Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

Supernova From Experimentaton At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND HERA

The transition towards de Sitter Space, which is achieved through breaching the potential barrier between the continuum and the false de Sitter vacuum is accomplished via those energies which are now equivalent to those found at the point origin of this Universe under this postulation. The current unsupported hypothesis in the literature is that Type Ia Supernova have origin in white dwarf stars though the companion from whom mass is accreted has to be in all cases of having no hydrogen since Type Ia Supernova show no hydrogen at the time of maximum light. Also we now have evidence for a Type Ia Supernova which no longer conforms to the Chandrasekhar limit for the collapse of the 2.1 solar mass progenitor object. Having the companion object with no hydrogen for accretion, as well as being "The type Ia SNLA-03D3bb from a super-Chandrasekar-mass white dwarf star (D. Andrew Howell et al (2006) Nature,443, 7109, 308-311) are both unlikely events cosmologically. One can continue to invent post-hoc hypotheses to account for empirical observations up to a point when the entire structure of explanation collapses of it own weight.

Its time to wake up before we generate a Type Ia Supernova!!!

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
interesting, but not convincing enough to stop research, IMO.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND HERA

The transition towards de Sitter Space, which is achieved through breaching the potential barrier between the continuum and the false de Sitter vacuum is accomplished via those energies which are now equivalent to those found at the point origin of this Universe under this postulation. The current unsupported hypothesis in the literature is that Type Ia Supernova have origin in white dwarf stars though the companion from whom mass is accreted has to be in all cases of having no hydrogen since Type Ia Supernova show no hydrogen at the time of maximum light. Also we now have evidence for a Type Ia Supernova which no longer conforms to the Chandrasekhar limit for the collapse of the 2.1 solar mass progenitor object. Having the companion object with no hydrogen for accretion, as well as being "The type Ia SNLA-03D3bb from a super-Chandrasekar-mass white dwarf star (D. Andrew Howell et al (2006) Nature,443, 7109, 308-311) are both unlikely events cosmologically. One can continue to invent post-hoc hypotheses to account for empirical observations up to a point when the entire structure of explanation collapses of it own weight.

Its time to wake up before we generate a Type Ia Supernova!!!

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

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

Can you model what you have calculated and animated within your mind?

Who else has access to your data? And more importantly why arent they concerned? Dont tell me youre the chief and the rest are Indians and or undergarduates?

BTW why 2.1 solar mass? It simply doesnt make sense!
 
Hello Paul ,

This must be one of the weirdest threads on all of sciforum ........
I congratulate you with beeing a ph.d. and for beeing nominated to the nobel prize of physics no less than 3 times ( in 1986,1995 and 1998 )..hmm, hmm :rolleyes:

Also your stamina is quite unusual .......
Actually so unusual , that I tried to read on the ban list to find anybody - who resembled your style- it only took me 2 days - yes, I did find one ....he even called himself for Paul...he was bipolar (mostly manic) and now banned for ever ....

Paul, did you write this ? :

"I am, master doctor Con W. Front Sr.
I am the scientist present in the controlled environment in which he practices
his experiment "

This other Paul , thought Paul from the testament was a con ..
Is the Mason-Dixon line a front ?
Con W. Front = Paul W. Dixon ????????

Anyway , I am sure you are not : Witnessjudgejury :eek:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1031656#post1031656
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~dixon/PaulDixonCV.html
 
Last edited:
Liadback- Paul is our resident, ummm, eccentric? Or something, he's been posting almost the same post for 5 years now. People have tried to engage him in rational debate, but he does not respond.
 
Liadback- Paul is our resident, ummm, eccentric? Or something, he's been posting almost the same post for 5 years now. People have tried to engage him in rational debate, but he does not respond.

Well if thats the case, I Guess whatever Paul is trying to express will never be clarified and or given more credibility.
So what say you now Paul?

BTW ~ Arent we all ummm a little eccentric? Or sum~tin?:D
 
I hope most of us are a bit eccentric, otherwise I am glad I havnt given out too much personal information on here....
 
sputnik said:
I congratulate you with beeing a ph.d. and for beeing nominated to the nobel prize of physics no less than 3 times ( in 1986,1995 and 1998 )..hmm, hmm
There exists a Paul W Dixon, PhD, at the University of Hawaii - not a physicist, but a professor of psychology and linguistics, so the three nominations seem unlikely. ;)
Where did you copy your post from Paul?
 
I hope most of us are a bit eccentric, otherwise I am glad I havnt given out too much personal information on here....

Going by Pauls Posts, every single post is the same...

Eh!
Its not my Forum...
 
Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOHAVEN AND HERA

We may consider the experiment of highest-energy physics experimentation at Fermilab as a test of General Relativity in the sense that billions of dollars of our taxpayers' hard earned money has been spent to see if the postulation of a potential barrier towards de Sitter space is valid and if the penetration of this potential barrier will create a Type Ia Supernova. Futher experimental verification of General Relativity has been carried out with observations of a unique astronomical object, a pair of pulsars 2000 light-years away that orbit each other at a distance of some 1 million kilometers. (Science, 9 January 2004, p.153)

A team of astronomers has given the General Theory of Relativity its most severe test based on these observations and the General Theory of Relativity has been been verified to 0.05% accuracy. (Adrian Cho, (2006) Pulsars gyrations confirm Einstein's theory, Astrophysics, Science, 313, 5793, 1556-1557).

Let us not now or ever test the General Theory of Relativity and confrim its accuracy with Type Ia Supernova generation!

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Supernova From Experimetation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN BROOKHAVEN AND HERA

A very interesting article in the Scientific Anerican demonstrates that the source of energy for both Type Ia and for Type II Supernovae are not well-understood. Type Ia supernovae are used as standard candles in observational astronomy for distance estimates since they are so uniform in luminosity. Since these investigations have been carried out for
many years and yet they are still problematic, it leads the way to the acceptance of the hypothesis that the origin of both Type I and Type II supernovae are caused by a breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space.
(Wolfgang Hilldebrandt, Hans-Thomas Janka, Ewald Muller (October 2006) How to blow up a star, Scientific American, 295, 4, October, 42-51.)

As this article indicates, the problem of supernovae generation may be solved by finding an elementary means of bringing the energies of Type Ia Supernovae and also Type II Supernova into a manifest state. This can easily be accomplished in both instances by positing that the energies of experimention, as hypothesized in this thread, as well as those energies forned by the implosion of the Type II Supernovae with ten or more solar masses, is the precipitating cause (triggering mechamism) whereby those energies resident in de Sitter space are released. The finding that Supernovae Type Ia are some 2.4 times greater in magnitude than Type II Supernovae may then be accounted for by the formation of a plasma channel with better conductance properties via the high-energy conditions found during experimentation. The difficulty of accounting in a statistical sense for the lack of hydrogen during maximum light for Type Ia Supernovae may also be accounted for under this postulation.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Supernova From Experimentation at Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND HERA

It may be understood in this connection that the the observations cited in this thread indicate strong support for the Generalized Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein and by extension the postulation of de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed. Penetration towards de Sitter space may be accomplished by natural means as in the implosion of the ten or more solar masses in a Type II Supernova. We should, however, be able to accomplish this same set of causal factors in the laboratory in a kind of simulacrum of nature. Such, it is here postulated, is now been carried out at Fermilab and in the near future at CERN with even higher energies.

Let us not lend further support of the Generalized Theory of Relativity via generation of a Type Ia Supernova in Batavia, Illinois. All the children wil thank you for your kind efforts in their behalf!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND HERA

Many calculations over the years have been carried out to create a computer based simulacrum of these events seen in Supernovae generation. Thus, we note:

"October 1, 2003
Alan Calder, University of Chicago

Validating an astrophysical simulation code
Verification and validation (V & V) tests of numerical methods and models are essential ingredients for establishing credibility in any numerical modeling effort. The strong connection between the ASCI/Alliances Flash Center and the DOE Laboratories enables close collaboration between theorists and experimentalists probing the basic physics of astrophysical events, providing a unique opportunity for validation. The Flash Center has established an ongoing, formal V & V effort for FLASH, a parallel, adaptive-mesh simulation code for the compressible, reactive flows found in many astrophysical settings. In this talk, I will present results of V & V tests of FLASH. The verification tests are designed to test and quantify the accuracy of the code. The two validation tests are meant to ensure that the simulations meaningfully describe the real world by carefully comparing the results of simulations and astrophysically-relevant laboratory experiments. The first experiment consists of a laser-driven shock propagating through a multi-layer target, a configuration similar to the shock propagating outward through a massive star in a core collapse supernova. The second experiment is a "classic" Rayleigh-Taylor fluid instability, where a heavy fluid is accelerated by a light fluid. Our simulations of the multi-layer targets showed good agreement with the experimental results, but our simulations of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability did not."

More recently, we may note the finding cited in, "Supernova Hydrodynamics Up Close," using two-dimensional models that predict maximum velocities of only about 2,000 kilometers per second wheras observed velocities for radioactive materials were found to be more that 3,000 kilometers per second
in Supernova 1987A. The postulatlion of additonal impetus to these velocities from de Sitter space, where the amount of final sum of energies may ourshine their respective galaxy of origination for some weeks of time, may then be found necessary to balance these equations of computer simulation for Supernovae deflagration.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN BROOKHAVEN AND HERA

Historically, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor suffered a partial melt down whose source has still not been documented. This event transpired in a heavily populated region in the United States in recent times. We have, therefore, a history of large high-energy physics accidents whose origin has still not been ascertained. Do we need to continue on with this line of accidents which are of even greater magnitude thus creating a public endangerment of life for everyone on earth?
Please note:
hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Islandttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island
All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All Best Wishes for the Holiday Season!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Supernova Frpm Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND HERA

Also in an Historical Context we can examine the Chernobyl meltdown which may still extinguish all life on earth when the radioactive mass achieve's the China Syndrome and burns through to the underlying soil and bedrock. It is predicted that the resulting radioactive emission will make the Northern Hemisphere of the earth uninhabitable at the first. We would like to know who is reponsile for this contingency.
 
Back
Top