In 1990, I was working on non-periodic geometry where fivefold symmetry sits at a point between unity and diversity. The particular geometry was based on 432° where the four angles constituting non-periodic tiling acted like geometric DNA for all the
diverse objects on Earth that display the more elaborate Phi proportion compared to the Pi proportion.

https://imgur.com/gallery/UV2tvOJ

The issue of 432° as a foundation that diversity springs from Unity led to the consideration that while 432° cannot be expressed in 360° geometry, it leaves behind traits as to the limitations in our 360° existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#/media/File:New_Hubble_Observations_of_Supernova_1987A_Trace_Shock_Wave_(4954621859).jpg

In 1990, consideration was given to the density/volume imbalance occurring in a pre-Supernova star where the struggle to maintain the integrity of the star (density) is balanced with the tendency to explode (volume). I turned to an old symbol and graphic
which contained this type of contrary progression with two large rings representing the struggle as components within the same object. The " centre cannot hold" representation is the most useful-

https://blogsarchive.sites.haverford.edu/celticfringe/files/2014/02/Bas2xGyre1.gif

It is a long but enjoyable journey with a lovely conclusion. It means that for certain Supernovae, it is not the end of a stars life but the transition, due to a loss of stellar mass, to the birth of a solar system.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:47:58 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

... for certain Supernovae, it is not the end of a stars life but the transition, due to a loss of stellar mass, to the birth of a solar system.

There is zero evidence to suppoort this incredibly ignorant claim, Gerald... wherever did you get such a wild and crazy idea? Did you just make this up by yourself and pass it along to the denizens of sci.astro.amateur? Do you suppose that folks here
will just take your word for it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Have you ever read even a single cosmology textbook in your entire life?

"I suppose our capacity for self-delusion is boundless."

- John Steinbeck

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:57:10 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:47:58 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

... for certain Supernovae, it is not the end of a stars life but the transition, due to a loss of stellar mass, to the birth of a solar system.

There is zero evidence to suppoort this incredibly ignorant claim, Gerald... wherever did you get such a wild and crazy idea? Did you just make this up by yourself and pass it along to the denizens of sci.astro.amateur? Do you suppose that folks here

will just take your word for it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Have you ever read even a single cosmology textbook in your entire life?

"I suppose our capacity for self-delusion is boundless."

- John Steinbeck

You may have spent too long in the ructious relativity forum along with its quasi-legal lingo of evidence, claims and whatever.

This idea has been with me since 1990 and it is so personal that I rarely bring it out for the same reason Copernicus was reluctant to demonstrate his hypothesis of a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system. He had to frame it as a hypothesis as the only
available system was the Ptolemaic framework while our 21st-century society can now watch Venus and Mercury run back and forth around our central star stationed at the centre of the solar system-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

Language like 'ignorance' is unsuitable for this newsgroup so I choose to say you are unfamiliar with observations and interpretations of them and for goodness sake, have the decency and integrity to appreciate the new approach to planetary motions as
seen from a satellite rather than the surface of a rotating Earth and those who had to interpret motions from that difficult position.

In terms of a supernova and solar system creation, there may already be remnants of this geometry within our own solar system as a circle of asteroids beyond the orbit of Neptune-

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/792/10-things-to-know-about-the-kuiper-belt/

When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason outside
their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.

There is this wonderful conception, albeit in its infancy, that you Paul are made up of the elements forged in that star we call our Sun. I work with my own geometric method which recognises the cycles along with the linear progression of Universal life
and it doesn't require me to be at variance with others who are exceptionally limited and even hilariously inept with conceptions of timekeeping and objects in space.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason outside

their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.

I don't know what you mean when you claim that "I was working with the rings". I suppose that you thought they looked like orbits and jumped to the conclusion that it was a solar system in the making. Again, there is zero evidence to support that idea.

