Supernova vs. Condensation (narrow RST/Larson focus)

[Mike525]

From some notes I took a couple years back -- not sure of my source but here's the claim.

************************************************** ****
The angular momentum (AM) problem weakens the condensation theory of solar system formation because the sun should have most of the AM but only has 0.3% and should be spinning much faster.

Jupiter has 60% and the gas giants altogether have 99% of the AM.

The "supernova theory" resolves this AM problem because when a star explodes and ejects matter it gives away its AM.
************************************************** *****

A refutable question might be "How many new SN's are detected in our galactic region each year? Might this be too few to explain the seemingly large # of solar systems (exoplanet and T Tauri systems)?"

Maybe not because if even just one new SN per year is detected that's a million in a relatively short cosmological timescale of a million years. And also consider those obstructed by dust clouds that never get detected at the time they flare and appear as those seen as post-SN embryos in the dust cloud nurseries.

Anyone have more facts and views to share?

[Faultline]

First explain to me why the sun should have all of the angular momentum.

[Thanatos]

I believe the numbers turn out a bit differently if you factor in the masses of the respective bodies. It is still, however, a fairly meaningless exercise. There are any number of ways to influence the angular momentum of a relatively puny object like a planet. The bombardment period of the early solar system is one example.

[Mike525]

1st post

First explain to me why the sun should have all of the angular momentum.

If you read again you see that it says "most of the AM", not all.

2nd post

I believe the numbers turn out a bit differently if you factor in the masses of the respective bodies. It is still, however, a fairly meaningless exercise. There are any number of ways to influence the angular momentum of a relatively puny object like a planet. The bombardment period of the early solar system is one example.

I'm not sure what you are addressing here. The angular momentum of the whole system (sun, planets, asteroids, oort cloud, etc) and its distribution is the question.

Condensation is, I think, a drawing inward due to gravitation and similar to when a spinning skater with outstretched arms and legs draws them in and begins an increasingly tight and rapid spin.

The condensation process from a dust globule/cloud to form a newborn star would act like this and then when this star finally reaches a thermal/destructive limit it goes supernova and then post-SN becomes a T-Tauri star. A good question is what are the rotation rates of T-Tauri stars? Are they similar and relatively slow?

[Faultline]

Okay, sorry to be so absolute.

Why should the sun have most of the angular momentum?

[Mike525]

Okay, sorry to be so absolute.

Why should the sun have most of the angular momentum?

You should also ask "why should the sun be spinning faster?"

When you consider that the sun has probably +95% of the mass of the solar system, then apply the conservation of AM and AM equation and consider the analogue of a condensing (shrinking) dust cloud to a skater. Here is a good read.

************************************************** **
Angular momentum

To finish off our comparison of translational (straight-line) and rotational motion, let's consider the rotational equivalent of momentum, which is angular momentum. For straight-line motion, momentum is given by p = mv. Momentum is a vector, pointing in the same direction as the velocity. Angular momentum has the symbol L, and is given by the equation:

L = Iw I = moment of inertia = [summation]mr^2 w = angular velocity

Angular momentum is also a vector, pointing in the direction of the angular velocity.

Angular momentum is proportional to the moment of inertia, which depends on not just the mass of a spinning object, but also on how that mass is distributed relative to the axis of rotation. This leads to some interesting effects, in terms of the conservation of angular momentum.

A good example is a spinning figure skater. Consider a figure skater who starts to spin with their arms extended. When the arms are pulled in close to the body, the skater spins faster because of conservation of angular momentum. Pulling the arms in close to the body lowers the moment of inertia of the skater, so the angular velocity must increase to keep the angular momentum constant.
************************************************** *****

As I said a new star is born from condensation and should be rotating very rapidly. Maybe you can determine what type of stars these are and where they are found. One theory holds that globular cluster stars are youngest so the rotational data (radial velocity?) should show this. Also open cluster stars and dwarf galaxy stars.

BTW, what is your interest in this area?

[Faultline]

I'm an astronomy buff.

A star has a lot of differences with a figure skater.

A figure skater is one solid mass, a star is a fusion reaction with no solid surface. Perhaps it would rotate faster if it were to collapse into a solid body, as do neutron stars after the demise of their parent star.

There have got to be explanations for our sun's current rotational speed. By the way, does your .3% of angular momentum include all of the asteroids, all the moons of all the gas giants, and all the estimated bodies in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud?

[Bob Angstrom]

I'm an astronomy buff.

A star has a lot of differences with a figure skater.

A figure skater is one solid mass, a star is a fusion reaction with no solid surface.

You have identified the critical difference.
The masses of the planets are largely solid while the mass of the sun is fluid. Fusion within the sun heats the interior and causes the interior low angular material to mix with upper layers of high angular material and angular momentum is converted to heat as the different layers collide and build giant swirls. The effect is to slow the rotation of the sun. We see the same thing happening on Earth but to a far lesser extent. The mixing of layers of air in the atmosphere slow the rotation of the atmosphere while the solid earth continues to rotate. The result is a prevailing west wind that slows the Earth’s eastward rotation.

[korjik]

Some of it also has to do with the way orbits work. As the solar system is forming, the individual molecules, dust grains, planetoids, are all on random orbits and colliding with one another. The whole system has a total angular momentum probably a bit more than todays solar system angular momentum.

As the individual molecules collide, generally one is going to lose some momentum (from here on I will be dropping the angular, but realise I am talking about angular momentum when I say momentum) and fall toward the sun, and one is going to gain some momentum and move out a bit. When the sun decouples from the rest of the system (i.e. when gas stops falling in), most of the gas is orbiting at some distance from the sun and carrying most of the angular momentum. The gas giants form out of the orbiting gas, and the rest is blown away by the sun, leaving the gas giants with most of the angular momentum of the system.

this is just a very very basic explanation, leaving out most of what else is going on at the same time.

[Mike525]

A star has a lot of differences with a figure skater.

Read it again. The phrase in my post is "consider the analogue of a condensing (shrinking) dust cloud to a skater" not an existing star. There's a big difference.

Here's the proof of it spinning faster as it contracts from wikipedia, plus problems regarding this hypothesis.

************************************************** *******
Solar nebula

The current hypothesis of solar system formation is the nebular hypothesis, first proposed in 1755 by Immanuel Kant and independently formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace. [1] The nebular theory holds that the solar system was formed from the gravitational collapse of a gaseous cloud called the solar nebula. It had a diameter of 100 AU and was 2–3 times the mass of the Sun. Over time, a disturbance (possibly a nearby supernova) squeezed the nebula, pushing matter inward until gravitational forces overcame the internal gas pressure and it began to collapse. As the nebula collapsed, conservation of angular momentum meant that it spun faster, and became warmer. As the competing forces associated with gravity, gas pressure, magnetic fields, and rotation acted on it, the contracting nebula began to flatten into a spinning protoplanetary disk with a gradually contracting protostar at the center.

