Posted on 02/16/2005 11:01:16 AM PST by Alter Kaker
The full photon energy increase of 10^7 does not resolve into increased volume of 10^7. Opacity doesn't cause volume increase as the only resolution of the equilibrium. (My earlier example was to illustrate that decreased density would manifest in increased opacity, but as h decreases, density decreases with the square, without changing the volume.) Rather, the decreased density causes both the increased opacity and the increased photon output which registers as an energy increase. You have correctly noted that the mechanisms of absorbing this energy include photoelectric effect and pair production (which appear to be more likely) as well as scattering.
It also means all of the energy and not just the momentum of a given photon is available to knock gas particles across space. That means radiation pressure on free-space objects should have worked 11 million squared times better than now in the first days and in proportion with c squared down the decay curve.
I'm sorry, with the variations in your explanations I'm not sure why this follows. The photon energy increases by 11 million times, not its square; and part of the increase can resolve into increased radiation pressure in equilibrium, while much of it resolves into heat.
If energy output increases only with c, not c^2, I think it will in fact cancel with the slowed-frame effect, because the increased output is similar to the radiometric decay which started this topic. Observations of it would be consistent with both assumptions (constant or variable atomic time). Observational evidence for VSL comes from elsewhere, of which I've provided many examples that I haven't seen answers on. Dark matter is a biggie.
I don't understand by what else one would make a prediction than according to a scientific theory. If the theory makes a prediction that subsequent evidence does not support, then the theory clearly needs to be modified. Our understanding of evolution has changed enormously, as we discover new elements of paleontology, geology and genetics.
Give an example.
The words "mother in law" have to factor in here somehow.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
I acknowledged you obviously can't go there. You obviously do not intend to explain why you don't end up there. To the extent you are blocking the excess energy with opacity, you go there. To the extent you don't, you don't go there. You are claiming to not go there.
Basically, you are claiming to not have the problem posed by a swelling Sun OR by having the energy escape. You blandly restate and wait for applause. This performance is unconvincing. You either have one problem or the other or some blend of both.
Of course, and as c gradually changes everything stays in equilibrium. The Stellar History link above suggests the excess energy is partly retained as internal radiation pressure, and partly dissipated by convection and other transfer into heat and kinetic energy.
All real-world stars are at an equilibrium. You say a Setterfieldian early Sun is at an equilibrium, but go on to say things that flatly contradict this. The fusion process is going to produce new energy. If all of the new energy does not escape, the internal temperature is rising rising rising rising rising. You are describing a star whose energy is not finding its way out and whose internal energy content must be continually increasing, a star which is not at equilibrium. This is smoke, mirrors, slight of hand, bland restatement without explanation.
I think you mean, increased opacity with VSL permits more and redder photons (because opacity doesn't "make" photons). Of course it does, my point was that opacity means fewer photons are getting out in balance with more being generated.
The effect of opacity in the real world is to absorb photons, create kinetic energy, and re-emit some number longer-wave photons of lower total energy. What it's supposed to be doing in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land I'm still trying to guess.
Of course, because the atoms fused have increased velocity and thus the same formation energy, so naturally produce photons with similar energy.
This almost looks plausible on first blush. The entropic Zero-Point-Energy thing makes the little protons fly together 11 million times faster which amounts to an energy proportional to the lost mass of the nucleons. The kinetic energy formula is
KE = (1/2)mv2.The velocity term is indeed squared. Thus, the energy of the fusion event FROM fusion has gone down by the square of the delta c, but the kinetic energy of the collision has risen with the square of the delta c, so we aren't so much generating fusion energy (which has become insignificant) as tapping into the fabulous vacuum energy to give the resultant photons a wavelength which allows Adam's eyes to see.
But if this is what's happening, the fusion products, having lost more kinetic energy than anything else, would have much lower kinetic energy than those furiously flying input photons. They don't. That fabulous vacuum energy is STILL there and everything is STILL flying at incredible speeds compared to now. The energy surplus of the reaction is still free and unaccounted for.
