🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<1cz63pwj40o8r.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
> Hi Sergey Karavashkin ,  
>   Re:  Your site ,
> http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#nstar
> 
> This is what I think you're axiom is ...
> 
> The laws of physics ,  including the speed of light ,
>   are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
> 
> Only I'd add that space, time and heat must all be scaled .
>   ( Where heat is fundamentally random mass-energy .
>       And where it's always one's incomplete information 
>       that  " Causes "  any apparent randomness . )
> 
> What a fantastic axiom ...
>   A refinement to general and special relativity ...
>   At long last .
> 
> Re:  The cause of the earth's magnetic field ,
> 
> I think you're saying that the heat and compression
>   inside our planet creates a new state of matter 
>   which is positively charged locally ,
>   but negatively charged outside the planet .
> 
> Re:  Sun spots and such ,
> 
> They're like flowers ,  aren't they ?
> 
> I think you're saying that they explain how planets 
>   would be formed given that 
>   a star's centrifugal force was sufficiently large .
> 
> The ejected matter would then form stable orbits ,
>   creating something like  " Quanta " ...  planets .


Dear Jeff, 

Thank you very much for your attentive reading and appreciation of
this paper. Sorry that I cannot respond immediately. I have the
internet connection quite far from my place, so it takes usually about
8 days to respond.

As the editor, I'm happy for the author of this paper, Nicolay K.
Noskov (Kazakhstan) and subscribe to your appreciation. We gladly
published his paper, though we do not fully agree with his
interpretations. But it is just the condition of development when each
has a possibility to substantiate his point.

I would only like to mention that your remark

>The laws of physics ,  including the speed of light ,
>  are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .

seems too vague for physics. We can mean under the scale Einstein's
postulates, Galileo's relativity or Atsukovsky's aether hypothesis,
the issue is - how to scale. And tell me, how can we join the physical
categories "laws of physics" and "speed of light"? Yes, we think the
laws of physics to be the same for macro- and micro-scale. Supporters
of QM, QED, QFT exaggerate and often pervert the affection of
statistics onto the physical processes. But if speaking of constant
speed of light in all inertial frames, this is not so, and Einstein's
postulates already have factually died with publication of
conservation theorems for dynamic fields which we have proven. The
earlier the colleagues will understand it, the better they will
succeed. ;-)

As far as we know, the idea that under heating the star substance
dissipates into protons plying in electron gas was first expressed by
Eddington in his famous "Stars" (1923), but then it was only an idea
how the substance compacts. Frenkel in his "Principles of atom nuclei
theory" (1950) wrote that for this purpose the pressure will well work
without temperature. But this idea had no further development in
literature, the following authors omitted it, because it did not
inscribe into relativistic formalism - from it directly follows that
black holes are impossible and Schwarzschild's computation is
incorrect. Noskov has come to this idea independently and extended it,
having explained the magnetic field with the help of floating up
electrons that create an envelope around the star, and published this
paper in 1997. We also came independently to the thought that the star
creates its electron envelope, but we suggested basically other
mechanism - thernoemission of electrons from nuclei - and published it
in 2003

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#c2a 

Our approach not only substantiates, how the substance separates into
the positive charge of core and negative charge of envelope (which is
distanced much farther than all researchers supposed before us), it
also shows the conditions and mechanism, how the envelope forms,
substantiates the cause of star stability, rotation of stars and
galaxies, explains, why collision of stars is impossible, and many
other things. When we saw that Noskov almost came up to this idea, we
decided to publish his paper (renovated version). On the whole, he is
very interesting author, and we hope to publish his works in our
journal further.

If speaking, how Noskov's and our materials correlate and how can we
extrapolate them onto the planet formation, both papers discuss only
formation and physical nature of STARS, in that number their fields.
Before we have a right to extend this analogy to PLANETS, we have to
reveal the nature and origin of planets and to prove the analogy
correct. Noskov has several papers on different aspects of the
subject. We write a large monograph "Some aspects of the earth
evolution".
. We need a chapter on stars evolution to conclude correctly the
origin of planets. This Chapter 2, "Hypothesis of origin of planetary
system" is voluminous, so we divided it into three parts. Still we
have published only our view, how stars and their electric and
magnetic fields originate. In the second part we will consider the
nuclear chemistry of stars - we need to have this aspect described
before we can present our own physical model of star which will follow
this chemical in the same part of chapter. Then in the third part of
Chapter 2 we will be able to explain the conditions and mechanism, how
the planets originate. After our model, not sun spots are the cause.
;-)

Have a nice week,

Sergey