I'm not sure -- I'm just vaguely aware that when the available particles fuse, whatever individual neutrons are present, that would make a reasonably stable isotope, are included in the final aggregate. I guess if the neutrons clumped together, this would help. But I don't know.Lloyd wrote:How many neutrons do you figure clump together when fusion produces neutronium?
How about "natural tokamak"? Pretty much all of the existing terms (planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, black holes, and quasars) become misnomers if there is a theoretical shift. So I use the existing terms to refer to the known property sets, but explain them as toroidal plasmoids doing nuclear fusion without gravitational pressure.Lloyd wrote:When you use the term "black hole", you probably confuse people, who are likely to suppose that you mean the conventional definition of black hole. Whereas, I believe your definition is considerably different, although the result is fairly similar. [...] Then how about a black star?
That's how they're conventionally defined. Note that I don't even think that neutron stars are neutron stars.Lloyd wrote:Do you still think pulsars are neutron stars?
What's a "local instability"? I actually agree with every word of that, but there's such a difference in granularity, I'm not sure that I'm agreeing with that, or just with myself. The model of flares that I'm using starts with the same solar~heliospheric current that lights up the quiet Sun, and drives the convection in the granules. At increased current densities, cathode spots form, which on the Sun are known as sunspots. These form where the overall magnetic field is perpendicular to the surface, and hence the solar~heliospheric current follows the magnetic field lines out into space. In other words, they're Birkeland currents. The more robust electric current generates a far more powerful local magnetic field, which insulates the electrons from the surrounding plasma. Hence a positive double-layer can build up around the charge stream, but the magnetic pressure prevents charge recombination. But if the current relaxes, the magnetic insulation weakens, and the electrons can abandon their solar~heliospheric pathway, in lieu of a greater attraction to the positive ions that built up around the charge stream. Hence I totally agree that surges in Birkeland currents form double-layers that can explode. But would the TPOD author agree with me?Cassiopia A TPOD wrote:Flares are the result of double layers that form and explode in one or a few of the Birkeland currents in a star’s corona or photosphere. Those double layers arise from current surges that are generated in local instabilities.
I don't understand this. What separates the charges? What is the current density? Where is the dielectric? What is the switching mechanism?Cassiopia A TPOD wrote:Novas and supernovas may be double layers that explode from the entire surface of a star. They are like cosmic sparks that “jump the gap” when instabilities switch off the current in galactic Birkeland filaments. The sudden interruption of current in such transmission lines will cause the energy that is distributed throughout the circuit to be dumped into the spark that bridges the gap. The resulting explosion will dissipate more energy than was originally present in the circuit element that “blew”—in this case, the star.
I'm really not sure at all about that.Lloyd wrote:I'm skeptical that he based the idea of quasars' initial high velocity on the red shift data. How sure are you about that?
This is outside of my field of focus. I'll stand up and applaud anybody taking a swipe at quantum mechanics, as little of it is fully quantized, none of it is mechanical, and not a lick of it makes any sense whatsoever! I took a look at Bill Lucas' work (http://www.commonsensescience.org) and was thoroughly impressed. Maybe I'll ask him about the expected behaviors of supercritical fluids in his model. But that's a whole 'nuther story right there. I'm doing my part in the war against quantum heuristics by attacking its cornerstone: black-body theory. It's starting to look like atomic oscillators can completely account for continuous stellar spectra. It's ridiculously simple, but the implications are devastating, both for QM and for existing stellar theories. So nobody will touch it with a 10-foot pole. Yet in order to make a full accounting of the solar energy budget, and to identify where the radiation originates, I need a mechanistic model of BB radiation. So I've got that piece. I'll leave the rest up to Lucas, Kanarev, et al.Lloyd wrote:Your stellar model has a dense positive core stripped of electrons by gravitational compressive ionization. I mentioned to you before that I don't think electrons orbit atomic nuclei, but Kanarev's model of atoms would still allow electrons to be stripped off, even though his electrons don't orbit.