A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Solar
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LARSON -ian Binary-Star Formation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 17th 06, 06:38 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar
Sorcerer[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 326
Default LARSON -ian Binary-Star Formation


"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Double-A" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Double-A" wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| | |
| | | Sorcerer wrote:
| | | "Double-A" wrote in message
| | | oups.com...
| | | What did Dewey think about de Sitter's observations?
| | |
| | | Double-A
| | |
| | | You still don't have a grip on deSitter, do you?
| | |
| | |
| | | Look carefully at this orbit.
| | | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wheel.gif
| | |
| | | Periastron is at one of
| | | A) 12:00 o'clock
| | | B) 7:00 o'clock
| | | C) 4:00 o'clock
| | | D) Other?
| | |
| | | Explain your answer.
| | |
| | | C. That's where it "looks" closest to the center, if that's what
you
| | | mean.
| |
| | Not quite what I mean. By the shadow of the wheel it looks like
| | 12 o'clock is closest to the centre, doesn't it?
| |
| |
| | Maybe the shadow is closest to center.
| |
| |
| | What else do you know about perisatron?
| |
| |
| |
| | It's the location in double star's orbits where they are closest
| | together.
| |
| | But what does this have to do with de Sitter mirages?
| |
| | Double-A
|
| Maybe you are not a thinker, maybe you want to be spoon-fed.
| Maybe anyone can spoon-feed you bull**** and you'll swallow it.
|
|
| Is that what you're trying to feed me now?

I resent that implication. You are the one feeding me with "maybe".

|
|
| Maybe you simply don't know enough to work it out.
| Is science about "maybe", "could be", "might be", "I guess"?
|
|
| Periastron is the fastest part of the orbit.
|
|
| Which would be identical to the part were the stars are the closest,
| just like I said.
|
|
| Periastron is at one of
| A) 12:00 o'clock
| B) 7:00 o'clock
| C) 4:00 o'clock
| D) Other?
|
|
| In your animation, the star also moves the fastest at 4:00 o'clock. It
| seems to take sort of a quantum leap everytime it gets there.

Yes. Unfortunately we've had still frames in movies since movies began.
If that is your critique this is little I can do about it, write to
Hollywood
and complain to them about the quantum leap.
Is that the bull**** you're trying to whine to me now, or shall we get over
your resentment and discuss physics?

So why is the wheel an ellipse, and why isn't the shadow an identical
ellipse? What is the shape of a wheel anyway? Do you often see elliptical
wheels?



| What does this have to do with deSitter?
| We'll get to that, there are no easy answers. You are not going to
| learn unless you think.
|


  #12  
Old November 17th 06, 09:16 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar
Double-A[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default LARSON -ian Binary-Star Formation


Sorcerer wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Double-A" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Double-A" wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| | |
| | | Sorcerer wrote:
| | | "Double-A" wrote in message
| | | oups.com...
| | | What did Dewey think about de Sitter's observations?
| | |
| | | Double-A
| | |
| | | You still don't have a grip on deSitter, do you?
| | |
| | |
| | | Look carefully at this orbit.
| | | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wheel.gif
| | |
| | | Periastron is at one of
| | | A) 12:00 o'clock
| | | B) 7:00 o'clock
| | | C) 4:00 o'clock
| | | D) Other?
| | |
| | | Explain your answer.
| | |
| | | C. That's where it "looks" closest to the center, if that's what
you
| | | mean.
| |
| | Not quite what I mean. By the shadow of the wheel it looks like
| | 12 o'clock is closest to the centre, doesn't it?
| |
| |
| | Maybe the shadow is closest to center.
| |
| |
| | What else do you know about perisatron?
| |
| |
| |
| | It's the location in double star's orbits where they are closest
| | together.
| |
| | But what does this have to do with de Sitter mirages?
| |
| | Double-A
|
| Maybe you are not a thinker, maybe you want to be spoon-fed.
| Maybe anyone can spoon-feed you bull**** and you'll swallow it.
|
|
| Is that what you're trying to feed me now?