Am I putting words in your mouth? I think that has to be what you will say.
If the kinetic energy is indeed lost, the next fusion steps don't happen. Solar fusion does not stop when two protons make a deuterium nucleus, or when you get to lithium, or when you get to carbon. It stops at iron. If the Sun were powered by the kinetic energy of its particle collisions, you would be back to the kind of models people were using before nuclear energy was discovered. That it continues to shine without showing any sign of cooling off becomes a great mystery.
I've already explained your balancing act. The fusion process has become insinificant with the incredible mass shrinkage. You're now using the kinetic energy of the particles to account for the energy of the output photons. That's a whole different engine and it won't work the same. It runs down very fast.
When you fuse two protons to make deuterium, only a tiny fraction of the input mass is gone. The rest is still there, the fuel for later reactions. This engine runs down very slowly, then, because it runs on a mass which is depleted very slowly. A little bit of mass will make a whole lot of energetic photons.
In claiming that the kinetic energy is your lost deficit, you are using it all up in the first bang. You need it all to do what you claim. There's none left. You bang two protons together at high speeds and have a deuterium just sitting there. It won't really do that, but that's what you are claiming. The cooling of the furnace is instantaneous.
Perhaps now you're saying, "Wait! Up the thread, he was saying the star gets hotter and hotter and hotter. Now he's talking out of the other side of his mouth."
Can you use the opacity heat trap to recycle some of the lost energy to keep the reactants hot? No. It's the same as saying the collision doesn't use all the kinetic energy in the first place.
The conundrum is still the same as I had five years ago. If you burn the nuclear fuel THAT fast, make that many MORE photons, you have to either redshift the photons or not. There is no way to turn that into a world that looks like ours.
Furthermore, if Setterfield is really doing what you say he's doing, all atomic/molecular collisions on Earth are releasing fantastically high energy photons compared to what we see from such collisions today. The friction of sliding your butt across the chair generates a flash you could take a photo with. This is not exactly everything looking the same in a high-c universe.
What you are trying to do is what the ZPE hucksters on the web try to do, turn an entropic energy into concentrated, work-doing energy. This is amusing. Sometimes, at their convenience, creationists know the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Although the version they know typically bears no relation to the one physics knows.) At times like this, the Second Law goes by the wayside in their calculations.
What you're trying to do, you can't do. WHATEVER the ZPE is, you can't tap into it. You not only can't tap into it to power your car or your house, you can't tap into it to make the Sun shine bluer. TANSTAAFL.
Supposedly, even after all the losses, the ZPE is still large today. We can't tap into it today. It's entropy. It's background. It's perfectly dissipated. If it's there, it won't concentrate itself for you and do work. Why should we believe it happened back then?
This is the psychology test you keep flunking. There's a big divide by zero step in every presentation you make. It's easy to catch, the work of a minute or two of thought. Yet you so earnestly don't see and come back a day or two later STILL pretending not to see.
You've been on this thread for some time now. We're many, many pages down the road. You swept in grandiosely announcing that Setterfield has recieved many critical validations in the technical journal works of Dolphin, Norman ... Missler ... and the guys who wrote about funny momentum changes in space probes. You've been floating grandly over various objections since then. How do you think this is playing out there?
The objections I have are so big, so fundamental, it's like you have no legs, but you're pretending to float in space. This is so obviously not science, and you're swearing it is.
One answer to how it's playing out there is that between us we've basically killed this thread. There used to be lots of people on it and now it's just us. You have to be into either abnormal psychology or amateur fantasy physics to care about what's happening here.
The historical data point argument isn't really my thing. There may be some bias toward high numbers early if you just look at the reported values, but the error bars in those measurements are really crazy. In short, the Ichneumon post still works for me.
This is all I have time for just now. I'll be back later to go over your other posts.
Thus, even if one were tempted to try to dip into an entropic background energy, it isn't even there to dip into. There is not even in theory any replacement for the lost kinetic energy.
You have a Sun shining by radiating what amounts to its residual kinetic energy of condensation from a primordial dust cloud. (It wasn't actually made that way in Setterfield's world, of course, but it's in an analogous condition.) That's your excess energy, and it's most of the energy the Sun has, the nuclear fusion effect being vanishingly small.
So, perhaps, I shouldn't have accused you of dipping into the vacuum energy for the excess. I don't really know that you won't try it, but the vacuum energy is far lower than now.
It remains true that this excess energy wouldn't last long, but I keep forgetting the whole universe is only a few thousand years old and the decay curve is steep. This to me is clearly a very different Sun. Nevertheless, I don't know how to model the differences so I'll let that whole class of arguments about dipping into a rapidly depleting reserve go.
The other problem is that just by this fantastic excess (millions of times more than the solar output now) being there, things won't act the same. Part of that is how particle collisions everywhere and not just in the Sun have the same excess energy. The other part is the still unaddressed question of why the Earth isn't cooked by this excess. Opacity is a joke.
Of course, between quantum jumps there is energy conservation. Since the reaction is going that much faster, there is that much more stellar energy, by ordinary means, not "free energy".
This is either primoridial or intrinsic to the particles or the vacuum. If it's the one, it runs down. If it's the other, the result particle still has it and thus it can't also be in the photon.
If it's in the photon, all particle collisions everywhere generate what looks like excess energy in the same way. Thus my objection about nuclear decay on Earth. Alpha particles smacking into things. The Earth should melt. If there's an Adam, he melts.
Agreed. You bit the bullet and are committed. 11 million times more photons, almost no redshift. Sure is a lot of energy to harmlessly get rid of.
Radiation pressure WILL RESULT in expansion. Nothing about scattering will do it. The energy will find its way out. Convection is one way cells of hotter matter boil up through cooler matter to the surface. What do you think happens at the surface? The hot stuff radiates its energy into space. This is the blanket you try to throw over the Sun not working. You can't just throw a blanket over the Sun.
You keep coming back with doubletalk and shuck n' jive, apparently hoping it's impenetrable. It's transparent. The opacity attack isn't working.
And 11 million times more energy sure is a lot to hide.
I didn't mean to say that particles were added. Sorry! It appears that particles which would not now resolve photons at all would somehow be stopping them back then. It is not clear why this happens, since masses have shrunk whereas photon wavelengths have actually increased a bit. Yes, there's an answer in the paper but it's clouded in gobbledygook. Anyway, I'll happily grant it because the whole idea of ... well ... HIDING behind OPACITY is silly.
You have described scattering correctly, but particles also absorb photons into their own kinetic energy without re-emitting them.
I suspect this is rare, but I won't quibble. You raise the temperature of the gas, increasing the frequency and energy of the gas collisions. Photons are emitted. If the photon input is unremitting, the gas either reaches equilibrium with the photon input or is driven right off by its rising temperature and the radiation pressure. If the gas is being held in place by a strong gravity, it glows to an incandescence which soon matches its input. IOW, its buffering capacity has been filled.
Now, the interior of a star is indeed a lot hotter than the outer layers. That is not precluded and there are reasons for it. Mostly it's because the interior is under more pressure. Also, the outer surface is only being bombarded with energy from one direction and can get rid of it in the outward direction. But the star is shedding all of its energy as fast as it makes it.
You can't bottle up a steady stream of energy. If output doesn't equal input, you don't have equilibrium.
To radiate energy away from something like the Sun, you have only radiation, mostly photons. There's a particle stream as well, but the energy content is really all in the light. All the energy you make in there has to get out. It will get out as photons. Hot things radiate photons. Even on Earth, on a cold and very dark night, with infrared goggles you can see things radiating energy they gained during the day.
