Subquantum Kinetics Predictions
Pages: 1 2
Supernova Precursor Stars – prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believe that supernova are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. They presume that the once the red giant’s nuclear reactions subside, it collapses and subsequently rebounds in a supernova explosion.
Prediction No. 8 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced, not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, pp. 342-343).
Galactic Core Energy Source – prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers had not imaged stars in the vicinity of the Galactic center since the observational techniques had not yet been developed. Based on their conventional theories, they expected that most stars in the vicinity of the Galactic center should be low mass stars, which they theorized should be very old stars, at least as old the the Galaxy, e.g., billions of years.
Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that massive stars residing in the vicinity of the Galactic center should instead be massive. It proposes the theory that matter is continuously created, that stars grow in size and grow most rapidly in the vicinity of the Galactic center where the gravity potential and matter creation rate is highest. Furthermore subquantum kinetics predicts that massive stars, such as blue supergiants are among the oldest stars and are not young stars as conventional theory predicts. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, pp. 341-342) and again in 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, pp. 157 – 158). Also see pp. 234 and 242 (last paragraph) of the second edition of Subquantum Kinetics which describes the expectation that older, more massive stars should reside near a galaxy’s core.
Verification (2003): UCLA astronomer Andrea Ghez reports on observations she has made of the Galactic center using infrared speckle interferometry and adaptive optics. She was able to plot the trajectories of these stars. Based on these observations, she confirms that the stars in the immediate vicinity of the Galactic center, within 0.01 light years, are very massive, but that they have spectra typical of “young” stars (young by the conventional definition). She finds this puzzling since the tidal forces in the vicinity of the Galactic center would be much too strong to allow stars to form through a gravitational accretion process, this being especially true of the eight stars found closest to the Galactic center. She suggests that these massive stars may in fact be old stars whose proximity to the Galactic center has altered their appearance to make them masquerade as young stars. However, she is unable to offer any mechanism by which this could happen. Here we find her coming close to the subquantum kinetics prediction that these stars near the Galactic center should be very massive. However, by following conventional theory, she must resort to proposing mysterious stellar masquerading effects since conventional theory erroneously interprets massive stars to be young stars, instead of old stars. But with subquantum kinetics these massive stars appear exactly as they should, namely as blue supergiants which in this paradigm are very old stars.
Gravitational Repulsion – prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter-attracting fields just like protons. Gravitational repulsion is considered a speculative idea. Gravity waves are theorized to produce transverse forces on masses, not longitudinal forces.
Prediction No. 10 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that electric shock discharges should produce both electric and gravity potential wave components capable of exerting longitudinal forces on charges and masses. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1990 (Intl. Soc. Systems Sci.), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics).
Gravity wave and Coulomb wave speed and gravity wave force (2003): At the time of this prediction, most physicists and astronomers believed that gravity waves and Coulomb waves should always travel at the speed of light. They also concurred that the force exerted by such waves should scale in proportion to the field gradient.
Prediction No. 11 (2003): Subquantum kinetics predicts that an electron shock discharge should produce coinciding electric and gravity potential waves that travel faster than the speed of light and that the speed of these superluminal waves at any given point in time should depend on the electric potential gradient of the discharge (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 130). This is predicted to be due to the movement of the ether wind created by the shocks, the velocity of the pulses being increased by the additional forward velocity of the ether wind reference frame relative to which they propagate. Furthermore subquantum kinetics also predicts that the gravitational force exerted by such shock waves should increase as the pulse’s electric potential gradient increases.
Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the force exerted by the gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Paul LaViolette contacted Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and inquired about the performance of his gravity impulse beam generator. Previously Drs. Podkletnov and Modanese had reported in a published paper that the impulse beam was able to deflect a test mass up to 14 centimeters when 2 million volts were discharged through the generator’s superconducting cathode disc (Podkletnov and Modanese, 2002). Podkletnov had subsequently told LaViolette that the beam was able to punch 4 inch holes through concrete blocks when 10 million volt pulses were discharged through the disk. In January 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov if his team used a different electric pulse generator to produce the gravity pulses that punched holes through concrete blocks as compared with the ones that produced the 14 centimeter pendulum deflections and whether the former used a different Marx capacitor bank that was able to create a pulse with a steeper gradient. Dr. Podkletnov concurred that was indeed the case, the concrete smashing pulses were created with an electric discharge that had a much more rapid voltage rise-time.
Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the superluminal speed of gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Previously, Dr. Podkletnov had told LaViolette that he and Dr. Modanese had measured the speed of the pulses to be between 63 and 64 times the speed of light. In January of 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov whether the concrete smashing pulses produced by the steeper electric field gradients traveled much faster than the pendulum deflecting pulses. Podkletnov concurred and said that they had determined that these stronger pulses traveled at least several thousand times the speed of light.
Dissipative Solitons in Reaction-Diffusion Systems (1978 – 80): At this time when Model G was developed, no reaction-diffusion systems were known that were capable of producing autonomous self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures.
Prediction No. 12 (1978 – 80): LaViolette develops a Brusselator-like reaction-diffusion system called “Model G” as the main ether model for subquantum kinetics. Based on simulation work others had done on the Brusselator, he makes predictive extrapolations that Model G is capable of producing autonomous, self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures – dissipative solitons – that have a bell-shaped core surrounded by an asymptotically declining periodicity of precise wavelength. Also he predicts that these solitons should be able to bind to one another, spawn progeny particles in their immediate vicinity, and move when subjected to a concentration gradient. Published in: 1985 (IJGS).
Starburst relies on donations and bequests from the general public, charitable institutions, and the business community. Every contribution helps.