It almost sounds like he's talking about the actual color of the star and not the red/blue shift: As if Betlegeuse is red and Sirius is blus because of their magnetic field, not their temperature.
Your offer will demand from me too much time. Therefore I suggest another decision. I’ll make the table of dependence of a spectrum of radiation of stars from their magnetic and gravity field. Then you compare them to existing catalogues. It will be easy for you since I guess what the astronomy is your specialization.
Not so. Here important not only a value of magnetic force, but the size of dipole also. Division of beams becomes seen only through some tens of kilometers. May be you are have forgotten about suggested by you relative deflection 5 microradians?
Not so. The pulsar it is the rotating system of two stars i.e. it is the rotating magnetic dipole. According to my scale it is the usual generator of radiowaves.
The initial spectrum of radiation of a various stars (near their surface) cannot sharply differ, as all of them on one "fuel" are working. This work cannot be carried out in a wide range of temperatures, since the star or will blow up or will quickly cool down. It cannot decay for a long time, cooling down as a coal in fireplace. Thus, the temperature of all stars is approximately identical. The observable spectrum of a star depends only on its magnetic and gravity field.
Ok, so that is what you are saying: you don't understand how stars work either.
This is work you are required to have already done before you can make such bold assertions. Without doing the work to prove your hypotheses, you have nothing but idle speculation under the guise of a well-developed theory.
Here a quote from
We demand evidence because the claims you make require it. If you have no such evidence, then there is no basis for your claims.
Thanks for the kind words at my address, pallidin.
That pic has no numbers on it, just qualitative statements. Its certainly nothing you can base a theory on or make predictions from.
May be you have not understood something? This table is not the basis for my theory or predictions. On the contrary, it grows out of the properties of my scale of light frequencies.
not from me! I've had very limited internet access these last two weeks, and am only now catching up (there's a really important thread in Biology, on the 6th extinction, that will take a lot of my time to address).
(do you have that joke in your country?)I hear this joke for the first time, but I guess it speaks about the probable infringement of my copyrights. I think, that my idea so differs from existing theories, that hardly who’ll risk to be looked as crackpot (having appropriated it). Besides I have left something in a shadow.Originally posted by Nereid
Finally, re the kind words on being a "highly skilled expert in the field of astrophysics", you should remember that this is the internet, so I may be a dog
Michael,
Seems this forum is the tomb for ideas. Here I was warned by participants of a forum, but not by administration, that “any claims can be proven correct by submitting them to a peer-reviewed journal only, not an internet message board.”
What negative consequences?
I can't speak for anyone else (duh!), but IMHO few of the ideas posted here in T&D pass muster on the most basic of tests - consistency with well-established observations, not 'official theory'. Goodness me, in most cases it's quite difficult to get the person who proposes the new idea to even give an OOM estimate of how well their idea matches some of the iconic physics experiments of the last century! In fact, IIRC, only wisp has done his homework (am note sure about andrew grey yet).