The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

Solids can shrink as they cool. A hot solid shrinks more than a cold solid given the same pressure and composition of material.

For instance, engineers make sure that they build concrete bridges with built in gaps, to dissipate the heat expansion of the concrete during a hot day. If they didn't do this the concrete would crack in random spots as it cooled during the night and contracted, destroying its structural integrity.

[JeffreyW]

What is even more pronounced is when a gas contracts and cools. It takes up vastly less space than a solid does given the gas starts out much hotter than its solid counterpart.

[Aardwolf]

What is even more pronounced is when a gas contracts and cools. It takes up vastly less space than a solid does given the gas starts out much hotter than its solid counterpart.

Not quite. The density of the Sun is estimated to be 15 times denser than liquid/solid hydrogen (which it is predominantly made of) so if it cooled it would therefore expand to 15 times it's current size.

[JeffreyW]

What is even more pronounced is when a gas contracts and cools. It takes up vastly less space than a solid does given the gas starts out much hotter than its solid counterpart.

Not quite. The density of the Sun is estimated to be 15 times denser than liquid/solid hydrogen (which it is predominantly made of) so if it cooled it would therefore expand to 15 times it's current size.

The Sun is plasma, not "gases" as per the diagram. There is a quality of large scale non-equilibrium events which includes heat loss as a cause for the appearance of "mass". I have over-viewed this in the riffwiki post:

Additionally, stellar metamorphosis states that the actual masses of objects cannot be determined via gravitational impact alone. It is assumed that all stars neither gain nor lose any appreciable mass during metamorphosis outside of flare and/or collision events, thus meaning young stars such as the Sun or middle aged brown dwarfs such as Jupiter and Saturn are actually many orders of magnitude less massive than what they are calculated to be. This additional matter ascribed to stars with higher levels of enthalpy from calculations strictly rooted in gravitational laws has lead astronomers and astrophysicists to question their understanding of the universe.

Instead of questioning the root axiom that gravitation is directly proportional to mass in all stars, calculations have lead astronomers and astrophysicists to invent a new type of matter that has yet to be detected. Currently dark matter has yet to be observed directly and/or indirectly[19] and as predicted by stellar metamorphosis will never be, because its existence is rooted in the axiom that gravitation and mass are directly proportional for all stars. In stellar metamorphosis, gravitation and mass are inversely proportional as an object exhibits more enthalpy and gravitation becomes more directly proportional as the object lowers enthalpy and cools. Thus gravitation is more than likely a manifestation of non-equilibrium thermodynamics that does not require a mathematical 4th dimension.

This means there is a property of thermodynamics/gravitation that has yet to be discovered. Do you believe this to be possible? Things we have not discovered yet? Or do you believe its all figured out, all we need to do is hand money over to university professors? Or is it that I am already a University Professor and I am under a pseudonym?

[Sparky]

Things we have not discovered yet?

Lots of them....and lots of fixing those things we believe are factual.

Or is it that I am already a University Professor and I am under a pseudonym?

careful, Jeffrey.... your imaginations are taking a dangerous turn...

[JeffreyW]

Things we have not discovered yet?

Lots of them....and lots of fixing those things we believe are factual.

Or is it that I am already a University Professor and I am under a pseudonym?

careful, Jeffrey.... your imaginations are taking a dangerous turn...

I could let me ego get out of control again, but since I've learned the hard way what is happening here I must acknowledge a few of your posts.

Yes, I find that you consider it disagreeable that we could be standing on a star older than the Sun, and for that disagreement I applaud you. Stand righteous in your efforts to expose nonsense when you see it. I have no objections to that. As you may realize though, the train has already left the station as of Sept. 3, 2011.

I suggest you either help me gain momentum or just watch. Otherwise it will be an enormous waste of time for you.

[Aardwolf]

Thus gravitation is more than likely a manifestation of non-equilibrium thermodynamics that does not require a mathematical 4th dimension

So if a material is heated it should become heavier. Any evidence of this effect? It should be quite easy to detect.

[Sparky]

I suggest you either help me gain momentum

You velocity is in an unscientific direction. If you want to promote this ghsm thing as science, you need to follow more closely the scientific method.

I have been helping you by taking that role you refuse to take, along with other modifications of presentation. I once thought that you had the ability to learn, but now see that may be impossible. Your overly inflated evaluation of yourself seems to get in the way.

