Requiem for Relativity

Sloat, When did I present a model? If I did so you should know there ar no WDs or neutron stars in it-no electron either. You need to dismiss those ideas as well as several other fiction items you seem to believe are real. There is a difference between models and real events.

Hi Jim, if you say that there have been billions of supernova events, then that is a model. The estimates are for about a hundred million supernova events. This is based on the assumption that such an event leaves us with a neutron star or a black hole. They are a rare event, about one per galaxy per century, of course we dont know what percentage are going to be black holes. The other point is that I believe the estimate to be partly based on the the big bang theory. If the universe is actually older than the big bang, then there could have been billions of super nova events. However, that would mean that there would be more of the elements heavier than iron in stellar nurseries.

Thats why we talked about dwarf stars. They are hard to detect, so we we could be way out in our estimates of how many stars there actually are in our galaxy. We need to know the mean rate of star formation in order to work out the rate of take up of heavier elements into new stars.

You then added to your model by saying that supernova events have nothing to do with neutron stars. Here I think you are simply wrong. Theres a neutron star at the centre of the Crab; the Crab has to be everyones favourite supernova, though oddly no one in Europe mentioned its occurrence!

A point that Nemesis made about the outer planets surviving. Go into a classroom with a bunch of billiard balls, to ask for volunteers for a little experiment. First billiard ball is made of ice, our sun. The next one is a bog standard billiard ball, as are the next two. A volunteer is needed to stand 300 metres away from the first billiard ball which has a tnt core. Roughly a hand grenade going off.

Who knows there might be one or two takers for that. Though I think they might be a bit surprised at the noise of a real explosion, if theyve only heard them in movies. Next up is the a bomb billiard ball, about ten tonnes of tnt. No takers at all. Then we have the h bomb billiard ball, about fifty tonnes of tnt. Again not one taker for the experiment.

Last up is the supernova billiard ball. This one will convert a sizeable percentage of its mass to pure energy. An a bomb converts 0.1% of its mass energy, an h bomb 0.5% My estimate for the supernova, based on a faster than light speed of gravity, is that we are talking in the region of an explosion with a 35% efficiency. An antimatter bomb of truly staggering proportions. Note though that the sun survives. its the very explosion that forces it to become so much denser. It would still be a star with more mass than our sun, it blows off two thirds of its mass but it was about six times the mass of our sun to start off with.

Last point to make, is that mainstream science wont accept ftl gravity. They would argue that the antimatter nature of this explosion gives us the power of it. Protons have to become neutrons and in this decay they emit heaps of positrons. They meet electrons and destroy each other. Well yes but it simply doesnt happen. When they meet we get a whole bag full of gamma rays and mesons. What we would have to argue about then is the percentage. We would still be talking about serious money here. A supernova is vastly more powerful kilo for kilo than an h bomb.

Hi Joe, a few questions for you. We know that Newton thought the speed of gravity was effectively infinite. I have heard the ridiculous argument that Newton had no comprehension of just how fast the speed of light was, living in a time when the horse was the fastest way of getting about. That the inventor of the calculus should have made such a mistake was never explained. Newton knew full well that the speed of light was fast, just not as fast as gravity.

Right, lets take my argument that c^2 / b^2 = h is good to go, here b is the speed of gravity. We can write this as 1/ eta, which is the refractive index, and equal to one over 1.5091889611E 33 Call this n.

Now lets write the lorentzian as (1 - 1 / n)^nx

That power of nx has to equal two, so x = 1.3252151E-33 That would mean that we live on the knee of a very tight exponential curve. Also, if we flip over the two divided by the reciprocal of h we get half h. In cosmicsurfers thread I did come up with this number with regard to the theoretical mass of the higgs. I didnt pursue it as I went on to something else.

Do you happen to know Joe, whether Newton himself had looked at the integral of one over x? I assume that he must have done, he would have been looking at the lorentzian as a problem in working out true compound interest I suppose.

Other questions, what do you think of the idea of gravitational caustics? For that matter near field Fresnel's, what is a near field when electromagnetic space and gravitational space are so hugely different? In fact we can swop their sizes back and forth at leisure. Gravitational space being huge or informationally very small

Sloat, You have way too many details to address in the time alotted, but for starters the number of SN events as you say might be one per century per galaxy. Then since billions of galaxies are estimated to exist and maybe SN events have occured for 10 billion years(100 million centuries) how can you calculate less than many billions of SN events? There are many other details in your latest post that need review so I'll see if they can be addressed.

Hi Jim, of course there will be supernova events in other galaxies, there will be about ten to the power eighteen of them. That of course depends on how big the universe is. That begs a question. if we say that the universe has a radius of fourteen and a half billion light years, then whats gravitational, informational radius? That of course depends on how fast the speed of gravity is. With my speed of gravity the universe has a gravitational radius of eleven metres! Actually thats not what I ended up with, as I had to make the light speed radius about eight thousand times bigger, in order have a, very very slow light, move the compton wavelength. But the ratios good, so its okay to imagine this thing as a ball twenty two metres across. Everything knows when a supernova event happens, no matter where it is. It knows it almost immediately.

I think what we are after is an actuarial model of our galaxy. Really we havent been observing the universe long enough to have one. We have spectacular but rare deaths, we have dwarf stars running out of steam, and we have new stars being born. Do we have a viable stable community of stars? I think we simply dont have enough data to decide yet.

On the question of volunteers to stand 300 metres from a nuke. The figures are in the ball park, but we shouldnt be tempted to work out the true yield. There are bad guys out there who would like to know what the critical mass is.

A couple of obvious points to make about it, the volunteers will have to be shrunk down to about the size of a garden pea, thats just make them about the size of Jupiter. This ups their chances, as they dont have to absorb as much energy. They would still be reduced to atoms, and thats what we want to see. We want to have a big dirty cloud of heavy elements to make stars like ours.

Hi Joe, thinking about that exponential. It would just look like our 3d axis. So I thought what if I took that x value and considered it as the wavelength of a vacuum particle. lamda = h / mc It comes at about 1E-8 kg a bit of a heavy brute. Then I thought lets think of an electron as a diving bell. How many of these tiny things will it displace?

I worked out the volumes as spheres, and get a reciprocal of 1.62937084333E-64 First thing, the electron is under tremendous pressure, it would equalise the pressure by having its core at the same pressure. Then I thought this number is very close to my value for the rest mass of the compton wavelength photon. I divided them through, and got 3.70446692096E 00 Close but no cigar, I was hoping that it would be two but four would be nice as well. It would just mean pairing up vacuum particle which is what Planck thought anyway. (maybe they're not spheres?)

I still wonder about that high mass. Is it a mass value based on it moving at the speed of light? If so then I would have to consider its rest mass, simply because a vacuum particle as an aether particle hardly moves at all. In fact only the entrained aether particles will move.

I really want to get those particles to have a combined mass equal to the electrons mass, with a fourth power fall off. A sort of coating for our diving bell electron.