The Sun is going to radiate all that excess energy you have bought off on it producing. If you really, really block the energy, the Sun is going to really, really swell.
You keep coming back pretending not to understand this. Shuffle, jive! Shuffle, jive!
I see it, OK? You pretending YOU can't see it certainly isn't going to make your case in my eyes, and I doubt if too many other people are having trouble following my point.
You either let the energy out or you don't. It isn't going to just build and build in there with nothing happening.
Out of time for now.
Stop quibbling. You sound like a fanatic.
The narrative by which you conclude the cancellations is correct in the broad outlines, but I believe the final cancellation is not "a strong gravitational field" but the massive particle's increased velocity, which increases its "resistance to acceleration" by the same degree as your cancellation.
No sale. If the particle velocity is cancelling photon energy, it is used up in the first collision with the first photon. If it isn't used up, it's free energy from nowhere. Same crap as in the fusion reactions.
I think this also answers your concerns about whether past radiation pressure process could be observed as different: they wouldn't be any different. If you think there would be an observable major change in radiation pressure please explain that a little better, thanks.
How does a gas cloud particle in space such as would be subject to radiation pressure cancel radiation pressure with its velocity at all? For one thing, it's more likely a macroscopic object than a nucleon. After all, we can see such clouds a long way off.
But let's give it that velocity. A cloud of same hanging in space has no net shared velocity. This intrinsic quantum speedup thing has some of the particles jittering madly one way and some of them jittering madly another way.
Any visible features in such a cloud would rapidly disappear if the average velocity of a gas particle were higher. Never mind radiation pressure. The cloud would appear to be ripping itself apart for no reason, dispersing very rapidly, and we haven't even applied the radiation pressure yet.
If the frame rate thing cancels anything, you just used it up canceling THAT.
Now a supernova pops off nearby. There's a storm of energetic photons from one consistent direction.
The photons have almost the energy of now. There are also more of them, although for some reason that doesn't really show. Anyway, the particles in the gas cloud have no mass to resist acceleration. You already used up the frame rate explaining why the cloud doesn't seem to dissipate rapidly all by itself.
Why doesn't the cloud fly off faster than now?
The kind of gas clouds you have in space are so thin that they typically are only visible by the light of nearby emitters. Even if they're pretty hot, their own particle-particle collisions are rare. To my knowledge, they don't tend to glow without help. But 11 million is a big multiplier. Every time two particles in a gas cloud bang together, you get a photon far bluer than we think it should be from the way things work closer up.
I suspect another predicted lookback effect that isn't there. It might show in the corona of glowing gas being bigger around a certain type of star farther away. Maybe it would be a general tendency for gas clouds to glow inexplicably in galaxies far, far away. That in turn basically turns into brighter galaxies within type, with distance.
Too lazy to pursue this one. Given the way the main questions are going, there's no point.
I still think "the decrease in density lowers the luminous energy by two factors, which are cancelled by the increase in lightspeed and the increase in total photon output."You expanded on that later as follows:
Without considering VSL, all things being equal, a star 100 times less dense than another (having 100 times more volume) is also 100 times more opaque, because the photons have much more volume to overcome without being dissipated by scattering or absorption. The path out may be less sparsely populated, but there is much more non-escape volume to be deflected to, which increases photon extinction. It appears this opacity must mean 100 times fewer photons will reach the observer, which forces me to conclude the remainder are dissipated into kinetic energy within the larger volume. This is ordinary non-VSL astrophysics derived from this site.That site did indeed contain a lot of squirmy detail on the mechanics of stellar interiors. Furthermore, your VSL Sun is supposedly very little expanded. (Not past the orbit of Mercury, anyway.) A big increase in volume is what you're trying to avoid, what you claim has not happened.
But you went on to make an appeal to the lower density of mass. It's supposed to make things look as though the star has expanded without it having done so and we're back to the situation quoted above.