Do you have any idea about the scale of those rings, their actual size? Read this, which was written in 1990...

https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1990/17/20-Image.html

... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33 years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now?
Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of a
solar system.

When I said your claim was ignorant I only implying that it was made by a person with no formal education in the subject matter. Your guesses are not valid theories since they are not accompanied by experiments and/or observations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason

outside their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.

I don't know what you mean when you claim that "I was working with the rings". I suppose that you thought they looked like orbits and jumped to the conclusion that it was a solar system in the making. Again, there is zero evidence to support that idea.

Do you have any idea about the scale of those rings, their actual size? Read this, which was written in 1990...

https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1990/17/20-Image.html

... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33 years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now?

Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of a
solar system.

When I said your claim was ignorant I only implying that it was made by a person with no formal education in the subject matter. Your guesses are not valid theories since they are not accompanied by experiments and/or observations.

Stellar evolution has a particular geometry whether it was a post-supernova star like SN1987a or a pre-supernova star like Eta Carinae-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Eta_Carinae.jpg

I do what I do because my formal education is from the original astronomers and their actual perspectives rather than mathematical impostors, hence I have zero interest in appealing to those who project authority and integrity but lack a basic
appreciation of planetary and solar system facts.

As a supernova star can be isolated as an object and its evolution traced using its geometry, it is the one bright spot that mathematicians have but, because they have hollowed out geometry since the Victorian age, they are unable to follow the logic of
density/volume imbalances involved in a supernova event.

I could have included the Oort cloud much less the close asteroid belt as signatures of this scheme do exist-

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKhToKaEF-DHX5-MiIysjpjg66UV_-Ilq2dw&usqp=CAU

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1017A/production/_109741956_50473482.jpg

The physical consideration of a star moving in its galactic orbital motion along with the other stars also provides a basis for the transition of a pre-supernova star to a solar system star and this includes our own Sun.

So, less ugly language about ignorance and more reasoning at a higher level where astronomical considerations dwell.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:12:38 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason

outside their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.

I don't know what you mean when you claim that "I was working with the rings". I suppose that you thought they looked like orbits and jumped to the conclusion that it was a solar system in the making. Again, there is zero evidence to support that

idea.

Do you have any idea about the scale of those rings, their actual size? Read this, which was written in 1990...

https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1990/17/20-Image.html

... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33 years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now?

Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of a
solar system.

When I said your claim was ignorant I only implying that it was made by a person with no formal education in the subject matter. Your guesses are not valid theories since they are not accompanied by experiments and/or observations.

Stellar evolution has a particular geometry whether it was a post-supernova star like SN1987a or a pre-supernova star like Eta Carinae-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Eta_Carinae.jpg

I do what I do because my formal education is from the original astronomers and their actual perspectives rather than mathematical impostors, hence I have zero interest in appealing to those who project authority and integrity but lack a basic

appreciation of planetary and solar system facts.

As a supernova star can be isolated as an object and its evolution traced using its geometry, it is the one bright spot that mathematicians have but, because they have hollowed out geometry since the Victorian age, they are unable to follow the logic

of density/volume imbalances involved in a supernova event.

I could have included the Oort cloud much less the close asteroid belt as signatures of this scheme do exist-

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKhToKaEF-DHX5-MiIysjpjg66UV_-Ilq2dw&usqp=CAU

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1017A/production/_109741956_50473482.jpg

The physical consideration of a star moving in its galactic orbital motion along with the other stars also provides a basis for the transition of a pre-supernova star to a solar system star and this includes our own Sun.

So, less ugly language about ignorance and more reasoning at a higher level where astronomical considerations dwell.

Gerald, you *completely* side-stepped my direct question... "... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33
years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now? Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a
black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of a solar system."

I know, it is a really tough question to dismiss... "Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making?" I will assume that you have no logical response... which is exactly what I would expect from anyone who makes such a claim.

