Why all this jumping ahead?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:29 am

ElecGeekMom wrote:I used to have links to a site that ended with .CR (Costa Rica?) where the fellow was writing about how all planets were formerly stars.

He also had an interesting theory about what powers tornadoes and hurricanes. It involved charges that rotated. So he was getting into plasma and EU concepts, I believe, but he didn't use those terms.

That web site was gone the last time I looked for it, but I believe I have printouts of the pages (probably in a storage unit).

I think this and JeffreyW's concepts are really worth pondering. If stars are simply focal points powered by Birkeland currents, why couldn't those currents "bounce around" from time to time, like you see happening in a plasma ball? if a focal point accumulated enough matter to grow planet-sized, then was deprived of its Birkeland current, wouldn't it cool off and end up as some kind of planet?

On the other hand, if a planet once again became the focal point of Birkeland currents, would it again behave like a star? Could that happen? Or would it just explode after its charge became excessive? What evidence would be left if the planet temporarily became the focal point of a Birkeland current again? Would the entire planet have a layer of black carbon nanodiamonds?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 190719.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7808171.stm

Those articles touch on magnetic reversals and species extinction. Writers often mention the Tunguska explosion when discussing those things. IIRC the species extinction events more efficiently killed off the largest animals, while leaving smaller ones alive. I wonder what would do that? Would the sudden loss of most of the atmosphere cause it?

Like I said...something to ponder.



Please find the printouts about the person who created the star into planet theory. I don't want to claim credit for his/her idea!
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:38 am

My theory of planetary evolution is powerful, only it takes much more thought and minds behind it to work. I can not do this by myself.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:42 am

D_Archer wrote:Hi JeffreyW,

You said gravity is mainly a surface phenomena and you are right. There is also theory/mathematics about this by Miles Mathis who assigns gravity to be solely a function of radius.
Gravity is not even a pulling force as there is no mechanical way to pull 2 particles together.
When you are swimming underwater you are weightless, that is beacuse we are made mainly of water and matter in the same phase states are in equilibrium.

As for your planets being stars idea that is quite compatible with EU. Any body that receives enough charge can become a star or vice versa. Keep exploring and welcome to Thunderbolts.

Regards,
Daniel

No, function of radius does not work. Uranus's surface gravity is lower than earth, but has a much larger radius. I think gravity is an immediate artifact of the planet creation process.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:57 am

Thank you so much for everybodies input! Please add more!
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:31 pm

JeffreyW,
Uranus's surface gravity is lower than earth,--


how would we know that?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:14 am

Sparky wrote:JeffreyW,
Uranus's surface gravity is lower than earth,--


how would we know that?

My opinion is that we don't.

NASA fact sheet on Uranus: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... sfact.html

You will see Uranus has around 89% of the surface gravity of Earth, but has 14 times the mass. ??? 8-)
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:19 am

This is going to sound really random and off and quite insane. The protostar thing is a bit challenging. I'm thinking large electric current ties together somehow to create a big magnetic ball that grows bigger and bigger, then eventually moves away from its host, or stays stationary pulling in objects as it grows and nom noms on the good electric current coming in. The large electric current flows give rise to the spiral arms of galaxies. This output of electric current is the "parent" if you will, of stars, because star birth has to be some form of large source of power. Gravity is not strong enough to be the source of power, they have invented dark matter and energy to cover this problem. The stars just don't appear from gravity shrink-wrapping gas and dust. If this happens then why do planets and stars spin? Gravity only pulls things to the center! I don't think the sun is formed from "dust and gas". The sun's initial "spin" and all the other planets' initial "spins" comes from their past. The only large source of power I can think of is black holes. Your going to hate me for saying this, but I think black holes are actual "holes", but not to other dimensions, they are just the spot where electric current is flowing in between galaxies and the smaller “black holes” are smaller outputs of electric current flowing in the internal region of a galaxy, stars can be born from these too. I’m thinking black holes are the “recyclers of matter” if you will. They take in large electric outputs, spread them out amoung the galaxy and recycle the stars and all the other “matter”. Black holes are the random spots galaxies are connected via large scale electric flows. When the scientists measure their "mass" they are not, they are measuring the Amps and volts, they are measuring the massive electric current that produces the gigantic magnetic shell.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:20 am

Gravitational collapse is the idea that iron can fuse together from gravity. If I go to the gym and set an iron dumbell on top of another it will not fuse together. The only way it will fuse together is if there is a very large electric current that can run through it, like if it got struck by a lightning bolt. If gravitational collapse were true, there would be no rings around saturn, and there would be no asteroid belt. Gravitational collapse is an artifact of the Newtocentric model of planetary formation. Objects collapsing from gravity is literally impossible. The "iron" in the center of stars stabalizes because of the way it oscillates and combines your ropes. lol All the objects in the solar system did not form at the same time from the same local material. The sun formed first by a small black hole that had recycled other stars electric current and magnetic shells. With my theory I'm only at when , and then circled around the inside of the galaxy. As it moved around it adopted all the other planets (with their moons in tact), and all the asteroids, which are long decayed centers of stars. Just to say something else, I don't think the concept of things being "elements" is correct. Since there is almost no friction in space, only magnetic braking, we can expect that many moons will only show one face. Mercury only show one face to the sun…lol
Well the gravitational collapse thingy is simple. Gravitational collapse is the idea that iron can fuse together from gravity. If I go to the gym and set an iron dumbell on top of another it will not fuse together. Much less make a puddle of liquid hot iron. The only way it will fuse together or make a large iron soup like magma is if there is a very large electric current inducing an magnetic oscillation that is "zapping" it, like an induction heater. lol If gravitational collapse were true, there would be no rings around saturn, and there would be no asteroid belt. Scientists are still scratching their heads to explain how asteroids clump together. My answer is that they never will. Gravitational collapse never happened. lol The only induction heaters in our galaxy are black holes. uh oh... I think I messed up somewhere…
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:22 am

