The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Sparky]

and old stars have very, very weak if any magnetic fields.

So, the old stars /planets, moons, asteroids, in our solar system all have weak if any magnetic fields?

[Sain84]

Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.

Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.

[Sparky]

More evidence of star's fissioning...

http://news.yahoo.com/astronomers-revea ... 11110.html

"The two stars are so close that they touch and the whole system resembles a gigantic peanut."

[Sparky]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/0 ... mystery-2/

If the current increases sufficiently, the star may fission into two or more unequal components. This spreads the discharge over a greater area and reduces the current density to a manageable level. That has happened to this star: The radio observations discovered a smaller companion star buried in the dust. The companion also sports a jet, but this one is nearly perpendicular to the other.

[JeffreyW]

Its been a while since I posted. I thought I would add a few more statements here to clarify.

Along a star's evolution (which the establishment has mutually exclusive of the more evolved stars, or "gas giants" as they call them) it gets it outer atmosphere ripped away from travelling the galaxy to show the rocky interior with the oceans that were already formed.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... naked.html

Herndon got half the story down, but he forget half of star evolution, the part where stars are large and bright, or in other words, blue giants, red dwarfs, brown dwarfs, etc. He still has stars as being mutually exclusive of planets. This is the greatest blunder of all astronomy and astrophysics.

A star is a new planet. A planet is an ancient evolving star. Herndon does not know this. He has a good statement on decompression dynamics, but this is only because the pressure from the thick atmosphere was released, thus meaning it still is NOT expanding Earth, it is more like shrinking Earth from atmosphere loss to expose the rocky core.

http://nuclearplanet.com/Herndon%27s%20 ... ation.html

[JeffreyW]

I think the journey science will take now is one of repairing the mistakes and piecing together what we missed and messed up.

The purpose of this thread is not to correct math equations, but to correct the worldview of the stars. Human's worldview of the stars was:

1. Stars

2. Planets

They did not realize this simple fact of nature:

1. Stars are planets.

They were never separate to begin with. The separation was conceived because of human's myopic understanding. It appears so, so it must be true. Well, just because stars appear bright and they could never be cold dark solid worlds does not mean that assumption is true. The truth is that ancient stars are cold dark solid worlds. The truth is that Mercury, Venus and Mars are dead stars. The Sun and other stars that shine in the night sky are new planets. There are many billions of them, which have many more millions of years to go as they cool and die becoming what myopic humans call "planet".

[tayga]

Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.

Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.

Apparently, Jeff doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe it's another instance where Science needs to wake up and correct its erroneous thinking.

[Sparky]

jw:

It appears so, so it must be true.---- The truth is that Mercury, Venus and Mars are dead stars. The Sun and other stars that shine in the night sky are new planets. There are many billions of them, which have many more millions of years to go as they cool and die becoming what myopic humans call "planet".

The certitude that jw uses in his pronouncements equals that of those he is so critical of.
His chief argument is that,"It appears so, so it must be true." Myopic
of his own fallacious argument!

There is no theory of how stars birth and maintain electrical activity, only the observation that there are stars, there are planets, so one must eventually die and give birth to the latter. EU agrees that stars give birth to planets! So why is jw so hostile toward the EU position?!

It takes more than inspired revelation and dogmatic certitude to present and explain a hypothesis to those who have their own history of experience and perception. A good and real scientist will consider a hypothesis and withhold a conclusion about it till some evidence is presented to support or falsify it. When there is no evidence to support a hypothesis, and what little supportive evidence we have is supplied by those who have been falsified in other ways, it really gets tricky, with inferences and speculations, supported by Earth bound experiments and observations.

All the evidence that I have seen and had presented to me supports an electric star that fissions. Portions of that fissioning may undergo further fissioning, producing gas planets, and rock planets, with accompanying moons. As of now, I see no stronger mechanism, but I am open to hypothesis which may challenge that.

[CharlesChandler]

All the evidence that I have seen and had presented to me supports an electric star that fissions.

What "evidence"? The existence of multiple stars and/or planets is not evidence of fissioning, any more than a crowd of people is evidence that there must have been only one person there to start, and then they starting fissioning into multiple people. Ummm... I don't think that such is how people come into existence, and I think that you need more than that to come to any conclusion at all. So we look for possible ways of people, and stars, to come into existence. Having only snapshots, and familiarity with physics, this isn't easy. But you can't just see a snapshot of two objects, and call that evidence of one object that split. Personally, I think that the physics of stars withering away into planets is a lot more robust than fissioning. An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern. It doesn't split down the middle into two objects.

[JeffreyW]

Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.

Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.

Apparently, Jeff doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe it's another instance where Science needs to wake up and correct its erroneous thinking.

Show me the emission lines of Venus, Mercury, Mars and Earth. Emission lines which originate from the star itself, not its host. Then I'll believe you.