It is you who is wasting time! You could put your skills to much, much better use!
But that is for you to decide what is a waste of your time. Most of life is wasting time.

[JeffreyW]

Thus gravitation is more than likely a manifestation of non-equilibrium thermodynamics that does not require a mathematical 4th dimension

So if a material is heated it should become heavier. Any evidence of this effect? It should be quite easy to detect.

Yes, it is easy to detect. The Sun does it. In case you have objections to this keep in mind the Sun is actually rounder than predicted, meaning that if it DID contain the mass that establishment claims it has, then it would bulge on the equator. The fact that it doesn't means that the mass is not there. Establishment ignores this discovery though and keeps chugging along as if nothing happened.

http://www.space.com/17143-weird-sun-sh ... ealed.html

"The peculiar fact that the sun is slightly too round to agree with our understanding of its rotation is also an important clue in a longstanding mystery," Kuhn said. "The fact that it is too round means that there are other forces at work making this round shape.

The Sun rotates just fine, these people are clueless because they think the Sun is "massive". They are attributing its rotation to the mass that SHOULD be there but isn't. Yet, none of them will question the dogma that mass causes gravity because General Relativity pseudoscience is taught at every major University around the world.

The real question is can we mimic it? In other words, its not that we mimic "mass" which is a dumb idea making something heavier doesn't cause it to "pull". We need to mimic some undiscovered mechanism which is a direct result of heat.

Exciting particles a certain way, idk. One thing is for sure, I do not think this discovery will be brought about by people conditioned into general relativity pseudoscience. It is going to take fresh thinkers, people who have not been conditioned into general relativity pseudoscience.

[JeffreyW]

A main difference between stellar metamorphosis and establishment dogma is where the chemical enrichment in galaxies takes place.

1. Establishment dogma has chemicals synthesized outside of stars.

(Remember to the conditioned minds of establishment there is no evidence for chemical synthesis, as they are fusion reactors).

2. Stellar metamorphosis has chemicals synthesized inside of stars.

(There is evidence for chemical synthesis, as all stars synthesize molecules as they cool, die and solidify over many billions of years. These chemicals are called oxygen gas, water, feldspar, diamonds, pyrite, muscovite, amino acids, etc.)

As the star cools and dies it solidifes and combines its elements into molecules. These are called combination reactions.

[Aardwolf]

The real question is can we mimic it? In other words, its not that we mimic "mass" which is a dumb idea making something heavier doesn't cause it to "pull". We need to mimic some undiscovered mechanism which is a direct result of heat.

If heat causes the Sun to be heavier then heating an object on Earth should also make it heavier. This "undiscovered mechanism" you refer to is just you're personal version of dark matter.

[JeffreyW]

The real question is can we mimic it? In other words, its not that we mimic "mass" which is a dumb idea making something heavier doesn't cause it to "pull". We need to mimic some undiscovered mechanism which is a direct result of heat.

If heat causes the Sun to be heavier then heating an object on Earth should also make it heavier. This "undiscovered mechanism" you refer to is just you're personal version of dark matter.

Not exactly. I'm saying there is a property of heat that we do not understand yet. I'm not saying there is mysterious matter that can't be seen floating about moving things.

Heating up things really hot and seeing how the material behaves is much different than supposing there is some mysterious matter that can't be seen.

We could heat up a plasma and magnetically confine it to where it is crushed down to where it would naturally be as a solid, at standard temp and pressures. $20 says that would give much more information than theoretical physicists can provide us with their pseudoscience conjecture.

My best guess is that the material would exhibit some really cool properties, properties previously unseen by 20th century physicists. Claiming that said reaction will cause "fusion" is pseudoscience. It would be more appropriate for a scientist to state things like, "I don't know what's going to happen", because that is the truth.

Their conditioned minds are not trained to be creative. A creative mind would solve the problem like this: "Okay, we know there is missing matter that can't be seen."

There are two options available!

1. There is matter there that can't be seen and is acting very strangely, or

2. We have ascribed lots of matter to places where there is very little, but have glossed over a new discovery of nature.

See? Could there be a property of heat/radiation that mimics gravitation/mass? Oh no! Impossible!