That's not supposed to work. Atomic radii are not supposed to be affected. Chlorophyll and retinal rhodopsin are supposed to absorb the same wavelengths as now. More importantly, the light wavelengths are almost the same. If the particles have really shrunk to make the space emptier, they will not be more opaque. They will be less able to resolve photons, not more.
Actually, the photons are redshifted, which makes them a little more impervious to absorption by dust and gas than the Sun's output now. If, as you claim, they have about the same distance as now to get out, it's hard to see what's stopping them.
Nothing I see in the mainstream astrophysics page you linked refutes my contention that the source I linked earlier gave the essentials we need. For a given energy output, a more opaque star will be larger and redder. If conservation of energy and the word "equilibrium" mean anything, it will be redder in porportion to its increased surface area only.
That will go with the square of the radius. A swollen Sun would be redder, but there would be more photons. Its surface intensity would be a lower, but it would be a bigger disk in the sky so that you're actually getting more photons from more angles than before, only redder.
Just above where I quoted, you referred to this Setterfield paper which includes the following:
I see all of my usual problems as stated enough already in the above. I posted it inline to make it plain as day that what's going on with this theory is absolutely literal Genesis including Adam in a Garden on Day 6). It also contains an acknowledgement that any hypothetical sudden pressure disequilibrium should take no more than about an hour to dissipate itself. The same thing for temperature takes about a month.The Variable Lightspeed (Vc) Model and Stellar Processes.
As may be inferred from the foregoing discussion, the Vc model accepts the usual mechanism for the ageing of the stars, and the consequent appearance of the various stars is explicable in terms of known processes. The only difference on this model is that, for most stars, this ageing process was accelerated during the first four days of Creation Week due to high light-speed values, after which the activity dramatically declined and then tapered off at a redshift around 2 just as observed. The initial fast rate of burning supplied a store of radiation within each star's layers that has been slowly escaping ever since. Thus, the more massive the star, the hotter its interior, and the faster it burnt its nuclear fuel, causing the star to rapidly inflate with radiation, and at the same time giving it a characteristic appearance. These processes need to be examined now in more detail.
It can be shown for conditions of changing light-speed, c, that gas pressure, radiation pressure, and the inward pull of gravity remain unchanged if all other factors are unchanged. These are important considerations for a star's structure. The radiation and gas pressures tend to expand the star, while gravitational attraction tends to collapse it. It is normal for these forces to be in equilibrium, unless the star has developed an instability, which may cause it to pulsate like the Cepheid variables. However, there are two key factors that are variable for a star in a changing c scenario. The first of these is the radiant energy of a star that is generated in its core. The second is the conditions under which this energy has to battle its way to the surface through the star's material, since the rate at which this energy is released is dependent upon the stellar opacity.
As demonstrated in the main paper undergoing review, the reaction rate within stellar cores is proportional to c. In addition, there is a factor of c in the luminosity equation for stars. However, these two items, which make the luminosity proportional to c2, are precisely offset by the increased opacity of the star, which makes the luminosity proportional to 1/c2. From this it can be shown that a star's total luminosity remains unchanged as c varies. However, with the high rate of injection of energy from stellar cores during Creation Week, and gradually diminishing thereafter, the stage is set for every star to rapidly acquire its physical characteristics.
Dealing With Rapid Stellar Inflation
There are two items that need to be raised as a result. The first is the situation with regard to the pressure within the star that this rapid radiation influx would produce. Importantly, Harwit and others have shown that "any appreciable deviation from pressure equilibrium leads to a [stellar] readjustment that takes no more than about an hour." [Astrophysical Concepts, p.310]. It may therefore be concluded that, as stars rapidly inflated with radiation during Creation Week, they swiftly came to an appropriate pressure balance. However, as Hoyle has pointed out for similar conditions in stars generally, this balance may possess a dynamical character so the star might oscillate or vibrate about the new position of balance [Frontiers of Astronomy, p. 128]. Interestingly, God's comment in Job 38:7 that described the morning stars as 'singing' is a translation of the Hebrew word RANAN which literally means to stridulate or vibrate. It may therefore be alluding to this physical process, which many of the most massive Population II stars might experience because of the extremely rapid influx of radiation early in Creation Week. This contrasts with the more leisurely influx rate for Population I stars as lightspeed dropped with time.
The second item concerns the establishment of a stable temperature gradient within a star. When radiative transport of energy is too slow to maintain thermal equilibrium, a temperature gradient is generated that is sufficient to give rise to rapid convective motion. Harwit has shown that, even today, an excess gradient of only one millionth of the total gradient is sufficient to ensure transfer of energy through a star's convective zone in a time approximating to one month. For higher excess gradients, the equations show that the time to transfer this energy by convection would be less [op. cit., p.316, 329]. As each star rapidly inflated with energy, it might thus be expected that this convective process dominated stellar interiors allowing a stable temperature gradient to be rapidly established. This convection process is still visible on the sun today as its gases boil up to the surface in cells called 'granules' that are about 1,000 kilometres across. Hoyle and Schwarzschild have suggested that "sound waves are generated by the moving gases: the granules make a noise!" [Frontiers of Astronomy, p.115]. If this suggestion is ever proven to be correct, this may be an additional reason why the word used by the Creator to describe the 'morning stars' could also be translated as 'singing.'
That's too fast to hide anything for long. Or was a month longer back then?
Overall summary:
You have too much energy to hide. You are committed to high, high, high reaction rates. You are committed to high energy output from each such reaction. Kinetic energy supposedly cancels mass loss.
I. Opacity is a finite buffer against energy flux. It won't eat more than an month's worth. The Sun will swell.
II. Intrinsic particle kinetic energy looks like a funny freebee. I don't see why the Earth doesn't melt from the alpha particles. 11 million times more of them because of the reaction rates. 11 million times the kinetic energy on each one. (The mass difference cancels one v from the v squared term in the KE.)
You will as always try to cancel some of that with the velocity of the particles they bang into. (They have momentum = mv.) As explained, I don't like that trick in itself. That momentum is either a consumable item which rapidly is used up or it's a freebee from the vacuum violating conservation of energy and momentum all the time.
Furthermore, even if I allow it the mass difference cancels the v difference. That would still leave 11 million times more alpha particles at 11 million times more kinetic energy.
Ball's in your court.
It's also creeping closer and closer. The inverse square law is real trouble with diminishing r.
I still think "the decrease in density lowers the luminous energy by two factors, which are cancelled by the increase in lightspeed and the increase in total photon output."
I've got the increase in light speed cancelled by hc being constant across quantum jumps in the equation for photon energy.
Please do not let me catch you without adequate explanation using it to cancel anything else.
The only difference on this model is that, for most stars, this ageing process was accelerated during the first four days of Creation Week due to high light-speed values, after which the activity dramatically declined and then tapered off at a redshift around 2 just as observed.There's the answer to my 11 million. Only the first four days of Creation Week were really bad, saith the author himself. Of course, even on Day 2 or Day 3 if the claims were believable it shouldn't have mattered to the life forms alive on those days. I'm too lazy to check what kinds of plants and animals these were.
Maybe the Earth was only really molten on the first four days. Must have still been Hell on the fish, what with having the oceans boiled away. By Day Six, however, the mutliplier once at 11 million is down to ... what? Perhaps half a million? (It "dramatically declined," after all.) Perhaps there was a solid surface to stand on, although the rad dose would quickly kill most people such as we are now.
Make the decay curve steep enough and all you have to do is say, "God made it looking really old." That theory was around in the mid-19th century. It was originally called the Omphalos (belly button) Theory because Adam supposedly had a belly button despite having not been made the usual way. This "appearance of age" escape is parodied in the Church of Last Thursday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.