Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

In the original it did, but Paul has just plagiarized the entire post from sections 5 and 6 of:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0107/0107091v1.pdf

And has not even done a good job of plagiarism - Note he even copied the introductory heading of section 6. I.e. half down Paul's page you read:
"6 Klein-Gordon elds" but Paul can't even copy correctly as the original is: "6 Klein-Gordon fields."

Note also, Paul copies the original paper's reference citations, which are in the form [x] where x is an integer, but Paul gives no references.

Note also Paul has terribly garbled the original paper's well formed equations with long vertical strings of non-sense.

Paul is trying to impress, but as he understand little he has garbled the original paper in other places too.
Most high school students can plagiarize less obviously and yet preserve the coherence of the original source.

It is my understanding that plagiarism is not allowed at Sciforums, so I am reporting Paul.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear Kind Reader,

Please note this segment is enclosed in quotation marks. This is, therefore, a standard form for a quotation from a souce directly copied and has been used in this manner for the last several years.

As you have done, you have accessed the original statement concerning de Sitter space and quantum mechanics.

Please revise this statement from strings of symbols into well-formed equations as you have indicated - this would be very helpful. Now that my age is 74 years some kind help in this regard will be gratefully appreciated.

Thank you for your most kind understanding.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon. Ph.D
Supernova from Experimentation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's also been 'standard form' for years to clearly state when you're quoting someone and provide a link to the place you're quoting. Its also common practice to typeset quotes properly, as a quote should be clear and unaltered. Laziness is not an excuse.

And you should have learnt by now Paul that no one wants to read you mindlessly copying and pasting. If you can't present a coherent argument yourself don't bother.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you look closely, every occurence of "fi" has been replaced with "".

I suppose the original must have got ltered, accidentally.

 

The original is fine. This is a classic typesetting thing: fi, ffi and other combinations of characters are known as ligatures, and they often have their own encoding as a singe 'character' in typefaces intended for printing.

 

Thanks for all the recent posts about plagiarism, typesetting, quotations etc.

But would someone kindly explain what Paul's penultimate post IS ACTUALLY ALL ABOUT?

Thanks again

 

Dear Earnest Reader,

"In relativity, if translations mix up nontrivially with rotations, but the universe is still homogeneous and isotropic, the only options are that space-time has a uniform scalar curvature. If the curvature is positive, the analog of the sphere case for the two-dimensional creatures, the space-time is de Sitter and the symmetry group of spacetime is a de Sitter group rather than the Poincaré group.

De Sitter special relativity postulates that the empty space has de Sitter symmetry as a fundamental law of nature. This means that spacetime is slightly curved even in the absence of matter or energy. This residual curvature is caused by a positive cosmological constant Λ to be determined by observation. Due to the small magnitude of the constant, then special relativity with the Poincaré group is more than accurate enough for all practical purposes."

This is a quotation from the literature about de Sitter space.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon. Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentaton

 

Dear Kind Reader,

"Massive white dwarfs in binaries are prime candidates for the progenitors of Type Ia supernovae. The observed properties of Type Ia supernovae put very strong constraints on the progenitors, particularly the complete absence of hydrogen and helium in the spectrum just after the explosion and their appearance in old stellar populations such as elliptical galaxies. Models of exploding white dwarfs are, naturally, very uncertain, but it appears likely that a massive white dwarf composed of carbon and oxygen will explode if it accumulates a layer of helium and then exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit. A proposed mechanism for build-up of helium on a massive white dwarf is steady thermonuclear burning of hydrogen due to accretion from a normal star. The observed counterparts to these binaries are the 'super-soft sources' which are identified by the soft X-ray flux emanating from the hot surface of the white dwarf. However, it appears that the majority of Type Ia supernova cannot be due to super-soft sources because the mass transfer rate must remain within a narrow range for a sufficiently long time to build up sufficient helium. At lower accretion rates the hydrogen does not burn steadily, but is ejected in a series of nova explosions. At higher accretion rates the mass transfer is Eddington-limited. It also appears that super-soft sources are not sufficiently long-lived to give supernova explosions in elliptical galaxies (Leibundgut, 2000).

The competing model to super-soft sources has been the double degenerate scenario, in which the companion to the massive white dwarf is a lower mass white dwarf composed mostly of helium. In this scenario, the mass transfer occurs when gravitational radiation drives the two white dwarfs into contact. The difficulty with this model has been the lack of any observed counterparts. This is not surprising given that only 1 in 500 white dwarfs needs to be a progenitor to explain the observed rate of galactic supernovae and far fewer than 500 white dwarfs have been studied in sufficient detail to reveal whether they are potential supernovae."
Quotation from the literature regarding the generation of Type Ia supernovae.


A careful review of the deflagration of Type Ia supernovae will indicate that in a large number of cases they do not reach the Chandrasekar for deflagration to occur. These current arguments are thereofore of interest wthin the generalized theory of relativity of Alaber Einstein yet as recentlhy shown by Andrei Linde and others we may access other energetic continnua such as de Sitter space.

Please review the literature in this regard or all is lost.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

Dear Kind Reader,

"Massive white dwarfs in binaries are prime candidates for the progenitors of Type Ia supernovae. The observed properties of Type Ia supernovae put very strong constraints on the progenitors, particularly the complete absence of hydrogen and helium in the spectrum just after the explosion and their appearance in old stellar populations such as elliptical galaxies. Models of exploding white dwarfs are, naturally, very uncertain, but it appears likely that a massive white dwarf composed of carbon and oxygen will explode if it accumulates a layer of helium and then exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit. A proposed mechanism for build-up of helium on a massive white dwarf is steady thermonuclear burning of hydrogen due to accretion from a normal star. The observed counterparts to these binaries are the 'super-soft sources' which are identified by the soft X-ray flux emanating from the hot surface of the white dwarf. However, it appears that the majority of Type Ia supernova cannot be due to super-soft sources because the mass transfer rate must remain within a narrow range for a sufficiently long time to build up sufficient helium. At lower accretion rates the hydrogen does not burn steadily, but is ejected in a series of nova explosions. At higher accretion rates the mass transfer is Eddington-limited. It also appears that super-soft sources are not sufficiently long-lived to give supernova explosions in elliptical galaxies (Leibundgut, 2000).

