The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

Jeffrey,

Did you, by any chance, use Bob Johnson's "Current-Free Double-Layer" Sun as a source of inspiration for GTSM? It does kinda eliminate the need for something powering stars (in a permanent fashion, that is)... They might be gradually dissipating as they are seeking to equalize their voltage with their surroundings?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpPetp ... tml5=False

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... hp?t=11164

Would be very nice to have more long overdue feedback on the SAFIRE project...

I have the gravitational field accelerating particles back inwards and ionizing. The velocity at which they re-enter the atmosphere causes them to ionize as per Hannes Alfven's idea of critical ionization velocity. Once they move fast enough in a surrounding medium they become plasma. This plasma is self perpetuating because the gravitational field is constant. Some particles are lost slowly (solar wind) which causes the star to lose mass and shrink, thus the gravitational field diminishes, and when that happens the particles cannot reionize again, because the gravitational potential is too weak, they cannot reach the velocities required to ionize them again. This means the star stops shining in the visible spectrum (recombination, a thermodynamic phase transition ignored by EU and establishment astrophysics) strongly depending on which have the higher critical ionization velocities. This is why you will never see a luminous star with Jupiter's mass shining like the Sun.

The particles recombine and release heat (exothermic reaction) then get ejecting outwards again. It is a feedback loop which is dependent on how much mass is lost.

it is also very new. I haven't read this anywhere, I've been searching for 4 years...

As to the SAFIRE project I have no idea. I have not followed it at all. When I see that word I think sapphires, which are beautiful stones that I have in my possession. : )

[Electro]

I have the gravitational field accelerating particles back inwards and ionizing. The velocity at which they re-enter the atmosphere causes them to ionize as per Hannes Alfven's idea of critical ionization velocity. Once they move fast enough in a surrounding medium they become plasma. This plasma is self perpetuating because the gravitational field is constant. Some particles are lost slowly (solar wind) which causes the star to lose mass and shrink, thus the gravitational field diminishes, and when that happens the particles cannot reionize again, because the gravitational potential is too weak, they cannot reach the velocities required to ionize them again. This means the star stops shining in the visible spectrum (recombination, a thermodynamic phase transition ignored by EU and establishment astrophysics) strongly depending on which have the higher critical ionization velocities. This is why you will never see a luminous star with Jupiter's mass shining like the Sun.

The particles recombine and release heat (exothermic reaction) then get ejecting outwards again. It is a feedback loop which is dependent on how much mass is lost.

it is also very new. I haven't read this anywhere, I've been searching for 4 years...

I knew about critical ionization velocity, however, although CIV may have been recognized for some time in the laboratory, and is seen in the penumbra produced by a dense plasma focus device (or plasma gun), its existence in cosmic plasmas has not been confirmed (and probably will never be by the Mainstream...). The CIV's need to be quite high for the elements to ionize, especially hydrogen. I doubt gravity alone would achieve that. You'd have to add energy (temperature, voltage...). Besides, there is so little information available on CIV that it makes the whole concept a bit dubious. Hell, Hannes Alfvén's work was disputed for many years by Mainstream scientists for his "unorthodox" opinions, especially in regards to cosmology... Although he did win a Nobel Prize for his work on magnetohydrodynamics, challenging the Mainstream isn't very good for a career...

But I do agree with the whole concept involved in stellar metamorphosis. However, I also agree with Bob Johnson's approach on the electric sun. I believe stars are formed from kinks in the electrical discharges inside molecular clouds, ejecting plasmoids (like ball lightning). Hence these plasmoids are in turn not permanently powered by galactic currents, but like in GTSM, they become huge dissipative systems, including electrochemical reactions and phase transitions.

In a star formed as a plasmoid, it will inevitably contain high-temperature electrons similar to the tokamak devices, and so we should expect to see a CFDL form around it to separate the two plasma states[?]. So I'd like to suggest that there may be a plasmoid in the center of the Sun and a CFDL around it. Ionization would then occur in the interaction region with the surrounding plasma. The tufting in the photosphere would be due to ions accelerated away because they got too close to the double layer. And the electrons would be drawn in against the electron temperature gradient. Sunspots in that case would be leaks of high temperature electrons, like in the Birkeland experiments, and the leak of the high temperature electrons would maintain the overall neutrality of the plasmoid. The energy would come from the energy contained in the plasmoid, which is slowly leaking out, by interaction with its environment, which is similar to what we see in ball lightning behavior. And the CFDL would accelerate the solar wind away from the Sun just like the CCDL in the anode Sun model. But the plasmoid CFDL model avoids the problem of the electrons not behaving further out and it also avoids the need for a balancing proton inflow into an anode Sun. That solves a couple of problems.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7915.html

