Requiem for Relativity

Hi Larry, Joe's planet can change its diameter by a radical amount. it cools very rapidly at first, it's like a baby, its skin surface area to volume ratio is high. When the surface temperature reaches about 1500 K it can produce methane and that alters the opacity of the dwarf. The dwarf then expands explosively to retain its equilibrium. It's a sort of mini nova. Now, Joe wants this to have been a daylight visible object to ancient people. I think that's too much of a modern way of thinking. If we need a "Joe the plumber" quote then the shepherd in Oedipus Rex is pretty good. he talks about the rising of Arcturus, time to bring the sheep down from the mountain pastures. The Athenian city folk would have smiled at this rustic digression but they would have understood it. People lived their lives by the stars. The brighter Joe's planet, the larger the diameter had to be. the more likely then that mass would be lost, and that would mean some gravitational collapse due to a decrease in the core volume where nuclear activity, lithium burning, occurs.

This is an explosion but it's, relatively, small beer,it would only look impressive because it would be reflecting back the light of our sun, a blood red star until its material falls back in. I don't think that me and Joe so much disagree here on what can happen but rather on the scale of happening. Small beer but you wouldn't want to e anywhere within about one a.u. of it, it would be pretty horrendous.

Now let's try and explode a gas giant. The only reason it's there is because e.m force and gravity are at stalemate. The client wants it totally vaporised, so that means we cannot use some sort of nova. Even a supernova leaves an above sol mass core behind. A planet is not a simple pressurised container, it's more like a russian doll. The only way to vaporise a gas giant is to switch off gravity!! People like Tom's theory, it seems to work in so many ways but the how to explode the thing remains a mystery.

That's OK. There is no need to be embarrassed because you do not know a specific detail like this.

But perhaps you do know what Tom has to say about planetary explosion mehcanisms? Hint - he identified three realistic possibilities and discussed their pros and cons in some detail. I'd like to hear your comments about them.

Regards,
LB

Hi Joe, this paper on lensing by a brown dwarf should be of interest. arxiv.org/abs/0904.0249

Okay, I take the hint Larry, consider this my last post.

Fellas, let's take a breath and not hurt each other's feelings - there has been too much hurt recently.

Mark

<b>[Stoat] " ... I take the hint Larry ... "</b>

Actually you seem to have missed the point. I'm trying to get more out of you, not less.

Meta Research and Deep Relaity Physics needs the input of individuals like you. You have the brains and the talent but you have been taking the easy road and not using them. I'm just challenging you to rise above youself. Or at least the "self" that you have been showing in public. If you bring yourself up to speed on things like EPH you will find that the universe becomes noticeably less mysterious.

<ul><li>Instead of wondering how the asteroids can have a larger percentage of organic material(*) than a planet that blew up to create the asteroids, you will know the processes involved and you will know why it ought to be that way.</li>
<li>Instead of continuing to believe (presumably because the mainstream experts say so) that there is no way for a planet to explode, you will know a number of physically reasonable processes that can lead to that outcome. And you will know the circumstances (initial parameters, etc) under which each of them can or cannot lead to an explosion.</li></ul>
Stop letting yourself be spoon-fed by the establishment. They are usually "surprized" by the "unexpected" data each time a new observational result becomes available. DRP usually smiles and says "yep, that makes perfect sense".

They rely on physical models that appear to not match physical reality (leading frequently to the "damn, that was unexpected" response). DRP uses physical models that appear to be a close match (leading frequently to the "all right, nailed another one" response).

Educate yourself. Think.

===

As always, our offer to help by answering specific questions stands.

LB

(*) BTW, bio mass is the wrong term to use in this context

It would be better if a new thread was spun out to deal with data and theories related to EPH since that detail has no relative value to the topic here. Maybe several new threads can be started that would bo of interest from the static this thread has attracted.