Nebular hypothesis
Sergey Karavashkin
We published a new paper
" Cosmological cosmogonical nebular hypothesis "
by N.K. Noskov
in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 4 (2004), issue 1
*Abstract*
Should we be able to observe things in sequentially increasing scale,
down to subatomic particles, we would demonstrate all laws of physics.
Plasma physics prohibits stars to have magnetic field. However now we
know, stars and planets have it. Solution of this phenomenon is hid in
the physics of atom. Electron envelopes surrounding celestial bodies
cause basic phenomena corroborated by observation astronomy and have
key part in stars and planets evolution
Please enjoy reading full text:
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#nstar
I hope, it will be interesting for many of you, and look forward to
hear your opinion.
Sergey.
Jeff Relf
Re: Your site ,
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#nstar
This is what I think you're axiom is ...
The laws of physics , including the speed of light ,
are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
Only I'd add that space, time and heat must all be scaled .
( Where heat is fundamentally random mass-energy .
And where it's always one's incomplete information
that " Causes " any apparent randomness . )
What a fantastic axiom ...
A refinement to general and special relativity ...
At long last .
Re: The cause of the earth's magnetic field ,
I think you're saying that the heat and compression
inside our planet creates a new state of matter
which is positively charged locally ,
but negatively charged outside the planet .
Re: Sun spots and such ,
They're like flowers , aren't they ?
I think you're saying that they explain how planets
would be formed given that
a star's centrifugal force was sufficiently large .
The ejected matter would then form stable orbits ,
creating something like " Quanta " ... planets .
Mark Martin
> Hi Sergey Karavashkin ,
> Re: Your site ,
> http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#nstar
>
> This is what I think you're axiom is ...
>
> The laws of physics , including the speed of light ,
> are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
>
> Only I'd add that space, time and heat must all be scaled .
> ( Where heat is fundamentally random mass-energy .
> And where it's always one's incomplete information
> that " Causes " any apparent randomness . )
>
> What a fantastic axiom ...
> A refinement to general and special relativity ...
> At long last .
It's only a refinement at long last if it happens to pan out
observationally. Does it?
> Re: The cause of the earth's magnetic field ,
>
> I think you're saying that the heat and compression
> inside our planet creates a new state of matter
> which is positively charged locally ,
> but negatively charged outside the planet .
>
> Re: Sun spots and such ,
>
> They're like flowers , aren't they ?
>
> I think you're saying that they explain how planets
> would be formed given that
> a star's centrifugal force was sufficiently large .
>
> The ejected matter would then form stable orbits ,
> creating something like " Quanta " ... planets .
This stinks of Velikovsky. And it also doesn't work. How fast did
the Sun have to be spinning to eject the planets? In addition, what'd
happen to a piece of solar ejecta? Does it form a stable orbit? Not
all by itself it doesn't. It's impossible. With no subsequent delta-V
an ejectile at less than escape velocity will follow a ballistic
trajectory which brings it right back into the Sun. The path starts at
the Sun, and it must end there. What happens if we launch a satellite
to orbit? Once it gets to apoapsis it's necessary to impart a very
specific velocity change to insert it into a stable orbit which
touches the apoapsis tangentially. So where are the ejectile-planets
getting their extra delta-V from once they get out away from the Sun?
-Mark Martin
Jeff Relf
Re: Sergey Karavashkin's idea that a planet might
be formed from something similar to sun spots ,
You comment ,
" With no subsequent delta-V an ejectile at
less than escape velocity will follow
a ballistic trajectory which brings it
right back into the Sun "
Right , but I think Sergey's idea was that
some stars might be spinning so fast that
a particular kind of " sun spot " would be
enough to reach the escape velocity .
Remember , he's suggesting that the heat and compression
inside a planet or star creates a new state of matter
which is positively charged locally ,
but negatively charged outside the planet or star .
I also think he's saying that the magnetic nature of
sunspots and the sun itself help explain how
The ejected matter would then form stable orbits ,
creating something like " Quanta " ... i.e. planets .
( But I could be wrong about that )
It's a very interesting idea ,
but I don't know how to confirm that observationally .
Re: That refinement to general and special relativity :
" The laws of physics , including the speed of light ,
are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
Where :
_ Space , time , and heat are all scaled .
_ Heat is fundamentally random mass-energy .
_ It's always one's incomplete information
that causes any apparent randomness . "
You observe ,
" It's only a refinement at long last if
it happens to pan out observationally .
Does it ? "
Yes it does in fact ...
And I'll soon be getting my Nobel .
And when I do ,
I'll buy everyone here a round of drinks .
No , seriously , I haven't thought it through that much .
but we'll know it's true if Karavashkin gets a Nobel .
But this is exactly the kind of thing that
I like to think about .
Double-A
The Sun even currently shoots solar fares high above its surface.
Some of the particles from them even reach the Earth. I believe
sunspots are involved in this.
When the Sun was spinning much faster, larger volumes of ejecta may
have been expelled, some of which might have cooled into asteroids.
While it is true that there initial orbits would have terminated back
in the Sun, if many were being ejected during a time of intense
sunspot activity, they might have interacted gravitationally with each
other so that while some still fell back, others were modified in
there orbits and stayed in orbit. Eventually they have collided with
each other to form larger more planetary like bodies.
It's possible.
Double-A
Mark Martin
> The Sun even currently shoots solar fares high above its surface.
> Some of the particles from them even reach the Earth. I believe
> sunspots are involved in this.
>
> When the Sun was spinning much faster, larger volumes of ejecta may
> have been expelled, some of which might have cooled into asteroids.
> While it is true that there initial orbits would have terminated back
> in the Sun, if many were being ejected during a time of intense
> sunspot activity, they might have interacted gravitationally with each
> other so that while some still fell back, others were modified in
> there orbits and stayed in orbit. Eventually they have collided with
> each other to form larger more planetary like bodies.
>
> It's possible.
No it's not. Not the way that you describe it. If all solar ejecta
is on free-fall ballistic trajectories which return to the Sun, then
no matter how the bits & pieces interact, the average trajectory will
always return to the Sun. It's dynamically impossible for freely
falling ejecta to "somehow" find itself in a stable orbit which
bypasses the Sun. It takes some sort of further interaction to do
that.
Suppose that a planet is spewed from the Sun. Once it's on its own,
that planet needs "assistance" to change its path from a Sun-returning
to Sun-bypassing. The planet needs to spit out some ejecta of its own,
or it needs to collide with another non-Sun-returning body in such a
way as the ejectile-planet's momentum is changed just so.
But if the ejectile planets issue their own sub-ejecta, then what's
the likelyhood that they *just happen* to all tend to impart their
delta-V at exactly the time place to put each of them into near
circular orbits? Hmm? And if they all entered their present orbits by
interacting with 3rd bodies, then [1]- what's the likelyhood that
those interactions tended to impart delta-V's which place the ejectile
planets on near circular orbits? [2]- If 3rd party non-Sun-returning
objects are the key, then where'd they all come from to begin with? It
then becomes necessary to propose a planet forming process which is
independent of Solar ejecta, and this is the sort of model which is
already avalailable.
Now of course, one might say that this still doesn't preclude Solar
ejecta as the source of at least -some- of the planetary objects. But
then it's necessary to point out that, even though the Sun blasts
huge tonnages of mass into space, that mass is still so rarified as to
constitute a cleaner vacuum than is attainable in the laboratory.
-Mark Martin
Sergey Karavashkin
> Hi Mark Martin ,
> Re: Sergey Karavashkin's idea that a planet might
> be formed from something similar to sun spots ,
Thank you, Jeff, only this is not my idea. I explained it on the
thread "Of quanta and planets" in my post to you.
> You comment ,
> " With no subsequent delta-V an ejectile at
> less than escape velocity will follow
> a ballistic trajectory which brings it
> right back into the Sun "
>
> Right , but I think Sergey's idea was that
> some stars might be spinning so fast that
> a particular kind of " sun spot " would be
> enough to reach the escape velocity .
I will re-send your opinion to N.K. Noskov as the author. From my
view, Shatzman's hypothesis to which Noskov referred was weakly
substantiated. Before claiming so, it would be very nice if you
calculate what you are saying and show us. I will suggest the same to
Noskov. Then we would be able to discuss this point more specifically.
;-) As to me, the difficulty is not only in escape velocity, the flows
of particles develop it. The issues are also the density and chemical
composition of flow and conditions of coagulation of substance under
heat and pressure of ejection. As far as I know, these conditions will
cause the substance to dissipate, not coagulate
>
> Remember , he's suggesting that the heat and compression
> inside a planet or star creates a new state of matter
> which is positively charged locally ,
> but negatively charged outside the planet or star .
Yes, both Noskov and we say so. Moreover, according to our conception,
not only heat and pressure inside the star are important but also the
electron envelope around it.
The only thing I'm sure - that it will be not me who will win the
Nobel Prize for this idea. If you or Nocolay Noskov win, you will buy
everyone here a round of drinks, okay. ;-)
>
> But this is exactly the kind of thing that
> I like to think about .
Thank you very much for interesting response. Even though there are
seen some different opinions, I think, we will discuss this subject a
little more to come to better understanding. Then greetings will be
for all us, and we all will enjoy.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Jeff,
Thank you very much for your attentive reading and appreciation of
this paper. Sorry that I cannot respond immediately. I have the
internet connection quite far from my place, so it takes usually about
8 days to respond.
As the editor, I'm happy for the author of this paper, Nicolay K.
Noskov (Kazakhstan) and subscribe to your appreciation. We gladly
published his paper, though we do not fully agree with his
interpretations. But it is just the condition of development when each
has a possibility to substantiate his point.
I would only like to mention that your remark
>The laws of physics , including the speed of light ,
> are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
seems too vague for physics. We can mean under the scale Einstein's
postulates, Galileo's relativity or Atsukovsky's aether hypothesis,
the issue is - how to scale. And tell me, how can we join the physical
categories "laws of physics" and "speed of light"? Yes, we think the
laws of physics to be the same for macro- and micro-scale. Supporters
of QM, QED, QFT exaggerate and often pervert the affection of
statistics onto the physical processes. But if speaking of constant
speed of light in all inertial frames, this is not so, and Einstein's
postulates already have factually died with publication of
conservation theorems for dynamic fields which we have proven. The
earlier the colleagues will understand it, the better they will
succeed. ;-)
As far as we know, the idea that under heating the star substance
dissipates into protons plying in electron gas was first expressed by
Eddington in his famous "Stars" (1923), but then it was only an idea
how the substance compacts. Frenkel in his "Principles of atom nuclei
theory" (1950) wrote that for this purpose the pressure will well work
without temperature. But this idea had no further development in
literature, the following authors omitted it, because it did not
inscribe into relativistic formalism - from it directly follows that
black holes are impossible and Schwarzschild's computation is
incorrect. Noskov has come to this idea independently and extended it,
having explained the magnetic field with the help of floating up
electrons that create an envelope around the star, and published this
paper in 1997. We also came independently to the thought that the star
creates its electron envelope, but we suggested basically other
mechanism - thernoemission of electrons from nuclei - and published it
in 2003
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#c2a
Our approach not only substantiates, how the substance separates into
the positive charge of core and negative charge of envelope (which is
distanced much farther than all researchers supposed before us), it
also shows the conditions and mechanism, how the envelope forms,
substantiates the cause of star stability, rotation of stars and
galaxies, explains, why collision of stars is impossible, and many
other things. When we saw that Noskov almost came up to this idea, we
decided to publish his paper (renovated version). On the whole, he is
very interesting author, and we hope to publish his works in our
journal further.
If speaking, how Noskov's and our materials correlate and how can we
extrapolate them onto the planet formation, both papers discuss only
formation and physical nature of STARS, in that number their fields.
Before we have a right to extend this analogy to PLANETS, we have to
reveal the nature and origin of planets and to prove the analogy
correct. Noskov has several papers on different aspects of the
subject. We write a large monograph "Some aspects of the earth
evolution".
. We need a chapter on stars evolution to conclude correctly the
origin of planets. This Chapter 2, "Hypothesis of origin of planetary
system" is voluminous, so we divided it into three parts. Still we
have published only our view, how stars and their electric and
magnetic fields originate. In the second part we will consider the
nuclear chemistry of stars - we need to have this aspect described
before we can present our own physical model of star which will follow
this chemical in the same part of chapter. Then in the third part of
Chapter 2 we will be able to explain the conditions and mechanism, how
the planets originate. After our model, not sun spots are the cause.
;-)
Have a nice week,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> Jeff Relf <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<1cz63pwj...@x.Jeff.Relf>...
> > Hi Sergey Karavashkin ,
> > Re: Your site ,
> > http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#nstar
> >
> > This is what I think you're axiom is ...
> >
> > The laws of physics , including the speed of light ,
> > are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
> >
> > Only I'd add that space, time and heat must all be scaled .
> > ( Where heat is fundamentally random mass-energy .
> > And where it's always one's incomplete information
> > that " Causes " any apparent randomness . )
> >
> > What a fantastic axiom ...
> > A refinement to general and special relativity ...
> > At long last .
>
> It's only a refinement at long last if it happens to pan out
> observationally. Does it?
Yes, exactly. Just this is what we do in our laboratory studying in
the areas of electromagnetism, astrophysics, vibration theory, math.
methods of modelling and so on. This what we do is experimentally
checkable in classical physics. In Relativity - sorry, this is their
headache. ;-)
>
> > Re: The cause of the earth's magnetic field ,
> >
> > I think you're saying that the heat and compression
> > inside our planet creates a new state of matter
> > which is positively charged locally ,
> > but negatively charged outside the planet .
> >
> > Re: Sun spots and such ,
> >
> > They're like flowers , aren't they ?
> >
> > I think you're saying that they explain how planets
> > would be formed given that
> > a star's centrifugal force was sufficiently large .
> >
> > The ejected matter would then form stable orbits ,
> > creating something like " Quanta " ... planets .
>
> This stinks of Velikovsky. And it also doesn't work. How fast did
> the Sun have to be spinning to eject the planets? In addition, what'd
> happen to a piece of solar ejecta? Does it form a stable orbit? Not
> all by itself it doesn't. It's impossible. With no subsequent delta-V
> an ejectile at less than escape velocity will follow a ballistic
> trajectory which brings it right back into the Sun. The path starts at
> the Sun, and it must end there. What happens if we launch a satellite
> to orbit? Once it gets to apoapsis it's necessary to impart a very
> specific velocity change to insert it into a stable orbit which
> touches the apoapsis tangentially. So where are the ejectile-planets
> getting their extra delta-V from once they get out away from the Sun?
>
> -Mark Martin
As we can judge, you are correct here, too, though Noskov has another
opinion. Above the high speed, ejections have to have compact mass and
consist of massive chemical elements. This all is very doubtful, and
this adds to your confidence that ejections from sun spots cannot form
planets.
Regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Yes, Double-A, the Sun crown is visually seen up to 54 radii of Sun,
and the Earth is 37 radii from Sun. So naturally, quite abundant flow
of Sun particles reaches not only Earth but is detected even at the
distances of Jupiter and Saturn. But it does not mean that planets can
form of these particles.
>
> When the Sun was spinning much faster, larger volumes of ejecta may
> have been expelled, some of which might have cooled into asteroids.
> While it is true that there initial orbits would have terminated back
> in the Sun, if many were being ejected during a time of intense
> sunspot activity, they might have interacted gravitationally with each
> other so that while some still fell back, others were modified in
> there orbits and stayed in orbit. Eventually they have collided with
> each other to form larger more planetary like bodies.
>
> It's possible.
>
> Double-A
The idea of planets formed of colliding asteroids and dust belongs to
O.Yu. Schmidt (1944). This conception followed the classical theory by
Kant and Laplace. We told of this and other conceptions and their
problems in CHAPTER 1 (survey) of our large work "Some aspects of the
Earth evolution",
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#survey1
Perhaps, until you have not read our conception in its logic sequence,
CHAPTER 2. "Hypothesis of origin of planetary system"
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#c2a
it will be very difficult for me to explain every nicety "on fingers",
as there are many affecting parameters and diagrams. Anyway, if you
try to calculate the gravitational interaction of which you are
writing, and the more, if you try to correlate it with the internal
energy of masses that counteracts the coagulation, you will yield
dissipation of substance, in accordance with Shklovsky's condition
cited in our CHAPTER 2. I will be pleased if you think of it.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Jeff Relf
" And tell me , how can we join the physical categories
' laws of physics ' and ' speed of light ' ? " ,
I agree , it's quite easy to postulate that
the observed laws of physics
are the same at any scale ...
it's not so easy to derive the equations
that would relate those scales .
You mention a complaint that I often express myself ,
" Supporters of QM , QED , QFT exaggerate
and often pervert the affection of statistics
onto the physical processes . " ,
Yes , This annoys me to no end .
But then you add ,
" But if [ you are speaking of the ]
constant speed of light in
all [ local ] inertial frames ,
this is not so , and Einstein's postulates
already have factually died
with publication of conservation theorems
for dynamic fields which we have proven " ,
At least at some given scale of heat , and space-time ,
the speed of light is constant for inertial and free fall
frames of reference ... provided that they are local .
Relating distant frames with the local ones
is were all the complex math comes in .
But at it's core , heat is apparent randomness ,
thanks to one's incomplete information .
And this artificial randomness is the key to
relating various hypothetical scales
were the laws of physics remain invariant .
Jeff Relf
Re: How some stars might be spinning so fast that
something like a " hyper sun spot " would be
enough to reach a " permanent " orbit ,
You requested ,
" From my view , Shatzman's hypothesis
Before claiming so ,
it would be very nice if you
calculate what you are saying and show us .
I will suggest the same to Noskov .
Then we would be able to
Unfortunately , I'm not equipped to do that math .
Perhaps that " hyper sun spot " would be something that
only developed over geological time scales ...
i.e. very slowly .
Jeff Relf
" the Sun crown is visually seen up to 54 radii of Sun ,
and the Earth is 37 radii from Sun . So naturally ,
quite abundant flow of Sun particles reaches
not only Earth but is detected even at
the distances of Jupiter and Saturn .
But it does not mean that
Why not think of this solar wind as solar weather ,
including solar rain that condenses into planets ?
The main obstacle to envisioning this is
the very large scales of time , space , and mass-energy
that are involved .
Relative to the human scale ,
the lower the momentum of some observed mass-energy ,
the greater the apparent randomness .
( i.e. The more it looks like heat )
hanson
> Why not think of this solar wind as solar weather ,
>
http://www.spaceweather.com/
hanson
Sergey Karavashkin
Bravo, Mark! Very well described! Add to this one more nuance. To
consist of more or less heavy material - silicon, iron - these
ejections have to be produced from internal regions of Sun, where the
pressure is much higher than in atmosphere. Therefore, abrupt
extension will provide dissipation, not coagulation of substance.
Indeed, such process is able to produce some small bodies and dust,
maybe even asteroids. But we hardly can suppose such way for serious
bodies, even like Mercury.
Regards,
Sergey