole thread, which hasn't quite crossed the "U" threshhold yet, the other is to exorcise the recent EU discussion and move it to the existing thread in The Unexplained.

We shall see what develops....

Wayne

 

[michaelmozina]

You missed the point entirely...MOND theory does work,

Well, it "works" for galaxy rotation issues, but I would argue that it doesn't work well for lensing data.

but most would argue it is just a curve fit rather than real physics.

I would argue that this same criticism applies of Lambda-CDM theory in general. That seems like a weak argument from my perspective.

The reason why it gets attention is because it presents a new way to look at the problem, and by doing so they were able to plug some holes and clarify things in the current theory. It helped improve our understanding of the problem. They don't necessarily always claim that it is actually the case, they are just throwing it out there and say "hey, look at this, this works", believing that if something fits the observations it is worthy of consideration...which it is. It doesn't mean the idea is correct, but the fact that it does fit some of the observations has been shown to be, and that's what matters and all that the papers are trying to say.

All I'm trying to point out is that publication in mainstream publications is not a guarantee that the idea will be accepted.

When was the last time you or Manuel submitted your EU/iron sun stuff to a mainstream journal?

We (as in more than one of us) have never done so as far as I know. The last time *I personally* did that was 2005 when I submitted my own paper to the Apj, but I haven't even been involved in a paper since 2006. I'm self employed so publishing papers every year isn't a really high priority to me personally.

You can't just skip that step. The ironic/funny thing would be if you submitted to ApJ and I ended up having to referee it since any authors can be chosen to do so

The next time I submit a paper, I'll hope like hell that you get it. At least I'd be likely to get some feedback. The last time they simply rejected my paper and said nothing much useful about it. In fairness it was a rather "naive' submission frankly. What can I say? I'd never done one before.

By submitting it to someone who is REQUIRED to do so. It is not the responsibility of random people on the internet to prove you wrong.

Like I said, nobody was even assigned my last paper. I suppose when I get ready to do another paper on my own I will try again to submit it to the APJ or one of the other mainstream publications.

But you mostly use those satellite images as your evidence.

The "rigidity" we observe in those images doesn't jive with standard solar theory. If you disagree, start a new thread and explain them using gas models solar theory.

You've never provided mathematical support to your assertions, or a paper that adequately does so either.

That's simply not true IMO. That heliosiesmology paper we cited from Kosovichev is loaded with math and it does support our assertions. Manuel's material has it's own math associated with it as well, but that is mostly nuclear chemistry oriented and it's relatively "old news" so nobody much addresses it today. Only the satellite images lack a "mathematical" backing per se.

The main difference between you/Manuel/etc and Alfven is Alfven had a HUGE amount of respect from his peers, and still does,

That is not true IMO. His work was slow to be accepted and the mainstream is peddling something he personally referred to as "pseudoscience". In addition, let's look at your next sentence:

whereas to most of the mainstream all this EU stuff is just pseudoscientific babble on the internet.

The interesting part from my perspective is the fact that Alfven was the first person to apply MHD theory to solar system activities and astronomy in general. You claim his work is respected, but in the next breath you call it "pseudoscientific babble" and you don't even give him any credit for the 250+ papers he published on the topic of EU theory.

Until you submit it to them for consideration, and actually listen to their suggestions, you will never get anywhere. The bottom line is, you have always consistently used "looks like" arguments to back up EU, and consistently failed to provide promised mathematical evidence, just like harry is failing to provide further explanation which he promised to do.

Wait a minute. How about these papers?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

You can't simply ignore the papers you don't wish to deal with then claim there is no mathematical support behind the idea. How about all of Alfven's papers? Anthony Peratt? Dr Don Scott? Dr. Charles Bruce? I think you're grossly oversimplifying the process and doing the whole EU community a huge disservice in the process.

This thread is about him and not EU, but I consider it one and the same at this point...it is just alternative for the sake of being alternative.

IMO the "most obvious" aspect of Manuel's/Ratcliff's/my theories relates to electrically driven solar atmospheric activity. Even as recently as the last month has seen new papers that support at least that aspect of our theory and yet you act as though *no* evidence supports these ideas and that *no* math has been presented. That's simply not the case IMO.

 

[michaelmozina]

I would consider that good advice. Since EU has nothing really to do with harry's Stellar remnants discussion, two options are approaching. One is to dump the whole thread, which hasn't quite crossed the "U" threshhold yet, the other is to exorcise the recent EU discussion and move it to the existing thread in The Unexplained.

We shall see what develops....

Wayne

FYI, I also consider the topic of EU theory to be unrelated to this specific thread. I wasn't trying hijack the thread or even get into EU theory, it just sort of went that way a bit based on my use of Alfven's work as an example of material that wasn't originally published in mainstream publications but did eventually gain "some" acceptance.