[JeffreyW]

Mercury, Venus, and Earth do not have spectrums.

Thermodynamics tells us all bodies at a finite temperature must emit radiation and thus all bodies have an emission spectrum. These planets aren't strong emitters in the visible spectrum but are in the infrared. Anyone who has ever done microwave astronomy will tell you that you get a lot of emission from the ground. You can see that weather satellites see nothing at night in the visible region of the spectrum but can quite easily still see clouds at night in the infrared. These planets do have spectra.

Apparently, Jeff doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe it's another instance where Science needs to wake up and correct its erroneous thinking.

Show me the emission lines of Venus, Mercury, Mars and Earth. Emission lines which originate from the star itself, not its host. Then I'll believe you.

The facts are such, if they had emission lines they would have already been considered stars by the establishment. Since they do not have emission lines, they are considered "planets", which is false. They are black dwarf stars/dead stars.

yes, science does have to correct itself.

[JeffreyW]

Another thing the "sciences" have to correct, but they won't because it's mob rule, is the fact that stars are not thermodynamically closed systems.

Establishment claims star's evolution is determined by their masses. Yet stars lose mass as they age because they are radiating. This is basic thermodynamics. As a star loses energy, it ALSO loses mass. Yet the dogma stellar evolution models have stars NOT LOSING MASS.

If anything the really strange part is that they have sun-like stars GAINING MASS even when they radiate, becoming "red giants". Thus is in direct violation of mass-energy equivalence principle. But hey, who cares about basic thermodynamics! They have the entire universe coming from nothing in a big bang explosion! Thermodynamics is for the birds!

[Sparky]

CC:

a crowd of people is evidence that there must have been only one person there to start, and then they starting fissioning into multiple people.

Charles, that is just silly.

An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern.

Why?! Why wouldn't it be like a really large CME?

Can a star "burn out" and become a planet?! I don't know! And I don't believe anyone does for sure.. Until we travel around our galaxy and see if there are burnt out stars, I have to look at the images that show closely associated stars, and wonder how that happened. Smarter people than me think that it is evidence of fissioning. These same people have participated in lab experiments with plasma. People who have experience are for me a type of evidence.

Except for the fissioning people example, your argument is strong...

[JeffreyW]

All the evidence that I have seen and had presented to me supports an electric star that fissions.

What "evidence"? The existence of multiple stars and/or planets is not evidence of fissioning, any more than a crowd of people is evidence that there must have been only one person there to start, and then they starting fissioning into multiple people. Ummm... I don't think that such is how people come into existence, and I think that you need more than that to come to any conclusion at all. So we look for possible ways of people, and stars, to come into existence. Having only snapshots, and familiarity with physics, this isn't easy. But you can't just see a snapshot of two objects, and call that evidence of one object that split. Personally, I think that the physics of stars withering away into planets is a lot more robust than fissioning. An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern. It doesn't split down the middle into two objects.

Yes, it is more robust. Stars lose their mass as they radiate and undergo basic thermodynamic phase transitions.

Though I have to correct for the black body radiation of stars now because of Pierre-Marie Robitaille's argument. Gas is not a lattice, thus meaning the surface of the sun is more like a liquid or even a solid. This would also mean from my own interpretation that it is a hollow shell. In stelmeta the shell will contract as the material that makes it will move towards the center as vapor. Thus young stars like the sun are giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. Something that is ignored by Electric Universe proponents. To them, stars have indefinite age, thus could very well be eternal. This meaning they were never born and can never die. This contradicts natural philosophy.

In stellar metamorphosis stars are born as really powerful events, and cool and die becoming what are mislabeled "planets". The planets we see in the night sky are very bright and young, only a few million years old, thus contradicting both big bang mythology and Electric universe mythology.

[CharlesChandler]

An object with an excess of electrical charge will expel that charge in a radial pattern.

Why?! Why wouldn't it be like a really large CME?

Because excess charges repel each other, and they therefore distribute themselves evenly around the outside of the object. There are exceptions. For example, if you have a sphere with a needle sticking out of it, the electric field will be much greater at the tip of the needle, since it focuses more lines of force on itself. Assuming that the work function of the whole thing is the same, more charge transfer will happen at the tip of the needle than on the surface of the sphere elsewhere. The Sun, of course, is a near perfect sphere, so there is no concentration of electric field. But interestingly, I'm convinced that a sunspot does alter the work function, enabling more current by reducing the resistance. But I don't see the matter accumulating elsewhere, after streaming out of sunspots. CMEs are related, but there again, there isn't any accumulation of matter elsewhere in the solar system from CMEs. So if you were to say that the Moon fissioned from the Earth by a process similar to CMEs being ejected from the Sun, I'd have to disagree.