They KNOW that the Sun is 330,000 times the mass of Earth, they KNOW that Jupiter is a gas giant 300+ more massive than the Earth? Have they ever considered that there is a property of nature (previously unknown) that exists?

[Sparky]

Jeffrey is correct, gravity producing matter is made in the sun!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... e-sun.html

It's thought these axions are being produced in the sun's core
They then radiate out into space - but have not been spotted until now
If confirmed it would indicate that stars are a source of dark matter
President of the Royal Astronomical Society Professor Martin Barstow tells MailOnline it is a 'really exciting result'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z3GiN1VE8L
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Aardwolf]

The real question is can we mimic it? In other words, its not that we mimic "mass" which is a dumb idea making something heavier doesn't cause it to "pull". We need to mimic some undiscovered mechanism which is a direct result of heat.

If heat causes the Sun to be heavier then heating an object on Earth should also make it heavier. This "undiscovered mechanism" you refer to is just you're personal version of dark matter.

Not exactly. I'm saying there is a property of heat that we do not understand yet. I'm not saying there is mysterious matter that can't be seen floating about moving things.

Heating up things really hot and seeing how the material behaves is much different than supposing there is some mysterious matter that can't be seen.

We could heat up a plasma and magnetically confine it to where it is crushed down to where it would naturally be as a solid, at standard temp and pressures. $20 says that would give much more information than theoretical physicists can provide us with their pseudoscience conjecture.

My best guess is that the material would exhibit some really cool properties, properties previously unseen by 20th century physicists. Claiming that said reaction will cause "fusion" is pseudoscience. It would be more appropriate for a scientist to state things like, "I don't know what's going to happen", because that is the truth.

Their conditioned minds are not trained to be creative. A creative mind would solve the problem like this: "Okay, we know there is missing matter that can't be seen."

There are two options available!

1. There is matter there that can't be seen and is acting very strangely, or

2. We have ascribed lots of matter to places where there is very little, but have glossed over a new discovery of nature.

See? Could there be a property of heat/radiation that mimics gravitation/mass? Oh no! Impossible!

They KNOW that the Sun is 330,000 times the mass of Earth, they KNOW that Jupiter is a gas giant 300+ more massive than the Earth? Have they ever considered that there is a property of nature (previously unknown) that exists?

Your explanation reads like an apologists dark matter explanation. You could be saying heat generates dark matter, but because you don't call it dark matter it's real.

You have an unexplained phenomena so you make up something to fit it. It makes no difference if its matter, energy, a property of space or invisible yellow flavoured blancmange smelling epiphany crystals. You're still making up something you can't explain that does not fit observation.

[JeffreyW]

Your explanation reads like an apologists dark matter explanation. You could be saying heat generates dark matter, but because you don't call it dark matter it's real.

You have an unexplained phenomena so you make up something to fit it. It makes no difference if its matter, energy, a property of space or invisible yellow flavoured blancmange smelling epiphany crystals. You're still making up something you can't explain that does not fit observation.

It isn't an explanation. That's the problem. It is pointing in a direction with which we should be heading.

The explanation I have provided in this thread is the solution to the

1. Angular momentum problem of "planet formation"
2. the formation of chemicals in outer space
3. the actual evolution of stars
4. The formation of planets/exoplanets

You haven't even acknowledged that THESE explanations suit the needs of astronomy/astrophysics/geophysics. Case in point, even if I were to provide an explanation for the observations they would not be acknowledged by you. You would further state things like "you're still making up something you can't explain that does not fit observation."

See what I mean? You are not here to converse and build theory, you are here for something else. Why are you here? This thread is called "The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis".

You still have not addressed anything. Besides, even if the "dark matter problem" could not be explained by the conjecture of stars not actually being as massive as they are, I still have another explanation which constantly has been both ignored and ridiculed by EU proponents.

1. They lose mass to solar radiation and flares.

So even if they really ARE as massive as they are proclaimed to be, they do age and lose their mass to natural processes, this meaning they do migrate from star to star as they die, because their gravitational fields shrink considerably. This means dark matter isn't even needed, but was a phantom mystery, a non-mystery. This also of course goes unacknowledged by EU proponents as well.

EU proponents methods for dealing with dissent mirror establishment's: Ignore, Ignore, Ignore. This is unfitting for a group that claims to be "scientific".