 

[michaelmozina]

FYI UMButler, I posted a link to another paper of interest in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19333

Rather than hijacking this thread, or getting into a non focused conversation, let's stay on topic in both threads and limit our conversation in the other thread to the papers in question.

 

[UFmbutler]

You can't simply ignore the papers you don't wish to deal with then claim there is no mathematical support behind the idea. How about all of Alfven's papers? Anthony Peratt? Dr Don Scott? Dr. Charles Bruce? I think you're grossly oversimplifying the process and doing the whole EU community a huge disservice in the process.

I know I can't, and I don't...I looked at those papers, and while the latter two are interesting results, it doesn't really prove EU correct. It certainly doesn't imply the sun has a solid surface. It does show electric fields are present in solar activities, but nobody ever said they didn't. I can't believe after over a year I still have to remind you that what Alfven called psuedoscience, namely the literal reconnection of magnetic field lines, is NOT WHAT MAGNETIC RECONNECTION IS. You continue to claim to understand this point yet you keep repeating the same stuff.

You know how I feel about outdated and/or discredited work. I've looked at papers/books from all of those sources and found nothing convincing as it pertains to what you are asserting. Giving support for one claim of EU(that electricity plays a large role in the universe, hence the name), does not prove every aspect of it and your personal theories. That claim isn't even contested...all astronomers know the E field plays a role in these types of events. Present the papers for what they are: interesting results...they have nothing to do with EU.

 

[michaelmozina]

I know I can't, and I don't...I looked at those papers, and while the latter two are interesting results, it doesn't really prove EU correct.

Let's save that conversation for the other thread and the last paper I posted. I'm not trying to demonstrate the validity of a cosmology theory by the way, just the electrical aspects of solar atmospheric activity. As you well know, I accept Birn's (et all's) presentation of MR theory but I see no distinction between that label and other labels that are equally valid IMO.

It certainly doesn't imply the sun has a solid surface.

That particular issue is technically unrelated to either this thread or the other thread about solar discharges and I'd rather we not hijack either thread. Since I'm sure that Wayne would prefer that a solid surface sun conversation occur in the "Unexplained" section, if you want to discuss a solid surface solar theory, you might start a new thread in that forum rather than this one.

My business is most busy when school starts up and that's what's going on right now. I don't really have the time to get involved right now in a whole "EU" thread, but I'll try to keep up with these two threads and anything you start in the Unexplained section. I'd prefer it relate to solar theory rather than a whole cosmology theory however.

 

[UFmbutler]

I consider the solid surface sun idea to be similar to the idea of a neutron core, something harry has been arguing for. That is why I have been trying to focus on that.

 

[michaelmozina]

I consider the solid surface sun idea to be similar to the idea of a neutron core, something harry has been arguing for. That is why I have been trying to focus on that.

They are similar, but technically they aren't the same idea. Manual's basic theory works with or without an outer 'crust' and would still apply to a plasma sun.

 

[UFmbutler]

Then I would question why you brought it up in the first place...but anyways, this thread was bound for the unexplained long before this EU tangent got developed.

The bottom line is, stellar "rejuvenation" following a supernova is not a valid idea, and I believe stems from a monumental misunderstanding of gravity...just because the star was held together for a really long time by it doesn't mean it has the power to pull everything back to it after it explodes, sending it countless millions of miles away...if it could, big things such as our Earth would have certainly spiraled into the sun by now.

 

[michaelmozina]

Then I would question why you brought it up in the first place...but anyways, this thread was bound for the unexplained long before this EU tangent got developed.

Well, it's been in this forum for awhile and I would hate to have it moved only because it got hijacked. I'm not even sure now how we ended up going down that road. That wasn't my intent.

The bottom line is, stellar "rejuvenation" following a supernova is not a valid idea, and I believe stems from a monumental misunderstanding of gravity...just because the star was held together for a really long time by it doesn't mean it has the power to pull everything back to it after it explodes, sending it countless millions of miles away...if it could, big things such as our Earth would have certainly spiraled into the sun by now.

I would be inclined to believe that as it relates to the force of a "supernova" event rather than say a "nova", you're probably correct. It would however depend on the force of the explosion and whether or not a "core" or remnant is leftover from the explosion. While most material would probably be ejected at escape velocity, it is possible that some material is not ejected at a particularly high velocity and therefore it could return again to a remaining core. Manuel's remnant theory however is not dependent upon returning material from a single supernova. I think your comment about planets necessarily spiraling into the sun is misplaced. Everything would depend on the angle involved and the momentum of material IMO. Since a supernova is the only way for elements heavier than iron to be created, and the planets contain heavier elements, it's necessarily the case that some of these elements would have to come from *some* supernova event of some sort. Even the Iron and Nickel in the Earth would necessarily need to have been created inside a sun that went supernova.