The competing model to super-soft sources has been the double degenerate scenario, in which the companion to the massive white dwarf is a lower mass white dwarf composed mostly of helium. In this scenario, the mass transfer occurs when gravitational radiation drives the two white dwarfs into contact. The difficulty with this model has been the lack of any observed counterparts. This is not surprising given that only 1 in 500 white dwarfs needs to be a progenitor to explain the observed rate of galactic supernovae and far fewer than 500 white dwarfs have been studied in sufficient detail to reveal whether they are potential supernovae."

A careful review of the deflagration of Type Ia supernovae will indicate that in a large number of cases they do not reach the Chandrasekar limit for deflagration to occur. These current arguments are therefore of interest wthin the generalized theory of relativity of Albert Einstein, yet as recentlhy shown by Andrei Linde and others we may access other energetic continnua such as de Sitter space.

Please review the literature in this regard with earnest care or all is lost.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

wow. That's some serious typage.

 

Paul, I ask just to be clear about your two identical posts, (1908 &1909) the first two paragraphs of which, I think, give the standard explanations of the mechanism of type 1a supernova creation.

Then in third paragraph I think you are claiming that there are too many type 1a supernova observed to be so explained. Hence we must look for some other mechanism (your suggested experimation by advanced civilizations). Is that your point? If so, why do you think there are too many to be explained by the standard explainations?

I find it extremely far fetched to imagine that there are enough advanced civilizations, blowing them selves up just in our era*, to make up for any stastically significant difference in type 1a supernova. While I suspect there are some advanced civilizations, I think that stage of evolved life is very rare in the universe and impossible to imagine that they reached that level of technical advancement billions of years before earth did.

---------------
* explosions much earlier in time so the light of the supernova is arriving at Earth now.

 

Thanks to Paul and Billy T for the great replies.

I just heard that there are problems ahead for universal constants..ie, they are probably not constant at all ..if the work published recently by John Webb on the electromagnetic constant (alpha) is correct.

What are the implications of that for theories of de Sitter Space, type 1A supernovae...and of course, the safe operation of the LHC? Could we see universal constants changing under high energy conditions?

 

I think you are confusing or mixing two distinct ideas. For example if some resulting value, R is given by a formula with universal constant C as part of the equation, say R = CxF(v) where "v" represents all the variables that R depends upon except C. Often F will, especially at extreme energies be non-linear and C is truely a constant at least on human time scales.

Alternatively one could compute R from R = C(v) x H(v) where H is a linear function of v and the previous non-linearities are moved into C which is now no longer a constant, but a function of the v variables, that may include the system energy.

There is little or no advantage to this second alternative because as far as we know the constants physic uses are constants at least on many human generation time scales.

 

Dear Kind Reader,

The standard models includes de Sitter space. The penetrance towards de Sitter space would entaill the penentrance into a highly energetic domain. We have halted the constrruction of the collider in Texas and halved the energetics now in use at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Lets keep up our progress in this regard. Please check the
Google webpage for more information in this respect.
All Best Wishes,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

 

I check on Google and see you've spammed this thing across cyberspace.

Ph.D in psychology.

 

Yep, totally out of his field.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And that was noted in this very thread quite a long time ago.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Shucks, he's only one click better than that doctor (a foot doctor, no less!!) who claims he's removed several alien implants from people. {heh-heh-heh}

 

URGENT URGENT URGENT
Dear Gentle Reader,

"Planet »
Telegraph.c...Galaxy may have gobs of Earth-size planets
Washington Post - Marc Kaufman - ‎3 hours ago‎
Nobody has seen them yet, but scientists now think there are tens of billions of planets the general size and bulk of Earth in the Milky Way galaxy alone - a startling conclusion based on four years of viewing a small section of the ..." Google quote: 28 October 2010

This would indicate that there would be some likelihood of producing a supernov via the formation of a transition towardes de Sitter space via experimentation lacking necessary prudence.

Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernovae from Experimentation

 

The cancellation of the SSC in Texas had nothing to do with you, it was cancelled on the grounds of funding being too costly. You're being utterly dishonest by presenting yourself as the cause of it being stopped.

And you have nothing to do with the energy levels being used at CERN.

You have had zero impact other than to annoy a great many people with your lies, about yourself, about CERN, about physics.

 

Whats wrong with saying there are more type 1a supernovas than we expect simply because of incomplete data in our standard models. I find that a pretty easy admission since there are many problems we are currently working on that might have an impact on these. As in does the amount of dark matter change with time, has the CC varied with time. Is the fine structure constant equal in all areas of space.... we can go on and on I think its likely as more data comes in we will know why there are more than we expect.

Just like until dark matter we couldn't tell you why our galaxies didn't fly apart.

 

URGENT URGENT URGENT
Dear Gentle Reader,

"SciForums»
Green Destiny... Even \(|\psi>= \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} c_n |\phi>\) is a basic vector in a Hilbert Space, changing it slightly can give you the R^n forms of the Hilbert Space.

This would indicate that there would be some likelihood of producing a supernov via the formation of a transition towardes de Sitter space via experimentation lacking necessary prudence." Sciforums quote: 1 November 2010

Yours sincerely,
gsx1100f, Ph.D.
Let's do the time warp again