From this cloud and its gas and dust, the various planets formed. The inner solar system was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, and so the planetesimals which formed there were relatively small (comprising only 0.6% the mass of the disc) and composed largely of compounds with high melting points, such as silicates and metals. These rocky bodies eventually became the terrestrial planets. Farther out, the gravitational effects of Jupiter made it impossible for the protoplanetary objects present to come together, leaving behind the asteroid belt. Farther out still, beyond the frost line, Jupiter and Saturn developed as large gas giants, while Uranus and Neptune captured much less gas and are known as ice giants because their cores are believed to be made mostly of ice, that is, hydrogen compounds.

The gas giants were massive enough to retain a “primary atmosphere” of hydrogen and helium captured from the surrounding solar nebula. The terrestrial planets eventually lost their retained hydrogen and helium, and subsequently generated their own "secondary atmospheres" via volcanism, comet impacts, and, in Earth's case, the evolution of life.

After 100 million years, the pressure and density of hydrogen in the centre of the collapsing nebula became great enough for the protosun to begin thermonuclear fusion, which increased until hydrostatic equilibrium was achieved. The young Sun's solar wind then cleared away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk, blowing it into interstellar space, thus ending the growth of the planets.
[edit]

Problems with the solar nebula model

One problem with this hypothesis is that of angular momentum. With the vast majority of the system's mass accumulating at the center of the rotating cloud, the hypothesis predicts that the vast majority of the system's angular momentum should accumulate there as well. However, the Sun's rotation is far slower than expected, and the planets, despite accounting for less than 1 percent of the system's mass, thus account for more than 90 percent of its angular momentum. One resolution of this problem is that dust grains in the original disc created drag which slowed down the rotation in the center. [2]

Planets in the "wrong place" are a problem for the solar nebula model. Uranus and Neptune exist in a region where their formation is highly implausible due to the reduced denisty of the solar nebula and the longer orbital times in their region. Furthermore, the hot Jupiters now observed around other stars cannot have formed in their current positions if they formed from a "solar nebula" too. These issues are dealt with by assuming that interactions with the nebula itself and leftover planetesimals can result in planetary migrations.

The detailed features of the planets are another problem. The solar nebula hypothesis predicts that all planets will form exacltly in the ecliptic plane. Instead, the orbits of the classical planets have various (but admitedly small) inclinations with respect to the ecliptic. Furthermore, for the gas giants it is predicted that their rotations and moon systems will also not be inclined with respect to the ecliptic plane. However most gas giants have substantial axial tilts with respect to the ecliptic, with Uranus having a 98° tilt! The Moon being relatively large with respect to the Earth and other moons which are in irregular orbits with respect to their planet is yet another issue. It is now believed these observations are explained by events which happened after the initial formation of the solar system.

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

from this link

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/...RY/GLOSS_A.HTM

comes this:

"angular momentum problem: The fact that the Sun, which contains nearly all of the mass of the solar system, accounts for just 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. This is an aspect of the solar system that any acceptable formation theory must address"

another related link:

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/...Chapter15.html

Also the AM problem is described in detail on p.390 of 5th ED (2005) of ASTRONOMY TODAY textbook.

There have got to be explanations for our sun's current rotational speed. By the way, does your .3% of angular momentum include all of the asteroids, all the moons of all the gas giants, and all the estimated bodies in the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud?

The sources say that the sun has .3% of the AM (but over 95% of the mass) of the system compared to all the rest of the system which you listed so you've got it backwards. You should be saying 99.7% of AM include all asteroids, etc.

The masses of the planets are largely solid while the mass of the sun is fluid. Fusion within the sun heats the interior and causes the interior low angular material to mix with upper layers of high angular material and angular momentum is converted to heat as the different layers collide and build giant swirls. The effect is to slow the rotation of the sun.

You make a pretty good point here which is related to this possible solution:

from p.162 of ASTRONOMY TODAY

"Astronomers speculate that the solar wind has carried away much of the sun's AM."

The problem with this is that it's a very tiny amount of the mass of the sun, approx 0.1% since the sun was 1st formed.

Also another possible solution from this source:

"Astronomers surmise that the sun transferred much of its spin AM to the orbital AM of the planets via the solar nebular disk. Friction within the disk would have caused the rapidly spinning regions to slow while the slow outer regions to speed up."

Possible solutions from college text PHYSICS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (2003) by Bertotti & Farinella.

"Plausible physical processes are coupling mechanisms between inner planets and the sun.

1). magnetic coupling due to the freezing of magnetic field lines of protosun in the plasma componet of the inner nebula.

2). turbulent coupling due to the effective turbulent viscosity in the inner nebula, which lessens the differential rotation. [similar to previous source description]

**Both processes are complex and difficult to model in detail."

If you apply Occams Razor, the nova/supernova AM solution is much simpler and direct than these nebular AM solutions and allow for the kuiper belt and oort cloud objects to also be ejected products of a supernova explosion.

BTW, condensation still needs to occur to form planets after a nova/supernova event. The nova material re-condenses to form the 2nd generation star and its planets and other bodies.

[Nereid]

[snip]

The Super Nova theory resolves this AM problem because when a star explodes and ejects matter it gives away its AM.
************************************************** *****
[snip]

What is this "Super Nova theory"?

Where can one read up on it?

[Faultline]

What about the magnetic forces at work in the sun? It is a fusion reactor after all, and the magnetic arcs that form solar flares are astoundingly powerful projections of that reaction.

Wouldn't that affect the angular momentum? It could be more of a governing force than the spinning of the condensing sun, since the reaction wasn't present before the sun's mass reached a point high enough to cause fusion.

[Mike525]

What is this "Super Nova theory"?

Where can one read up on it?

A main source is from the book:

"The Universe of Motion" by D. Larson
p.91 - 110 (Ch 7 - Binary and Multiple Stars)

Here are some paragraph exerpts from the research website which you can logon as "guest" but you'll need to start with earlier material from the book itself to fully appreciate its principles.

website: http://www.rstheory.com

Universe of Motion

par 234- The existence of two distinct products of the supernova explosions, with speeds in different ranges, is the piece of the puzzle that has been missing. On the basis of the theory of the Type I supernovae outlined in Chapters 4 and 6, every star that has been through one such expansion is now a star system consisting of two components: an A component on or above the main sequence, and a B component on or below the main sequence. This means that the seemingly incongruous associations of stars of very different types that are so common are perfectly normal developments. Combinations of giant and dwarf stars, for example, are not freaks or accidents; they are the natural initial products of the process that produces the second-generation stars.

par 260- Inasmuch as the maximum speed produced by the supernova explosions that we are considering is less—usually considerably less—than two units, the distribution of speeds above and below unity is asymmetric, with the greater part of the mass taking the lower speeds. For this reason, even though some of the matter ejected into space escapes from the gravitational control of the remnants of the star, the amount of retained slow speed material still exceeds the inward-moving mass in most, and probably ail, cases. The giant member of the binary system therefore has the greater mass. In Sirius, for example, the main sequence star, originally the giant, has more than twice the mass of the dwarf. Since even the smallest star is subject to a Type II supernova explosion at the age limit, it is evident that in many instances the mass of the dwarf component is below the minimum required for a star, in which case the final product is a single star with one or more relatively small and cool attendants: a planetary system.

par 261-In the supernova explosion the material near the center of the star is obviously the part of the mass that acquires greater-than-unit speed, and disperses into time. The remainder of the stellar material is dispersed outward into space. In view of the segregation of heavy and light components which necessarily takes place in a fluid aggregate under the influence of gravitational forces, the chemical composition of the two components of the explosion products differs widely, Most of the lighter elements will have been concentrated in the outer portions of the star before the explosion, those heavier than the nickel-iron group will have been converted to energy, except for the stray atoms mixed in with other material, and the recent acquisitions that had not had time to sink to the center, while the central portions of the star contained a high concentration of the iron group elements.

par 262- When the explosion occurs, the outward moving material, which we will call Substance A, consists mainly of light elements, with only a relatively small proportion of high density matter. It can be deduced that the composition of Substance B. the matter of the inward-moving component, is subject to a considerable amount of variation. The exploding stars differ in their chemical composition No doubt there are also differences in some of their physical properties—rotational speed, for example. Because of these differences in the stars from which they originate, the size and composition of the white dwarf components of the explosion products is also variable. If this component is small, it can be expected to be composed almost entirely of the iron group elements. The large white dwarfs contain a greater proportion of the lighter materials.

par 263- In each of the two products of the stellar explosions that we are now considering the primary gravitational forces are directed radially toward the center of the mass of the dispersed material Hence, unless outside agencies intervene, it is to be expected that any capture of one subsidiary aggregate by another will result in consolidation the formation of a binary or multiple system being ruled out by the absence of non-radial motions. Ultimately, then, the greater part of the matter of the larger of the two components, the material dispersed in space, will be collected into one unit. The smaller component then acquires orbital motion around the larger, consolidation being unlikely in this case, as neither unit will be moving directly toward the other unless by pure chance The ultimate result is a system in which a mass, or a number of masses, composed primarily of Substance B is moving in an orbit, or orbits, around a central star of Substance A If the B component is of stellar size, the system is a binary star; if it is smaller the product is a planet, or a planetary system Because of interaction during the final stages of the formation process, some of the unconsolidated fragments may take up independent orbital positions, constituting planetary satellites.

par 264- This provides an explanation of, the origin of the solar system, a matter that has been the subject of much speculation among the members of the human race, who occupy a planet of that system. On the foregoing basis we may conclude that at the beginning of the formative period of the solar system, after the gravitational forces had almost completed the task of aggregating the masses dispersed by the supernova explosion. A large mass of Substance A, with some small subsidiary aggregates and consider-able dispersed matter not yet incorporated into the central mass was approaching a much smaller and less consolidated mass of Substance B When the combination of the two systems took place under the influence of the mutual gravitational attraction, the major aggregates of the B component acquired orbital motion around the large central mass of the A component In the process of assuming their positions. These newly constituted planets encountered local aggregates of Substance A which had not yet been drawn into the central star, and under appropriate conditions these aggregates were captured, becoming satellites of the planets At the end of this phase all major units had been incorporated into a stable system in which planets composed of Substance B were revolving around a star composed of Substance A, and smaller aggregates of Substance A were similarly in orbit as planetary satellites.

[Nereid]

From some notes I took a couple years back -- not sure of my source but here's the claim.

************************************************** ****
The angular momentum (AM) problem weakens the condensation theory of solar system formation because the sun should have most of the AM but only has 0.3% and should be spinning much faster.

Jupiter has 60% and the gas giants altogether have 99% of the AM.

The Super Nova theory resolves this AM problem because when a star explodes and ejects matter it gives away its AM.
************************************************** *****

A refutable question might be "How many new SN's are detected in our galactic region each year? Might this be too few to explain the seemingly large # of solar systems (exoplanet and T Tauri systems)?"

Maybe not because if even just one new SN per year is detected that's a million in a relatively short cosmological timescale of a million years. And also consider those obstructed by dust clouds that never get detected at the time they flare and appear as those seen as post-SN embryos in the dust cloud nurseries.

Anyone have more facts and views to share?

The INTEGRAL SPI team has made an independent estimate of the rate at which SN occur, in the Milky Way.

However, after a quick look at the RST website, I'd say that getting the rate of SN to come close is likely irrelevant - the Larson ideas are such a radical re-write of (all of?) physics, that it's not clear how much of mainstream astrophysics would be left.

In any case, debunking RST would likely be much easier via some fairly ordinary, lab-based physics, than via predicted observables at the end of long chains of rewrites of astrophysics.

[Mike525]

The INTEGRAL SPI team has made an independent estimate of the rate at which SN occur, in the Milky Way.

Thanks for the source. They estimate at this time (may change with continued precision over next seven years) a rate of 1 SN every 50 years which results in 20,000 every million years, or 200,000 every 10 million years. That is a fairly sizable rate in those terms.

As they state:

"Using ESA’s Integral observatory, an international team of researchers has been able to confirm the production of radioactive aluminium (Al 26) in massive stars and supernovae throughout our galaxy and determine the rate of supernovae - one of its key parameters."

So (Al 26) as a key parameter associated with SN's in massive stars. There is also the theory of age/ionization limit reached by much lower mass stars that results in SN's which, for example, leads to F-type, G-type and M-type (red dwarf) binaries and planetary systems that we know exist. But that's applying RST principles.

Here's is something that's interesting and relevant.
They state the significant presence of (Al 26) in our early solar system and its possible origin:

"Many scientists were surprised, because at the end of the 1970s, traces of Al 26 decay had only been found in meteorite samples originating from the early Solar System. This was interpreted as evidence that the Al 26 radioactivity was a key ingredient in the formation of planetary bodies (radioactive heat is a necessary to melt cometary material to form rocks), and that Al 26 radioactivity was intimately related to the early Solar System. From the theories of the 1950s that all chemical elements were produced inside stars, novae, and supernovae, two competing scenarios emerged that are still debated.

Al 26 in the early Solar System could be the result of such stellar processing, occurring, with some enhancement, near the formation site of our Solar System 4500 million years ago. Alternatively, special conditions during the formation of the Solar System could have caused high-energy particle collisions, producing Al 26 locally."

This could be considered as supporting evidence of the SN formation model (but of course not conclusive evidence).

However, after a quick look at the RST website, I'd say that getting the rate of SN to come close is likely irrelevant - the Larson ideas are such a radical re-write of (all of?) physics, that it's not clear how much of mainstream astrophysics would be left.

It's definitely open to scrutiny and there is still continued research and debate but alot of mainstream physics stays preserved from what I've read.
It just gets a fresh perspective that leads to more unification and consistency in interpreting the observed phenomena and the physical data.

In any case, debunking RST would likely be much easier via some fairly ordinary, lab-based physics, than via predicted observables at the end of long chains of rewrites of astrophysics.

Actually if you go to the Forum/Academia section you can see the list of research papers and the admin Ron Satz has made proposals to grant funding organizations regarding lab experiments that provide such supportive evidence. So I'm sure that he's open to a third party that would give it serious scrutiny.

BTW, the Oct issue of Astronomy magazine has some good articles on exoplanet systems and formation theories.

[Mike525]

BTW, the Oct issue of Astronomy magazine has some good articles on exoplanet systems and formation theories.

Here's an exerpt in the magazine addressing how spin rates may slow down via magnetic fields.

Astronomers also look at stellar rotation speeds. Stars rotate fastest when they're first born. Lower-mass stars, those with outer convection layers (in which the stellar gases rise, radiate and cool, and then fall), generate magnetic fields that are pulled outward by stellar winds. Because the field lines are still anchored at the star, they consequently brake the rotation. The older the star, the slower is its spin, with the rate of decline depending on stellar mass. Because stellar activity (starspots and related effects) depends on rotation speed, it too can give some idea of stellar age.

— JIM KALER, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

I can see how a braking mechanism works IF the magnetic fields "latch on" to something external and cause a drag or transference of AM. This was mentioned in an earlier post regarding the presence of magnetic fields in a fairly dense and nearby nebular disk but the above quote seems to claim that disk free stars would continue to slow down (and also the ones with disk gaps in their inner region as on p. 40 of issue)

I would think you could simulate this hypothesis in a lab using a highly magnetized spherical object (w/ variable flux rates) and set it to spin in as frictionless setting as possible and no external (or neglible) magnetic influences.

Even w/o an experiment, I don't think the physics supports it or what support exists is very minimal in its effect. The idea of "inertial dampening" would seem to have to apply but what is the physics involved with this?

Also from the issue, article "Planets Without Suns" - MARIA ROSA ZAPATERO OSORIO :

Stars form one way, planets form in another. Astronomers say low-mass stars form when a dusty molecular cloud fragments and collapse from its own gravity. Planets, however, develop out of the debris disks surrounding the newborn stars. So, which scenario explains brown dwarfs and isolated planets?

Neither model quite works. Within a molecular cloud, a sufficiently large and dense core can overcome gas pressure and collapse under its own gravity. At the temperature, composition, and density typical of cold clouds in the galaxy's disk, an individual cloud core has a minimum mass of roughly one Sun. The core's densest regions break into smaller clumps before a single star forms. The smallest clumps may have masses as low as 5 to 10 Jupiters.

Magnetic fields, which are always present in molecular clouds, may break the clumps into even smaller fragments, possibly pushing the minimum clump mass down to 1 Jupiter mass. However, the effects of magnetic fields on the origins of stars and sub-stellar bodies remain unclear.

Again, just points out the uncertainty of magnetic field effects.

One popular hypothesis that Jim Kaler echoes is this:

Formation of double stars

Formation is still contended. The oldest idea involves simple fission. When a new star condenses from the interstellar gases, it spins faster. If the contracting blob is spinning rapidly enough, it can separate or otherwise develop into a pair or stars rather than a single star. Each of these contracting components can further separate into a double, producing a "double-double" star, the most famous of which is fourth magnitude Epsilon Lyrae. Even more complicated multiples exist. More likely scenarios involve capture with a dense stellar environment, fragmentation of the collapsing birthcloud, and condensation of a companion from a the circumstellar disk that surrounds a new-born star.

The idea of the centrifugal force overcoming the gravitational force at extremely high spin rates is do-able but how fast would it have to be? Look at Jupiter and its 8 hour spin. How fast would it have to spin before breaking apart? I'm not disclaiming but would like to know what the spin rate numbers would look like for a range of masses and densities to make them break apart plus eject them to the distances of present wide binaries(10+ AU).

This might be worth posting on the Q/A forum.

[Nereid]

The INTEGRAL SPI team has made an independent estimate of the rate at which SN occur, in the Milky Way.

Thanks for the source. They estimate at this time (may change with continued precision over next seven years) a rate of 1 SN every 50 years which results in 20,000 every million years, or 200,000 every 10 million years. That is a fairly sizable rate in those terms.

As they state:

"Using ESA’s Integral observatory, an international team of researchers has been able to confirm the production of radioactive aluminium (Al 26) in massive stars and supernovae throughout our galaxy and determine the rate of supernovae - one of its key parameters."

So (Al 26) as a key parameter associated with SN's in massive stars. There is also the theory of age/ionization limit reached by much lower mass stars that results in SN's which, for example, leads to F-type, G-type and M-type (red dwarf) binaries and planetary systems that we know exist. But that's applying RST principles.

Here's is something that's interesting and relevant.
They state the significant presence of (Al 26) in our early solar system and its possible origin:

"Many scientists were surprised, because at the end of the 1970s, traces of Al 26 decay had only been found in meteorite samples originating from the early Solar System. This was interpreted as evidence that the Al 26 radioactivity was a key ingredient in the formation of planetary bodies (radioactive heat is a necessary to melt cometary material to form rocks), and that Al 26 radioactivity was intimately related to the early Solar System. From the theories of the 1950s that all chemical elements were produced inside stars, novae, and supernovae, two competing scenarios emerged that are still debated.

Al 26 in the early Solar System could be the result of such stellar processing, occurring, with some enhancement, near the formation site of our Solar System 4500 million years ago. Alternatively, special conditions during the formation of the Solar System could have caused high-energy particle collisions, producing Al 26 locally."

This could be considered as supporting evidence of the SN formation model (but of course not conclusive evidence).

I don't see how - what specific, concrete, quantitative predictions does this 'model' make, wrt SN (etc)?

However, after a quick look at the RST website, I'd say that getting the rate of SN to come close is likely irrelevant - the Larson ideas are such a radical re-write of (all of?) physics, that it's not clear how much of mainstream astrophysics would be left.

It's definitely open to scrutiny and there is still continued research and debate but alot of mainstream physics stays preserved from what I've read.
It just gets a fresh perspective that leads to more unification and consistency in interpreting the observed phenomena and the physical data.

If I may ask - are you presenting this, here in this ATM section, with a view to defending it against challenges which BAUT members may mount?

In any case, debunking RST would likely be much easier via some fairly ordinary, lab-based physics, than via predicted observables at the end of long chains of rewrites of astrophysics.

Actually if you go to the Forum/Academia section you can see the list of research papers and the admin Ron Satz has made proposals to grant funding organizations regarding lab experiments that provide such supportive evidence. So I'm sure that he's open to a third party that would give it serious scrutiny.

BTW, the Oct issue of Astronomy magazine has some good articles on exoplanet systems and formation theories.

What would you say are the three most easily tested predictions of RST, in astronomical (or cosmological) domains? What about within our solar system?

[Nereid]

Here's an exerpt in the magazine addressing how spin rates may slow down via magnetic fields.



I can see how a braking mechanism works IF the magnetic fields "latch on" to something external and cause a drag or transference of AM. This was mentioned in an earlier post regarding the presence of magnetic fields in a fairly dense and nearby nebular disk but the above quote seems to claim that disk free stars would continue to slow down (and also the ones with disk gaps in their inner region as on p. 40 of issue)

I would think you could simulate this hypothesis in a lab using a highly magnetized spherical object (w/ variable flux rates) and set it to spin in as frictionless setting as possible and no external (or neglible) magnetic influences.

Even w/o an experiment, I don't think the physics supports it or what support exists is very minimal in its effect. The idea of "inertial dampening" would seem to have to apply but what is the physics involved with this?

Also from the issue, article "Planets Without Suns" - MARIA ROSA ZAPATERO OSORIO :


Again, just points out the uncertainty of magnetic field effects.

One popular hypothesis that Jim Kaler echoes is this:


The idea of the centrifugal force overcoming the gravitational force at extremely high spin rates is do-able but how fast would it have to be? Look at Jupiter and its 8 hour spin. How fast would it have to spin before breaking apart? I'm not disclaiming but would like to know what the spin rate numbers would look like for a range of masses and densities to make them break apart plus eject them to the distances of present wide binaries(10+ AU).

This might be worth posting on the Q/A forum.

Most of what you wrote here is good, general questions, for which the Q&A section would be a far better home (perhaps with some slight re-wording).

[Mike525]

Again, back to the post where I say:

Here's is something that's interesting and relevant.
They state the significant presence of (Al 26) in our early solar system and its possible origin:

"Many scientists were surprised, because at the end of the 1970s, traces of Al 26 decay had only been found in meteorite samples originating from the early Solar System. This was interpreted as evidence that the Al 26 radioactivity was a key ingredient in the formation of planetary bodies (radioactive heat is a necessary to melt cometary material to form rocks), and that Al 26 radioactivity was intimately related to the early Solar System. From the theories of the 1950s that all chemical elements were produced inside stars, novae, and supernovae, two competing scenarios emerged that are still debated.

[BOLD]Al 26 in the early Solar System could be the result of such stellar processing, occurring, with some enhancement, near the formation site of our Solar System 4500 million years ago.[/BOLD] Alternatively, special conditions during the formation of the Solar System could have caused high-energy particle collisions, producing Al 26 locally."

I also say:

This could be considered as supporting evidence of the SN formation model (but of course not conclusive evidence).

Your response:

I don't see how - what specific, concrete, quantitative predictions does this 'model' make, wrt SN (etc)?

I'm pointing out (as supporting evidence) their findings of meteorites and the significant prescence of Al-26 as a strong indicator of the past remnants of a supernovae that originated "near the formation site of our Solar System".

That is one possibility they indicate as mentioned above in bold and I would claim that the "near" is actually "here" - that the Al-26 results from our sun going SN and becoming a 2nd generation star with planetary system and Kuiper, Oort and possibly and distant brown dwarf companion as its ejected remnants.

You ask what specific, concrete and quantitative predictions and it's back to the solution of the AM problem. That's one of the specific quantitative indicators of a post-SN solar system. A 99%+ transference of AM due to the ejection process leaving only 0.3% AM with the solar body. How does the nebular-condensation theory resolve this and is it specific, concrete and quantitative? I would say it doesn't satisfy this criteria.

In regards to RST:

If I may ask - are you presenting this, here in this ATM section, with a view to defending it against challenges which BAUT members may mount? What would you say are the three most easily tested predictions of RST, in astronomical (or cosmological) domains? What about within our solar system?

Actually, regarding your first question, the SN model seems compelling even if described or explained through conventional terms w/o RST and there's probably been some professors or grad students who have proposed this but its not in the public domain. Just my opinion.

I'm presenting the RST form because it makes alot of sense, to me at least, and is consistent to observation and data as far as I can tell. It is paradigm-changing which naturally leads to resistance but if given serious scrutiny should be considered as worthy of research and debate.

As for your 2nd question, again look at the listing of research papers at the Academia site. Here's some from the list that address astronomical phenomena.
************************************************** *****
(Some)Papers published by Prof. K.V.K. Nehru on
the RECIPROCAL SYSTEM of theory

Reciprocity, Volume XVII, Number 1 (Spring, 1988)
Intrinsic Variables, Supernovae and the Thermal Limit; Page 20

Reciprocity, Volume XVII, Number 2 (Autumn, 1988)
Glimpses into the Structure of the Sun,
Part I - The Nature of the Stellar Matter; Page14

Reciprocity, Volume XVIII, Number 1 (Winter, 1988-1989)
Glimpses Into the Structure of the Sun,
Part II - The Solar Interior and the Sunspots; Page 21

Reciprocity, Volume XIV, Number 1 (Autumn, 1985)
Precession of the Planetary Perihelia Due to Co-ordinate Time; Page 11

Reciprocity, Volume XVI, Number 2 (Winter, 1987-1988)
The Gravitational Limit and The Hubble's Law; Page 11


List of the (Some) Physics Papers of Dr. Ronald W. Satz

Hubble's Law and the Reciprocal System, Reciprocity, Vol. VII, No. 3, October 1977.

Stellar Energy Generation in the Reciprocal System, Reciprocity, Vol. VIII, No. 1, Winter 1977-1978.

A New Derivation of Planck's Constant, Reciprocity, Vol. XVIII, No. 3, Autumn 1989.

New Derivation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, Reciprocity Forum, Feb. 27, 2005

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

Nehru's Solar Structure paper is very interesting and provides theoretical basis for many questions about solar phenomena. It's deserving of the "peer review" if you have time to read it.

This is probably a thread-ending post unless there are more questions after the reading of some RST material is done by some here or unless some variations of nebular theory ideas emerge to address AM and turbulence issues.

[antoniseb]

We had a Dewey Larson thread here before, but the proponent of Larson's work was unable to really say anything concrete about how Larson's writings could be applied to observations.

Are you willing to try and show how simple physics is expressed using Larson's ideas? Let's start by looking at the motion of a one kilogram ball being dropped from a kilometer above the Moon.

I ask because it really didn't seem obvious how Larson's work could describe something like this from the hundred or so pages I read. I'm looking for guidance, not claiming he can't describe it.

[Mike525]

Are you willing to try and show how simple physics is expressed using Larson's ideas? Let's start by looking at the motion of a one kilogram ball being dropped from a kilometer above the Moon.

I ask because it really didn't seem obvious how Larson's work could describe something like this from the hundred or so pages I read. I'm looking for guidance, not claiming he can't describe it.

You're right. There is definite need for some clear and concise description and a source that I haven't yet accessed is the series of PowerPoint presentations at this site.

http://forum.rs2theory.com/

If you register and log in it will show "RS2 Presentations"

I think you may still find it (if not registered) as
a topic in the "RS2 - Next Generation" section but need to scroll down a bit.

A handbook/primer by Ron Satz called "Unmysterious Universe" can be bought at Amazon. Some think it's in need of revisal (1971 Ed) but at that time it was reviewed and approved by Mr. Larson and covers most areas of physics.

I hope this helps.

[antoniseb]

I hope this helps.

I don't care enough to register for anything, let alone shell out cash for a book from Amazon. I'm looking for a clear description of how to use Larson's science to describe simple physical phenomena. If no one promoting Larson's work can just lay that out off the top of their head, then that says to me that no supporter of Larson's work is serious about science.

I've already invested too much time reading hand-waving stuff about Larson's ideas, and have come up completely empty.

[Thanatos]

. . . when this star finally reaches a thermal/destructive limit it goes supernova and then post-SN becomes a T-Tauri star. A good question is what are the rotation rates of T-Tauri stars? Are they similar and relatively slow?

This postulate is highly improbable on the basis of mass alone. T-Tauri stars are extremely massive compared to supernova remnants.

[Mike525]

I don't care enough to register for anything, let alone shell out cash for a book from Amazon. I'm looking for a clear description of how to use Larson's science to describe simple physical phenomena. If no one promoting Larson's work can just lay that out off the top of their head, then that says to me that no supporter of Larson's work is serious about science.

I've already invested too much time reading hand-waving stuff about Larson's ideas, and have come up completely empty.

Well if you're too burned out then maybe there are several other readers who may be interested enough to check out the presentations. They should provide what you're asking for and I would assume since it's PowerPoint there are graphics to help describe the phenomena. Btw, its free to register and I mentioned the non-registered option.

You want an example of a description of simple physical phenomena.

OK, in RST, based on the reciprocal relationship between space and time, there exists a natural outward progression, a natural reference system in constant outward expansive motion wherein any massless entity (ie photons) moves at what is called unit speed (one unit of space per unit of time or constant speed of c). So thats why a point source of light radiates its photons outward uniformly in all directions at speed c. It lets us see the effect of the constant generation of motion (unit space/time or time/space) as a natural reference system.

A crude visual would be raisins (as massless entities or just absolute locations in space/time) distributed in a bread doe and as the bread is baked and expands the raisins all move outward from each other in all directions and is considered + scalar motion. (No vector direction indicated until a local reference system is selected ie our Earth and its surroundings)

More massive entities (where mass is itself a combination of motions, vibrations and rotations as integrated whole from subatoms to atoms to molecules etc) ie galaxies have intrinsic gravitational motion or inward in all directions (- scalar motion). They move against the natural reference system and can be within each others "gravitational limit", a distance parameter based on mass, ie Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies who are massive enough to be captured within their respective G limits and so will move towards each other.

So with the raisin bread analogy some raisins (with enough mass and within each others G limit/distance) can be drawn towards each other but beyond the G limit is where the outward progression will have the stronger net effect and as galaxies outside the G limit move farther apart they get carried out more effectively by the outward progression until eventually they are so far apart that there is no G effect and they are traveling close to unit speed (c). So higher velocity as distance increases, accelerating expansion effect.

The so called "dark energy" is not necessary, just the fact of the dynamics between inward gravity motion (neg) vs outward progression motion (pos) and the mass/G limit conditions.

There is a constant infusion of particles coming into our space/time from the time/space (reciprocal) region and detected as the cosmic ray background radiation. And so a replenishment of new matter (or recycled matter) that will coalesce in the dark cold regions between galaxies and galactic clusters and will eventually form into huge dust globules that will condense and differentiate and become star clusters.

Btw, from a mathematical standpoint, space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion as in the equation v = s/t which can also exist as v = t/s as motion and with variations (ie rotations, vibrations) as phenonema in the time/space region. Loosely consider this the inverse cosmic sector of the universe and co-exists with the space/time material universe. It accounts for bio-physical effects and even our mental conscious phenomena. For example, consider REM sleep where 5 minutes of REM feels like 5 hours in the dream environment which is of some environment of time/space.

So many more questions are on readers' minds and if so then check the presentations.

[Mike525]

. . . when this star finally reaches a thermal/destructive limit it goes supernova and then post-SN becomes a T-Tauri star. A good question is what are the rotation rates of T-Tauri stars? Are they similar and relatively slow?

in response to this:

This postulate is highly improbable on the basis of mass alone. T-Tauri stars are extremely massive compared to supernova remnants.

It's in need of further detail. Consider a 1st generation star of 1 solar mass. It goes supernovae or even just a strong nova (planetary nebula?) occurs.

The whole system, star core and ejected remnants, are still 1 solar mass and eventually the ejection process slows down from gravitational effects and then the more massive remnants stop and are drawn back inward which leads to recondensing of star core and eventually of orbiting planetary bodies (from disk) which now have most of the angular momentum of the system.

Less massive remnants (lighter atoms/molecules/dusts) may be completely expelled or move out to form an Oort cloud with diameter of approx 2 light years. Just within the gravitational limit or equilibrium between inward gravity and outward progression effects.

So early in the condensation process its a 2nd generation star of lets say .8 solar mass with a disk which will lead to orbiting planets and Kuiper and Oort ejected remnants.

Again the question is how fast are T-Tauri stars rotating? If similar to our sun or other exoplanet stars then that's something to consider.

[antoniseb]

Loosely consider this the inverse cosmic sector of the universe and co-exists with the space/time material universe. It accounts for bio-physical effects and even our mental conscious phenomena. For example, consider REM sleep where 5 minutes of REM feels like 5 hours in the dream environment which is of some environment of time/space.

This is an anecdotal example that shows the problem. I'm looking for something in RST which can looks at non-relativistic motions in a small space, such as an RST version of S = S₀ + V₀t + 1/2At², but you write to me about dreams.

I'd like to see equations for motion in the RST system, but can't find any. You're telling me I'm too burned out to see it. I'm saying no one cares enough to be forthcoming with it.

[Nereid]

Well if you're too burned out then maybe there are several other readers who may be interested enough to check out the presentations. They should provide what you're asking for and I would assume since it's PowerPoint there are graphics to help describe the phenomena. Btw, its free to register and I mentioned the non-registered option.

You want an example of a description of simple physical phenomena.

OK, in RST, based on the reciprocal relationship between space and time, there exists a natural outward progression, a natural reference system in constant outward expansive motion wherein any massless entity (ie photons) moves at what is called unit speed (one unit of space per unit of time or constant speed of c). So thats why a point source of light radiates its photons outward uniformly in all directions at speed c. It lets us see the effect of the constant generation of motion (unit space/time or time/space) as a natural reference system.

A crude visual would be raisins (as massless entities or just absolute locations in space/time) distributed in a bread doe and as the bread is baked and expands the raisins all move outward from each other in all directions and is considered + scalar motion. (No vector direction indicated until a local reference system is selected ie our Earth and its surroundings)

More massive entities (where mass is itself a combination of motions, vibrations and rotations as integrated whole from subatoms to atoms to molecules etc) ie galaxies have intrinsic gravitational motion or inward in all directions (- scalar motion). They move against the natural reference system and can be within each others "gravitational limit", a distance parameter based on mass, ie Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies who are massive enough to be captured within their respective G limits and so will move towards each other.

So with the raisin bread analogy some raisins (with enough mass and within each others G limit/distance) can be drawn towards each other but beyond the G limit is where the outward progression will have the stronger net effect and as galaxies outside the G limit move farther apart they get carried out more effectively by the outward progression until eventually they are so far apart that there is no G effect and they are traveling close to unit speed (c). So higher velocity as distance increases, accelerating expansion effect.

The so called "dark energy" is not necessary, just the fact of the dynamics between inward gravity motion (neg) vs outward progression motion (pos) and the mass/G limit conditions.

There is a constant infusion of particles coming into our space/time from the time/space (reciprocal) region and detected as the cosmic ray background radiation. And so a replenishment of new matter (or recycled matter) that will coalesce in the dark cold regions between galaxies and galactic clusters and will eventually form into huge dust globules that will condense and differentiate and become star clusters.

Btw, from a mathematical standpoint, space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion as in the equation v = s/t which can also exist as v = t/s as motion and with variations (ie rotations, vibrations) as phenonema in the time/space region. Loosely consider this the inverse cosmic sector of the universe and co-exists with the space/time material universe. It accounts for bio-physical effects and even our mental conscious phenomena. For example, consider REM sleep where 5 minutes of REM feels like 5 hours in the dream environment which is of some environment of time/space.

So many more questions are on readers' minds and if so then check the presentations.

Do you know the extent to which RST can account for the experimental and observational results that were obtained (at least in part) in order to test GR?

Specifically, those summarised in this recent Clifford Will paper?

Note that I'm not asking you do any research into these experiments and observations, simply asking whether you know if any RST supporter or proponent has written anything on how well RST accounts for the results.

Also, as with antoniseb, I am not interested in diving into material that you may provide a link to, so that I may find the answer to this question (of course, other BAUT members may be very interested to do just that).

To repeat what has been said many times here in this ATM section*: this is an opportunity for a supporter or proponent of an ATM idea to present it, for (other) BAUT members to then challenge that idea, as presented, and for the supporter/proponent to then address/answer those challenges.

If there is no interest in such addressing or answering challenges, then why introduce the ATM idea in the first place? An answer to this question may be "in order to get free publicity" (given how many BAUT members there are); no doubt there are other answers too.

*And elsewhere - Why there is an ATM section at all?

[Excal]

We had a Dewey Larson thread here before, but the proponent of Larson's work was unable to really say anything concrete about how Larson's writings could be applied to observations.

Are you willing to try and show how simple physics is expressed using Larson's ideas? Let's start by looking at the motion of a one kilogram ball being dropped from a kilometer above the Moon.

I ask because it really didn't seem obvious how Larson's work could describe something like this from the hundred or so pages I read. I'm looking for guidance, not claiming he can't describe it.

I was the author of the thread that you are probably referring to, and the last... (crap, somehow I just lost an hour's worth of work on this post and will have to start over! I've forgotten how treacherous this editor can be! I'll try to rewrite it in Word and paste it in here)…

The text I lost essentially said that, as proponents of Larson's work, we have to make clear that we are not advocating a new physical theory, but a new system of physical theory, and most people don't realize what that means, or that such a thing could even be an option. So, in the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory thread (see: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....hysical Theory), I started at the beginning, explaining all this preliminary stuff. However, my last post was almost a year ago, when I stopped posting, because I was spread too thin and I wasn’t getting much feedback in the thread anyway, although the feedback I did get was mostly positive.

In the meantime, people naturally conclude that maybe Larson’s system can’t be “applied to observations,” but this is just not the case at all. However, what has to be recognized is that his system doesn’t replace the known physical laws and the long tested equations of motion used to calculate the position, velocity, acceleration, momentum, energy, etc, of moving objects, and their interactions with other objects. These principles of classical mechanics, and to a certain extent, those of quantum mechanics too, in as much as they provide correct results, are not replaced by Larson’s new system of physical theory. Indeed, for the most part, the concepts of vectorial motion, based on the function x(t), and the well known differential equations that this function makes possible, emerge from Larson’s system, forming a subset of it.

Thus, when it is asked if we are “willing to try and show how simple physics is expressed using Larson's ideas? Let's start by looking at the motion of a one kilogram ball being dropped from a kilometer above the Moon,” we stutter. We have to try to explain that Larson’s new system does not require a change in the laws of physics, as they now stand. We still have to calculate the track of a falling ball using the established equations of motion, with the known relations of velocity, acceleration and force, just as before. Larson's work doesn't impact those laws, because they are the result of the motion of objects.

Indeed, as I took pains to explain in the 50 or so comments that I posted last year, the RST is not a new physical theory under Newton's established program of research, but rather a new system of physical theory that inaugurates an entirely new program of research. In the new system, the properties of masses, charges, spins, etc of particles and atoms of matter, and the properties of energy and radiation, and their relation and interaction with matter, are calculated from first principles, which, of course, goes way beyond the purview of Newton's program.

In Newton's program, including the modern version of it, in the form of quantum field theories, these properties have to be put into the calculations as parameters. That's why Hawking calls the standard model "ugly and ad hoc." What is wanted is a physical theory that requires few, if any, parameters. Clearly, the goal to unify the laws of physics in a theory of everything is a worthy one, but the message of Larson’s writings is that we can’t get there from here; that is, it’s not possible to construct such a theory under the current system of physical theory, because that system is founded exclusively on the concepts of vectorial motion, or the motion of objects, with the notions of space and time that are necessarily associated with that definition of motion.

Under Larson’s new system, space is redefined as the reciprocal of time, and a new motion is identified in connection with that redefinition of space, called scalar motion. It is assumed that it is this scalar motion that is the basis for everything in the universe, including vectorial motion. The photons of radiation, the objects of matter, and the quantum of energy are all postulated to be composed of discrete units of scalar motion, in various combinations, exhibiting various properties described as mass, charge, spin, etc, and interacting in various ways accordingly.

Naturally, this development fundamentally changes the nature of the game, because now, space, as it has traditionally been understood, becomes an emergent concept; that is, it doesn’t actually exist until there are objects that occupy a set of locations sufficient to satisfy the postulates of geometry. Therefore, the traditional concept of space between objects has no actually properties, and if the traditional concept of space has no properties, but properties are attributed to it, such as those attributed to it in the spacetime concept of general relativity, what does that say about the theory?

We know that the equations based on the spacetime concept work in explaining the interaction of mass, but that says nothing about the underlying concept of spacetime, just as Newton’s equations work in the lower limit, but that doesn’t mean that his underlying concept of absolute space is valid. In fact, we know that it isn’t.

Nevertheless, when we assume that, because the equations work, the underlying concept must be correct, we then seek to extend this concept to the explanation of the phenomenon of gravity in a wider context, and we come up with the notion of the big bang, cosmic inflation, etc, which may have no basis in reality.

The bottom line is that when you say that

I'm looking for something in RST which can looks at non-relativistic motions in a small space, such as an RST version of S = S0 + V0t + 1/2At2, but you write to me about dreams.

I'd like to see equations for motion in the RST system, but can't find any. You're telling me I'm too burned out to see it. I'm saying no one cares enough to be forthcoming with it.

it’s understandable, but the truth is that we don’t have any new equations that are new versions of vectorial motion. What we do have are new concepts of space/time and motion, which have huge implications. For instance, to plot the path of a one kilogram ball dropped from a kilometer above the moon, we would use the same equation,

S = S0 + V0t + 1/2At2

But, if I told you that I would like to see the equations for the mass of the ball and the moon, that explains how the gravitational masses are equivalent to the respective inertial masses of the moon and the ball, yet give rise to the gravitational motion that changes the position of the ball, with an increasing velocity as a function of time, what would you be able to produce?

You see, there is no explanation for mass in the current system of physical theory, and, ultimately, there can be no satisfactory explanation for the motion of objects due to the phenomenon of gravity, if there is no explanation of mass. Hence, it is possible to go so far, but no further, with the current concept of space/time and motion.

Larson's work contains the first general theory of the universe, based on his attempt to apply the new system. This is hugely significant, not because it is correct in all its details, frankly it isn't, but because it demonstrates that the attempt to construct such a theory is now possible. Without a knowledge of this new system of physical theory, constructing a general theory of the structure of the physical universe, which is consistently derived from one set of fundamental premises, based on the current system, is impossible, at least as far as has been determined to date. If it were not so, we would have such theories being presented to us.

This is the reason why those of us who are convinced that Larson's demonstration of what can be accomplished with the new system of scalar motion constitutes the breakthrough we are all seeking, are working hard to establish a new scalar science, based on the new system of scalar motion, that can be used to exploit the new scalar concepts more effectively. Clearly, it's a formidable challenge, but already this effort has led to new insights into mathematics and geometry that were never suspected before, and hopefully, it will ultimately leads us to a new science of scalar physics that can take its place along side the mature science of vector science.

Certainly, the idea that the universe conforms to the laws of ordinary commutative mathematics, that its magnitudes are absolute, and that its geometry is Euclidean, may have seemed outdated at times, during the almost seventy years since Larson's work first came out, but the ideas of non-Euclidean geometry, non-commutative mathematics, and relative magnitudes, which have gained supremacy during that period, have led to the quagmire of superstring theory, and its p-branes, multiverses, and the landscape of vacua that has Nobel Prize winners predicting that a revolution of fundamental ideas is needed and that, from all indications, that expected revolution will be in our basic concepts of space and time. "Something is wrong," they say, but while the dream of a final theory seems so far off, this fact alone should provide us with sufficient motivation to explore and study Larson's writings.

[Mike525]

Do you know the extent to which RST can account for the experimental and observational results that were obtained (at least in part) in order to test GR?

Specifically, those summarised in this recent Clifford Will paper?

Note that I'm not asking you do any research into these experiments and observations, simply asking whether you know if any RST supporter or proponent has written anything on how well RST accounts for the results.

There have been RST proponents who have written wrt some of these results of GR. If it's OK to list then here are some papers.

Ron Satz

1. The Lorentz Transformation, Reciprocity, Vol. IV, No. 1, April, 1974.

2. The Gravitational Formula at High Velocities, Reciprocity, Vol. IV, No. 2, July 1974.

KVK Nehru

Reciprocity, Volume XI, Number 1 (Spring, 1981)
Gravitational Deflection of Light; Page 28
Gravitational Redshift; Page 32

Reciprocity, Volume XIV, Number 1 (Autumn, 1985)
Precession of the Planetary Perihelia Due to Co-ordinate Time; Page 11

Reciprocity, Volume XV, Number 1 (Spring, 1986)
New Light on the Gravitational Deflection of Radiation Path; Page 8

Also, as with antoniseb, I am not interested in diving into material that you may provide a link to, so that I may find the answer to this question (of course, other BAUT members may be very interested to do just that).

If you look back at post #11 you asked about info regarding the SN Theory and so I thought it was OK to provide links in response to your request. You made a valid request and I thought w/o breaking the ATM rules it was OK.

Sorry to see this divert into an RST thread but as I also mentioned there could be a non-RST argument for SN's/novas leading to creation of solar systems which could then address the AM problem. But wrt, I admit to the lack of publishings or at least ones I know of.

Just as a side note, the frequency of SN's (esp SN1c's) was mentioned on the story thread "New Kind of Supernova Discovered" to be as many as 500 per day. Don't know the source and validity for what was posted but if true then it's relevant to the validity of the high frequency of exosystems and binaries that are the result of SN's (from RST perpesctive).

To repeat what has been said many times here in this ATM section*: this is an opportunity for a supporter or proponent of an ATM idea to present it, for (other) BAUT members to then challenge that idea, as presented, and for the supporter/proponent to then address/answer those challenges.

If there is no interest in such addressing or answering challenges, then why introduce the ATM idea in the first place? An answer to this question may be "in order to get free publicity" (given how many BAUT members there are); no doubt there are other answers too.

I didn't want this thread to lead to a publicity situation about RST.

I still want to stay on topic and address the AM problem as regards solar system formation and in the text from my local college library (Syracuse Univ Sci/Tech library),

"Angular Momentum and Mass Loss for Hot Stars" from NATO ASI Series -
Vol 316 on page 2 it states:

Most T Tauri low mass stars appear to be rotating quite slowly, while a number of higher mass pre-main sequence stars are rotating more rapidly -- so magnetic breaking on the main sequence can't be the whole story.

As I mentioned post-SN stars are these T Tauri and would rotate slower after the SN event. The hot pre-main hot stars are 1st generation and haven't yet gone SN/nova so are observed as rapid rotating. The SN theory would establish that after their SN/nova event they will become T Tauri and have slower rotations having given most of AM to ejected material.

Again, don't know about exosystems star rotations. Anyone know a source that lists their rotation speeds?
================================================== =====
from Antinoseb:

This is an anecdotal example that shows the problem. I'm looking for something in RST which can looks at non-relativistic motions in a small space, such as an RST version of S = S0 + V0t + 1/2At2, but you write to me about dreams.

I'd like to see equations for motion in the RST system, but can't find any. You're telling me I'm too burned out to see it. I'm saying no one cares enough to be forthcoming with it.

I had this question addressed to one of the researchers at the RS2 site because I'm not as immersed in the material and as knowledgable as he is.

In the response to your question:

The reason that there aren't a lot of equations in the RS is because they are the SAME equations you find in physics books, so Larson didn't need to duplicate what already exists. Just keep in mind that they were 1950's physics books!

The RS is a different way of looking at the Universe; the math is essentially the same as conventional physics, when using conventional units.

The equations look a little different using natural units (units of space and time only), because the dimensions of space and time are put in their proper place, not shoved into "universal constants". A good example of that is "frequency", where in conventional science it is "cycles per second" (n/t, numerator unitless) and in the RS, it is a speed, ns/t. The RS accounts for the "s" unit as part of the "frequency", unlike conventional science where it is put in Planck's constant.

Non-relativistic motion in the RS is the same equation as conventional physics.

If you are looking for equations, try "Basic Properties of Matter", or any of Satz's articles. For astronomical equations, I'd suggest "Quasars and Pulsars".

I hope this effort to answer was sufficient and it might be helpful to think of RST as "integrating the mainstream" rather than "against the mainstream" because even notables ie Richard Feynman weren't too happy with all the loose ends of mainsteam physics.

Even Excal points out the term "system of theory" which attempts to integrate mainstream science but some conceptual paradigm change wrt motion concepts is necessary to allow for this.

Maybe this can be a "wrap up" of this thread or close to it because the initial topic is still worthy of discussion and may get lost in this "subthread".

Any suggestions mods?

[antoniseb]

the truth is that we don’t have any new equations that are new versions of vectorial motion. What we do have are new concepts of space/time and motion, which have huge implications.

Thanks Excal,

Is there some way to apply Larson's concepts in a way that can be expressed mathematically? Can you give the context and the equations that result? If RST isn't really applicable for discussing the vector movement of objects in space, then there must be some context in which it does make sense to try and apply Larson's work. You must be aware that the writings I've seen so far discuss Larson's work as though it is a break-through for all physics, but are very weak on providing a pragmatic sense of where it is valuable.

Some help on this front would be a good place to start perhaps.