 

[UFmbutler]

As I said at least a couple times in my posts in this thread, it is very well-known and excepted that the formation of our solar system was triggered by a supernova. That is not what is being argued.

My comment about planets is valid. If we assumed enough gas from the supernova fell back to the star to form a new "rejuvenated" star, this "gravity sink" as harry likes to call it would have to be ridiculously strong. If it can pull little grains of dust moving AWAY from the star parsecs away back to its surface, theres no reason to believe a planet, let's say mercury, would remain in its orbit for so long. As I said, it is a misunderstanding of gravity. When an object becomes a black hole or other condensed matter, it doesn't suddenly gain more gravity(unless and until it starts accreting matter). The question is not whether black holes or neutron stars can accrete matter...it is very clear that they can.

If you are correct and some of the supernova material can fall back on the star(show me a SNR that demonstrates inflow near the star and strong outflow everywehre else if you want me to believe this), then one would expect stars to continually grow smaller and smaller every time they supernova. Unless you are contending that this is responsible for the stellar evolutionary sequence that we see...if you are, this thread DEFINITELY belongs in the unexplained because that is the wackiest thing I ever heard.

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, the EU based stuff will be moved to the existing thread in The Unexplained when I have time. You can feel free to reply here in the meantime as I will move the whole bunch when I have time. I'll try and discern which post are related to the subject of the thread and leave them here, and move the others. I'll do the best I can. It takes me about an hour to do such things correctly, and I don't have the time right now. You all owe me a dozen cheese sammiches. I'll stick a post in here when it has been done.

Meantime, it seems harry, with his off topic, and "refuting his own assertions with links in the same post", has gone to sleep. Hopefully, he will be able to get this topic back on track

Or not...

Meteor Wayne

 

[michaelmozina]

If you are correct and some of the supernova material can fall back on the star(show me a SNR that demonstrates inflow near the star and strong outflow everywehre else if you want me to believe this),

I'll have to do some checking after work. That sounds like a reasonable request, but I'm swamped today at work. The "shape" of the supernova blast would probably have a lot to do with what material goes where.

then one would expect stars to continually grow smaller and smaller every time they supernova.

If there are no other sources of material to draw from, then yes, I would expect that to be true.

Unless you are contending that this is responsible for the stellar evolutionary sequence that we see...if you are, this thread DEFINITELY belongs in the unexplained because that is the wackiest thing I ever heard.

I'm not suggesting anything besides the idea that "some" material from a supernova event "may" end up back around the remaining core assuming that this material did not reach escape velocity to begin with.

 

[UFmbutler]

That's a fine assumption and I agree with it. However, my point is that I don't believe enough material could possibly not reach escape velocity to re-ignite fusion, thus re-giving birth to a star.

I don't even understand why we need a new method of star formation. We see it forming in standard ways all the time, in dusty cores of molecular clouds. Not around supernova remnants(where around means the remnant is the protostar we see).

On a side note, I am working on an observation proposal for the SPICA mission ( http://www.ir.isas.jaxa.jp/SPICA/ ) as well as the APEX ( http://www.eso.org/public/astronomy/tel ... /apex.html ) instrument, along with some other telescopes to study the process of massive star formation/star cluster formation more closely, studying samples of each stage of evolution, starting with the initial starless core in a molecular cloud. If you agree with this mode of star formation, where a nearby supernova can trigger an event of star formation(although it doesn't HAVE to occur for stars to form) via shocks, then we agree and we can stop arguing. It is the contention that a star can form on top of a remnant that I have a problem with.

We know where stars are forming and from where, and it is not on top of remnants. You know my view from this from my paper that I posted here in April or whenever it was, so if you have a problem with it tell me specifically what it is and I'll address it.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day


Came back today, sorry I was in Hospital.

Have to go through the posts.

Metorwayne said

Meantime, it seems harry, with his off topic, and "refuting his own assertions with links in the same post", has gone to sleep. Hopefully, he will be able to get this topic back on track

What I have been stating is on the topic and as for refuting my assertions, I may post links that offer an alternative. I have not locked my points of view in a box.

So! Please with a smile and sugar on top, please explain.

 

[silylene]

Harry,

I hope you are feeling better and OK after your hospital visit.

Perhaps here is a new way to help you answer the questions: could you please search the literature and give a single known example of a star remnant (black hole or neutron star) which has 're-ignited' ? (show literature citations)

thank you.