Actually, I don't think it's black holes that form stars. I think baby stars are formed in the heliosheath of solar systems. They start out as tiny magnetic bubbles that grow... The black holes are just spots where electric current inflows from other planets and gives structure. Maybe? I don't know.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:25 am

The tides don’t follow the moon or sun at all! Plus the planets are not held together by gravity. If this were true the tides of the earth would follow the sun, because it's calculated gravitational influence would be ~180 times as powerful as the moon. The tides coincide with the moon not because the moon is pulling them from gravity, the earth is a magnetic dynamo that is giving a di-pole to the dimagnetic motion of the oceans. The moon making the tides change is a false correlation… The earth’s magnetic dynamo causes it’s spin, the tides and the movement of the moon. The magnetic influence of the heliopause gives structure and shape to our solar system. The sun is just the electrical center.

Plus the silly cosmic microwave background is just the heliopause sending electric current towards the center. It is not the left over mumbo jumbo of the ficticious big bang. Whatever that is.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:26 am

Dissect, dissect, dissect!!


We don’t need pull. When atoms are formed electric ropes twist and oscillate to form individual atoms, which then stabilize from steady magnetic shells. This process continues to form a star, which gives lots of resistence and emits microwave radiation which allows the heliosheath to grow. Then the atoms can combine into other “atoms”, and their magnetic shells can get bigger. When the star creates enough iron and allows the electric inflows to pass through the star without resistence, (because iron is electrically conductive) it will start shrinking, which will also start to shrink the heliosheath, because the heliosheath will no longer have a source of resistance, aka the sun. The electric current that is flowing into the sun fuels it, not hydrogen. The idea that the sun is formed by a big gas cloud is bunk. The gas cloud of pre-made hydrogen is insane. That’s like saying oil has always been under the ground. It appeared out of nothing! lol
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:28 am

Me explaining a wikipedia article or whatever... I'm just trying to make sense of everything. I need help!!

From what I've been reading concerning stellar evolution, I must get militant with my theory. The sun is dying and turning into a planet! Wikipedia: The Sun is currently behaving unexpectedly in a number of ways.[120][121]
(according to my theory this is not unexpected, the sun will decay further and it will eventually give the resemblence of a red dwarf, then a brown dwarf like Jupiter and Saturn, then Neptune/Uranus, then an Earth like planet with a thin atmosphere).
-It is in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008.
-It is measurably dimming; its output has dropped 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths in comparison with the levels at the last solar minimum.[122]
-Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed (the energy coming from the heliopause, this is what gives the sun power) has dropped by 3%, its temperature by 13%, and its density by 20%.[123]
-Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago. The entire heliosphere, which fills the Solar System, has shrunk as a result, resulting in an increase in the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth and its atmosphere.

My theory also explains the faint young sun paradox, which haunted "scientists". The sun was not “faint”. The bunk astrophysical expectation that the sun would have only outputted 70% of it's current level of energy is bunk. The sun was roughly the same size as it is now, if not a tad bit hotter and larger when the earth was forming a crust, which would still allow for liquid water, steamy water at that...lol
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:29 am

The earth was a little further away from the sun, and the sun was hotter back then. Paradox solved! Lol We can also assume the earth was a little further away from the sun, because the Earth is moving closer to the sun as we speak, this also explains why out of most of the red dwarf stars with exoplanets, the red dwarfs have closer orbiting planets.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:29 am

Gravity is an artifact of planet formation, and is not caused by mass.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why all this jumping ahead?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:33 am

Red giants and red dwarfs have the same surface temperature. How the hell does a star get bigger and bigger if it’s mass is converted to energy? How the hell is the sun supposedly going to become a red giant, a star which has .5 – 10 times the mass of it’s current status? What makes much more rational sense is that the star will lose it’s mass via energy production, and become a red dwarf. Plus red dwarfs consistute the vast majority of highly visible stars, stars whose thermonuclear reactions can still be witnessed via telescope. Once the red dwarf loses even more energy and mass, it will shrink into a brown dwarf, similar to where Jupiter currently is. (Methane: Unlike stars, older brown dwarfs are sometimes cool enough that over very long periods of time their atmospheres can gather observable quantities of methane. Dwarfs confirmed in this fashion include Gliese 229B.) Guess which planets have higher levels of methane? Uranus has methane in it’s atmosphere around 2.3%. Jupiter has methane around .03%. Neptune has methane around 1.5%+- .5 %. Saturn methane .4%. So the ages of the stars are the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Earth. Venus, Mercury, Mars, Pluto have yet to be figured out. I know they are former star cores though, I just don't know how long they have done their thing. Probably a couple billion years after earth, earth being into the trillions if not more years old.
I'm thinking the big "V" spectral classification in the middle is the most rational, even though it pops in and out of existence, it still doesn't make sense. All the others pop in and out of existence by the will of god. lol... I don't believe in "god" though, that's like saying do I believe a concept such as democracy created the earth. It does not make sense. Concepts have no physicality. lol wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HR-diag-no-text-2.svg
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests