Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<cw1lgktk5jwj.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
> Hi Mark Martin ,
>   Re:  Sergey Karavashkin's idea that a planet might
>   be formed from something similar to sun spots ,

Thank you, Jeff, only this is not my idea. I explained it on the
thread "Of quanta and planets" in my post to you.

> You comment ,
> " With no subsequent delta-V an ejectile at 
>     less than escape velocity will follow 
>     a ballistic trajectory which brings it 
>     right back into the Sun "
> 
> Right ,  but I think Sergey's idea was that 
>   some stars might be spinning so fast that 
>   a particular kind of  " sun spot "  would be 
>   enough to reach the escape velocity .

I will re-send your opinion to N.K. Noskov as the author. From my
view, Shatzman's hypothesis to which Noskov referred was weakly
substantiated. Before claiming so, it would be very nice if you
calculate what you are saying and show us. I will suggest the same to
Noskov. Then we would be able to discuss this point more specifically.
;-) As to me, the difficulty is not only in escape velocity, the flows
of particles develop it. The issues are also the density and chemical
composition of flow and conditions of coagulation of substance under
heat and pressure of ejection. As far as I know, these conditions will
cause the substance to dissipate, not coagulate

> 
> Remember ,  he's suggesting that the heat and compression
>   inside a planet or star creates a new state of matter 
>   which is positively charged locally ,
>   but negatively charged outside the planet or star .

Yes, both Noskov and we say so. Moreover, according to our conception,
not only heat and pressure inside the star are important but also the
electron envelope around it.

> 
> I also think he's saying that the magnetic nature of 
>   sunspots and the sun itself help explain how
>   The ejected matter would then form stable orbits ,
>   creating something like  " Quanta " ...  i.e. planets .
>   ( But I could be wrong about that )
> 
> It's a very interesting idea ,
>   but I don't know how to confirm that observationally .
> 
> Re:  That refinement to general and special relativity :
>   " The laws of physics ,  including the speed of light ,
>     are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
>     Where :
>     _  Space ,  time ,  and heat are all scaled .
>     _  Heat is fundamentally random mass-energy .
>     _  It's always one's incomplete information 
>          that causes any apparent randomness . "
> 
> You observe ,
>   " It's only a refinement at long last if 
>       it happens to pan out observationally .
>     Does it ? "
> 
> Yes it does in fact ...  
>   And I'll soon be getting my Nobel .
>   And when I do ,
>   I'll buy everyone here a round of drinks .
> 
> No ,  seriously ,  I haven't thought it through that much .
>   but we'll know it's true if Karavashkin gets a Nobel .

The only thing I'm sure - that it will be not me who will win the
Nobel Prize for this idea. If you or Nocolay Noskov win, you will buy
everyone here a round of drinks, okay. ;-)

> 
> But this is exactly the kind of thing that
>   I like to think about .


Thank you very much for interesting response. Even though there are
seen some different opinions, I think, we will discuss this subject a
little more to come to better understanding. Then greetings will be
for all us, and we all will enjoy.

Kind regards, 

Sergey