Liquid Stars? Atomic States in Astronomical Applications

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Liquid Stars? Atomic States in Astronomical Applications

Post by bperet »

I have been working to get Larson's Monograph on the Liquid State typeset and republished, as the original text was done on his old typewriter and is difficult to read (not to mention, OCR). If you do read the original papers, the funny character that is a slash, backspace and dash is actually a "+" sign, which Larson did not have on his typewriter.

During the proofreading, I had a chance to review the states of matter, of which there are 4 in the RS: solid, liquid, vapor and gas. These also have corresponding inverse states, as Nehru documents in his astronomy papers, where thermal motion moves into the 2nd unit of heat. The primary differences between Larson's model and conventional ones is that Larson makes "heat" a property of the atom, not the aggregate. Each atom has a temperature and corresponding "state."

The way it works is straightforward; in the solid state, all three scalar dimensions are dominated by net, inward motion (gravity). As thermal motion in the time region (inward in time, outward in space) increases, the outward motion will cancel out the inward, gravitational motion in one dimension, then two, then all three. When gravitational motion is canceled by thermal motion in a dimension, the atom is no longer "stuck" on that axis and is free to move about. The more thermally-free dimensions, the more degrees of freedom--the states of matter. (Makes me wonder about Kirchhoff's laws, which Larson accepted, because blackbody radiation would be totally dependent on the material of the container--and Kirchhoff insisted it was independent of the container. That just cannot be if thermal motion is INSIDE the time region.)

The other interesting point was that our determination of things like melting and boiling points is somewhat arbitrary; Larson indicates that only 30% of the atoms in a solid need to be in a liquid state (1 freed dimension), to be considered a "liquid." The percentage accounts for what we'd call viscosity. (The lower the percentage, the higher the viscosity). Superfluids end up being a 50/50 mix of liquid and vapor states (vapor not being recognized).

So what does this have to do with stars? Well, I've been trying to re-work a simulation of star clusters, based on substantially lower gravitational limits and the consequences thereof. What is beginning to happen is that stars are acting just like giant atoms, where the gravitational limit is the unit space boundary. All the stuff outside the limit acts much like the electron cloud around the atom, and the stars begin to link together based on the SAME thermal properties exceeding gravitational motion, per scalar dimension. So stellar aggregates (clusters, neighborhoods, etc) both look, act and have the same physical relationships as molecules and atoms in an aggregate at various temperatures.

But--it's reciprocal from atomic thermal motion, because we're dealing with spatial aggregates (localized in space) whereas atoms are temporal aggregates (localized in time). So what you end up with is a solid at the center (the sun) and a decreasing "viscosity" of motion as you get further out from the sun, going through the remaining three states of matter, ending at the gravitational limit where motion becomes equivalent to a gas (no gravitational attraction--progression only).

Larson, himself, noticed the similarity between galactic behavior and water--his whiskers going down the drain while shaving gave him the idea that galaxies were condensing and consuming stars, not creating them. Nehru commented in his dialogs that globular clusters have a structure similar to a heated solid (stars mostly in the solid state, with a few in the liquid state). The correspondence here is very high, and has some interesting consequences.
  1. The sun is NOT a hot ball of gas... it is closest to a hot solid with a liquid surface. I will make an educated guess here and say that the solid bit would be at the nickel-iron-cobalt shell, where the supernova explosion occurs. Matter "inside" would be in the inverse states, thinning out to a gas a the center.
  2. Basic, molecular chemistry can be used to determine the structure of ANY stellar aggregate, once you know the composition of the stars and their thermal levels. Star systems are just a "chunky liquid" for the most part, and they DO act like that.
  3. Multiple star systems are just "molecules" of stars, composed of more than one atom, where the A and B components act like opposite chemical valences.
  4. It would be just as difficult to split stars apart, or crash them together, as it is to split the atom or engage in atomic fusion--same laws apply.
  5. Cosmic microwave background radiation is nothing more than "room temperature" of an aggregate and would have to be in thermal balance with the Material gamma background radiation of the cosmic sector.
Knowing this, one can use Larson's concept of inter-atomic distances and chemical bonding to determine distances between stars and their orientation to each other, as the macrocosm is reflecting the microcosm. If you look at a photo of the center of a globular cluster, then look at a photo of atoms in a liquid state--it looks the same.

I'm only scratching the surface here right now, but thought I'd report my findings so far.
Every dogma has its day...
duane
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

" (Makes me wonder about

Post by duane »

" (Makes me wonder about Kirchhoff's laws, which Larson accepted, because blackbody radiation would be totally dependent on the material of the container--and Kirchhoff insisted it was independent of the container. That just cannot be if thermal motion is INSIDE the time region.)"

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... aw-eu2014/

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Kirchhoff's Law

Post by bperet »

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... bitaille-o...

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law
That's a very interesting video; I totally agree with Robitaille. I didn't know about the soot, but it makes sense as I've seen it used as a carbon source by many of the 19th century researchers.

Unless you've read the really old posts here, you may not realize that RS2 was actually created by Nehru nad myself over a discussion of the problems of blackbody radiation with the Reciprocal System, because it doesn't work in the RS with Larson's photon model. (Though Larson does ignore that fact, and just uses the t4 relationship in his calculations). Looks like we've come full circle.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply