EPH and 'Mitchell stars'

Rudolf,

TVF is travelling now and may not be able to respond for several days. I think I understand why Mitchel stars are stable. I'll try to put my thoughts together and post them later this evening. When he has the time Tom can verify them and/or fill in any I leave out.

LB

[Rudolf] "If bodies like planets and stars heat up in the manner described in the article and explosions of planets and nova occurs because of 'blockages' of elysium heat transfer then how can objects such as 'Mitchel stars' a.k.a. 'Black Holes' exist at all? Would they then not explode even before they actually get to form?"


Using the Meta Model as a starting point, I see two possible explanations for the stability of Mitchel stars. They are not mutually exclusive.


A) Size by itself is not enough. Nature in general is a balancing act. If a mass grows slowly enough, it has time to adust to increased heat from increased absorption of graviton energy. IOW, it has time to establish a new balance point.

Planets and stars explode when things get out of balance. The article mentions things like phase changes and natural nuclear reactors that can serve as triggers. After a triggering event heat can build up before the mass has a chance to adjust to the new conditions and - bang.

Once a mass becomes large enough to block all of the gravitons that pass close to its center, that region of the core no longer gets hit by gravitons. But that doesn't mean that all gravitons that enter the star stay in the star. Many still pass through the outer layers without ever making contact. Many others are reflected one or more times and leave in a different direction. They not only don't deposit heat in the star, they might carry some heat away.

Without a triggering event to cause an explosion it might be possible for a star to contain any finite amount of matter and still be stable. A Mitchel star could conceiveably be lightyears in diameter, with a thin shell a few hundred million kilometers thick reflecting and absorbing gravitons. Its surface gravity would change very little for any radius greater than the shell thickness.

If a triggering event did occur in something that big ...

Hmmm, when gravitons carry heat away from electrons MM speculates that this causes electrons to have a surface gravity that is negative. For Mitchel stars I doubt that these reflected gravitons, even though hotter and faster, would be numerous enough to overpower the incomming gravitons (negative surface garvity) or even to cancel them (zero surface gravity). But they might contribute to making the gravitational mass of the star seem (and the surface gravity be) less than its inertial mass would suggest.

LB

[Rudolf] "Or are the kind of heat transfer blockages described in the article only for special cases where something else than just plain MI density is causing the blocking?"


I'm pretty sure that the MIs in Mitchel stars are the same as the MIs in planets, moons and ordinary stars.

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

Keep in mind that matter ingredients exist as a concept. No real particle is a matter ingredient.

The following comparison might be helpful:

Conceive of a "distance ingredient". It is the smallest possible distance interval, the one from which all larger intervals are made, and according to MM this means it is infinitessimal. No real distance interval such as a mile or a picometer can be a distance ingredient.

Conceive of a "time ingredient". It is the smallest possible time interval, the one from which all larger intervals are made, and according to MM this means it is infinitessimal. No real time interval such as a millisecond or a week can be a time ingredient.

Conceive of a "matter ingredient". It is the smallest possible mass interval, the one from which all larger intervals are made, and according to MM this means it is infinitessimal. No real mass interval such as an ounce or a microgram can be a matter ingredient.

===

A practical definition for each of these "ingredients" might be: Much smaller than the smallest interval for which we have a name.

LB

Thanks Larry,

Is there any ideas on the nature of the events that can cause these blockages? Perhaps it is not so much the absense of the force of the flux but a sudden change in its direction/strength?

I just can't help wondering about the nature of such possible blockages. Would it be predictable? Would it be something that can be observed?

Nothing beyond what is in the paper we are talking about. We(*) are the only people on the planet that are even thinking along these lines, so if such ideas are to be though, we must do that thinking.

If we could predict that a particular planet (Earth, for instance - but if any other planet in our solar system exploded we would still be in for a rough ride) was going to explode we might be able to do something to protect ourselves. Like go far away. With enough time we might even find a way to prevent it.

EPH estimates that there have been 6 explosions since our solar system formed. That makes the average time between these events somewhat more than half a billion years. The next one could be happening as you read this, but chances are very good that it will be later rather than sooner.

LB


(*) We are, of course, kooks. Just ask any mainstream technologist. ("Hmmm, let's see here. Exploding planets [check]; stars with gravitational masses that are not even close to their inertial masses [check]; FTL anything [check], ... Yep, you guys are kooks, no doubt about it.")

Many of us deserve that name in its most derogatory sense, but still we wear it proudly. Even those of us with lots of technical training and experience are still on the edges of kook-hood. We tolerate and even encourage our less educated brothers and sisters because lack of education is something that they can fix.

As I read history, it has frequently been those around the edges (but not so much those out in the deep water) that have kept progress going. The next really new thing often seems to come from out of nowhere unless you spend lots of time looking at things that don't "fit" and wondering how they can be.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />If bodies like planets and stars heat up in the manner described in the article and explosions of planets and nova occurs because of ‘blockages’ of elysium heat transfer then how can objects such as ‘Mitchell stars’ a.k.a. ‘Black Holes’ exist at all? Would they then not explode even before they actually get to form? Or are the kind of heat transfer blockages described in the article only for special cases where something else than just plain MI density is causing the blocking?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As Larry said, the temperature of a body can increase indefinitely without explosion as long as it happens slowly enough. Explosion results from sudden heating of a confined body, which then bursts through its confines.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is there any ideas on the nature of the events that can cause these blockages?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One possibility is changes of state through natural evolution. Planets are always heating up or cooling down. The other is natural fission reactors, again probably set off by a change of state (like ice to water). Once we get instruments suitable for observing conditions in Earth’s core, such events should be easily predictable centuries or millennia in advance. -|Tom|-

[I'll be on travel most of June, and hope Larry can continue to fill in at least until I'm back.]