This is not a contest. You have made an outrageously illogical claim and have no answer for it except to deflect. I fully understand you position. Believe me when I claim that you are definitely *not* reasoning on a higher level...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:57:03 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:12:38 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

When the images of SN1987a appeared four years after I was working with the rings, it added to the consideration of certain Supernova events as transition phases rather than the end of a life cycle as I know experimental theorists can't reason

outside their belief that everything explodes and dies, from their big bang conviction to stellar evolution.

I don't know what you mean when you claim that "I was working with the rings". I suppose that you thought they looked like orbits and jumped to the conclusion that it was a solar system in the making. Again, there is zero evidence to support that

idea.

Do you have any idea about the scale of those rings, their actual size? Read this, which was written in 1990...

https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/1990/17/20-Image.html

... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33 years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is

now? Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of
a solar system.

When I said your claim was ignorant I only implying that it was made by a person with no formal education in the subject matter. Your guesses are not valid theories since they are not accompanied by experiments and/or observations.

Stellar evolution has a particular geometry whether it was a post-supernova star like SN1987a or a pre-supernova star like Eta Carinae-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Eta_Carinae.jpg

I do what I do because my formal education is from the original astronomers and their actual perspectives rather than mathematical impostors, hence I have zero interest in appealing to those who project authority and integrity but lack a basic

appreciation of planetary and solar system facts.

As a supernova star can be isolated as an object and its evolution traced using its geometry, it is the one bright spot that mathematicians have but, because they have hollowed out geometry since the Victorian age, they are unable to follow the logic

of density/volume imbalances involved in a supernova event.

I could have included the Oort cloud much less the close asteroid belt as signatures of this scheme do exist-

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKhToKaEF-DHX5-MiIysjpjg66UV_-Ilq2dw&usqp=CAU

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1017A/production/_109741956_50473482.jpg

The physical consideration of a star moving in its galactic orbital motion along with the other stars also provides a basis for the transition of a pre-supernova star to a solar system star and this includes our own Sun.

So, less ugly language about ignorance and more reasoning at a higher level where astronomical considerations dwell.

Gerald, you *completely* side-stepped my direct question... "... where you will see that those rings were expanding at that time at up to about 18,000 miles per second! The diameter of those rings at that time was about 1.5 light years! Here we are 33

years later, so how big do you suppose that diameter is now? Probably several light years, at least. Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making? Also, if the progenitor star survived at all, it is either a pulsar, a neutron star or a
black hole, with each being unsuitable for the birth of a solar system."

I know, it is a really tough question to dismiss... "Do you *still* think that this is a solar system in the making?" I will assume that you have no logical response... which is exactly what I would expect from anyone who makes such a claim.

The rings are a feature of stellar evolution before and after the supernova event-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g12g2Nq3_2I

The rings light up as a fixed feature of the post-supernova event so I doubt very much you have a handle on what a fixed feature represents.

This is not a contest. You have made an outrageously illogical claim and have no answer for it except to deflect. I fully understand you position. Believe me when I claim that you are definitely *not* reasoning on a higher level...

Of course, it is not a contest as I take a geometric approach to stellar evolution rather than flailing around with no centre/no circumference ideologies like a black hole as the hapless do. Unlike the resolution of direct/retrogrades into two distinct
perspectives depending on whether the planets move faster or slower than the Earth, this isolates a celestial body in terms of evolution so it is not anything like the big bang/black hole mess where no such distinctions are made.

I propose that certain supernova events represent a transition phase resulting in the birth of a solar system as opposed to the demise of a star. The geometry derived from representing 432° in 360° through the four angles of non-periodic tiling and by
the stellar competition between volume and density, resulted in the geometric structure of two large external rings and one smaller intersecting ring long before they were imaged by the Hubble.

I have zero interest in the lazy who follow a seriously limiting approach and have no feel for the role geometry plays in it all. Genuine researchers would find a lot to work with here even if the geometric reasoning behind the structure of the rings
will remain beyond them for quite some time if at all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)