I resent that implication. You are the one feeding me with "maybe".

|
|
| Maybe you simply don't know enough to work it out.
| Is science about "maybe", "could be", "might be", "I guess"?
|
|
| Periastron is the fastest part of the orbit.
|
|
| Which would be identical to the part were the stars are the closest,
| just like I said.
|
|
| Periastron is at one of
| A) 12:00 o'clock
| B) 7:00 o'clock
| C) 4:00 o'clock
| D) Other?
|
|
| In your animation, the star also moves the fastest at 4:00 o'clock. It
| seems to take sort of a quantum leap everytime it gets there.

Yes. Unfortunately we've had still frames in movies since movies began.
If that is your critique this is little I can do about it, write to
Hollywood
and complain to them about the quantum leap.
Is that the bull**** you're trying to whine to me now, or shall we get over
your resentment and discuss physics?

So why is the wheel an ellipse, and why isn't the shadow an identical
ellipse? What is the shape of a wheel anyway? Do you often see elliptical
wheels?



My interpretation is that I am not seeing the wheel side-on, but
rotated about 45 degrees, so of course it would look like an ellipse
from that angle. The shadow I would be seeing from a different angle.
Of course if it were a star in orbit, it would be an ellipse because
that's how things orbit.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Double-A





| What does this have to do with deSitter?
| We'll get to that, there are no easy answers. You are not going to
| learn unless you think.
|


  #13  
Old November 17th 06, 11:36 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar
Sorcerer[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 326
Default LARSON -ian Binary-Star Formation


"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Double-A" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Sorcerer wrote:
| | "Double-A" wrote in message
| | ups.com...
| | |
| | | Sorcerer wrote:
| | | "Double-A" wrote in message
| | | oups.com...
| | | |
| | | | Sorcerer wrote:
| | | | "Double-A" wrote in message
| | | |
oups.com...
| | | | What did Dewey think about de Sitter's observations?
| | | |
| | | | Double-A
| | | |
| | | | You still don't have a grip on deSitter, do you?
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | Look carefully at this orbit.
| | | | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wheel.gif
| | | |
| | | | Periastron is at one of
| | | | A) 12:00 o'clock
| | | | B) 7:00 o'clock
| | | | C) 4:00 o'clock
| | | | D) Other?
| | | |
| | | | Explain your answer.
| | | |
| | | | C. That's where it "looks" closest to the center, if that's
what
| you
| | | | mean.
| | |
| | | Not quite what I mean. By the shadow of the wheel it looks like
| | | 12 o'clock is closest to the centre, doesn't it?
| | |
| | |
| | | Maybe the shadow is closest to center.
| | |
| | |
| | | What else do you know about perisatron?
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | It's the location in double star's orbits where they are closest
| | | together.
| | |
| | | But what does this have to do with de Sitter mirages?
| | |
| | | Double-A
| |
| | Maybe you are not a thinker, maybe you want to be spoon-fed.
| | Maybe anyone can spoon-feed you bull**** and you'll swallow it.
| |
| |
| | Is that what you're trying to feed me now?
|
| I resent that implication. You are the one feeding me with "maybe".
|
| |
| |
| | Maybe you simply don't know enough to work it out.
| | Is science about "maybe", "could be", "might be", "I guess"?
| |
| |
| | Periastron is the fastest part of the orbit.
| |
| |
| | Which would be identical to the part were the stars are the closest,
| | just like I said.
| |
| |
| | Periastron is at one of
| | A) 12:00 o'clock
| | B) 7:00 o'clock
| | C) 4:00 o'clock
| | D) Other?
| |
| |
| | In your animation, the star also moves the fastest at 4:00 o'clock.
It
| | seems to take sort of a quantum leap everytime it gets there.
|
| Yes. Unfortunately we've had still frames in movies since movies began.
| If that is your critique this is little I can do about it, write to
| Hollywood
| and complain to them about the quantum leap.
| Is that the bull**** you're trying to whine to me now, or shall we get
over
| your resentment and discuss physics?
|
| So why is the wheel an ellipse, and why isn't the shadow an identical
| ellipse? What is the shape of a wheel anyway? Do you often see
elliptical
| wheels?
|
|
| My interpretation is that I am not seeing the wheel side-on, but
| rotated about 45 degrees, so of course it would look like an ellipse
| from that angle.
|The shadow I would be seeing from a different angle.

Very good.
The same is true for deSitter looking at the orbit of a double star.
If it were possible to change the angle we see it from, in other
words get a different view, we'd make a different estimate of
the ellipse.


| Of course if it were a star in orbit, it would be an ellipse because
| that's how things orbit.

Baloney. The Universe is 3-D, every orbit we can see is a
3-D projection onto a 2-D plane.

| I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

What point are YOU trying to make?
The only point I see you making is that you want to run before
you can walk and keep nagging as I try to teach you. Feeding
you more than one line of imformation at a time, you'll ignore
each point in your rush to get quick answers.


What point was deSitter trying to make?
We see double stars. So how does that prove the speed of light
is not source dependent?

Let me mumble "I can see an ellipse, therefore it is absurd to call
it a circle", because that's what de_Sitter did.
C'mon, produce the math deSitter used.

Androcles.




| Double-A
|
|
|
|
|
| | What does this have to do with deSitter?
| | We'll get to that, there are no easy answers. You are not going to
| | learn unless you think.
| |
|


  #14  
Old December 21st 06, 06:03 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar
Paul R. Mays
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default LARSON -ian Binary-Star Formation


Horsey Doo Doo....


wrote in message
ups.com...
4
LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation

About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the
vicinity of the sun are binary or double. But orthodox
astronomers and astrophysicists still have no
satisfactory theory about how they form or why there are
so many of them.

But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY
CONSEQUENCE in the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory
of the Physical Universe developed by the late Physicist
Dewey B. Larson.

I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which
is detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF
MOTION" and in some of his other books.

First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT
generate energy by "fusion". A small fraction comes
from slow gravitational collapse. The rest results from
the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier
than IRON). Each element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE
LIMIT. The heavier the element is, the lower is this
limit. A star's internal temperature increases as it
grows in mass via accretion, and absorption of the decay
products of cosmic rays, gradually reaching the
destructive temperature limit of lighter and lighter
elements.

When the internal temperature of the star reaches
the destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a
Type I SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION ! This is because there is
SO MUCH iron present; and that is related to the
structure of iron atoms and the atom building process,
which Larson explains in some of his books [better than
I can].

When the star explodes, the lighter material on the
outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at
less than the speed of light. The heavier material in
the center portion of the star was already bouncing
around at close to the speed of light, because of the
high temperature. The explosion pushes that material
OVER the speed of light, and it expands OUTWARD IN TIME,
which is equivalent to INWARD IN SPACE, and it often
actually DISAPPEARS from visual sight for a while.

Over long periods of time, both masses start to
fall back gravitationally. The material that had been
blown outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT
star. The material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME
starts to form a WHITE DWARF star. BOTH stars then
start moving back toward the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from
opposite directions on the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram.

The chances of the two masses falling back into the
exact same location in space, making a single lone star
again, are near zero. They will instead form a BINARY
system, orbiting each other.

According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an
INVERSE DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE),
because the material at its center is most widely
dispersed (blown outward) in time. This ELIMINATES the
need to resort to MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about
"degenerate matter", "neutron stars", "black holes",
etc..


LARSONIAN Solar System Formation

If the mass of the heavy material at the center of
the exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of
a single white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini"
white dwarf stars (revolving around the red giant star,
but probably still too far away in three-dimensional
TIME to be affected by its heat, etc.). These will
become PLANETS!

In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used
all this information, and other principles of his
comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical
Universe, to derive his own version of Bode's Law.
http://library.rstheory.com/books/uom/07.html .

A WEALTH of Information about the GENERAL UNIFIED
Theory of the Physical Universe developed by the late
Physicist Dewey B. Larson can be found at the web site
http://www.rstheory.com .

See also http://members.aol.com/GalactcFed/universe.txt
,
http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/sunpart1.htm ,
http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/sunpart2.htm .

Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS

P.S.: PASS IT ON !


"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LARSON -ian Binary-Star Formation [email protected] Astronomy Misc 14 December 21st 06 06:03 PM
LARSON -ian Binary-Star Formation [email protected] Misc 13 December 21st 06 06:03 PM
Binary Star catalog John Oliver Research 1 March 24th 05 11:52 AM
Larson -ian Binary Star Formations Twittering One Misc 1 November 9th 04 10:21 PM
Larson -ian Binary Star Formations REM460 Astronomy Misc 1 November 4th 04 11:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.