[JeffreyW]

In a star formed as a plasmoid, it will inevitably contain high-temperature electrons similar to the tokamak devices, and so we should expect to see a CFDL form around it to separate the two plasma states[?]. So I'd like to suggest that there may be a plasmoid in the center of the Sun and a CFDL around it. Ionization would then occur in the interaction region with the surrounding plasma. The tufting in the photosphere would be due to ions accelerated away because they got too close to the double layer. And the electrons would be drawn in against the electron temperature gradient. Sunspots in that case would be leaks of high temperature electrons, like in the Birkeland experiments, and the leak of the high temperature electrons would maintain the overall neutrality of the plasmoid. The energy would come from the energy contained in the plasmoid, which is slowly leaking out, by interaction with its environment, which is similar to what we see in ball lightning behavior. And the CFDL would accelerate the solar wind away from the Sun just like the CCDL in the anode Sun model. But the plasmoid CFDL model avoids the problem of the electrons not behaving further out and it also avoids the need for a balancing proton inflow into an anode Sun. That solves a couple of problems.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7915.html

A plasmoid is a pulsar. Here is where I'm going:

1. An event happens, very violent and bright. (this may be what supernovas are)

2. Two paths can then be taken

Path A. Birthed object remains hot and does not collect iron to stabilize it so it starts rotating really fast and shrinking becoming a pulsar (which is what I think plasmoids are). (Embryonic galaxy) (object will become a galaxy)

Path B. Birthed object remains hot but collects iron so it expands greatly to a blue giant star, and its rotation rate slows down. Once it reaches the max temperature and diameter it will then begin shrinking and cooling very, very slowly and differentiating itself as mass is lost and the elements combine into molecules. (object will become a planet)


So where I'm going is that the beginning looks the same, but they become different animals all together depending on how much iron is in the vicinity. Iron prevents further collapse. You know how organisms look similar as fetuses, but then they grow up and clearly there are huge differences between chickens and people.

[Electro]

1. An event happens, very violent and bright. (this may be what supernovas are)

I don't believe a supernova is a birthing event, not with such a violent and bright outcome. Perhaps they're the result of rare collisions (as supernovas are rare) between stars or between other objects (like planets, gas giants...).

[JeffreyW]

1. An event happens, very violent and bright. (this may be what supernovas are)

I don't believe a supernova is a birthing event, not with such a violent and bright outcome. Perhaps they're the result of rare collisions (as supernovas are rare) between stars or between other objects (like planets, gas giants...).

Well they are something strange. In SM they are not dying stars thats for sure, a star dies slowly over many hundreds of millions of years. Saying they just explode at the end of their lives is 20th century fusion/explosion/nuclear group think.

Do plants explode at the end of their lives? Do dogs and cats blow up? Do campfires just go BAM!! It doesn't make any sense at all to say stars explode when they die. Besides, a star uses up all its fuel and then explodes AFTER it has used up all its fuel? None of the exploding star myth was thought out. They didn't even name them appropriately. Nova literally means "new".

[Electro]

Well they are something strange. In SM they are not dying stars thats for sure, a star dies slowly over many hundreds of millions of years. Saying they just explode at the end of their lives is 20th century fusion/explosion/nuclear group think.

Do plants explode at the end of their lives? Do dogs and cats blow up? Do campfires just go BAM!! It doesn't make any sense at all to say stars explode when they die. Besides, a star uses up all its fuel and then explodes AFTER it has used up all its fuel? None of the exploding star myth was thought out. They didn't even name them appropriately. Nova literally means "new".

Amen to that!

[JeffreyW]

http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0221

new paper

The Purposes of the Standard Solar Model Versus the Purposes of Stellar Metamorphosis

it is pretty easy to understand.

[JeffreyW]

http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0155

new paper

Accreting bodies in outer space

It is explained that establishment astrophysical dogma has a gap in understanding concerning the sizes of accreting bodies. A simple correction is provided utilizing the general theory of stellar metamorphosis.

[Lloyd]

Jeffrey, I hope to get time to read your interesting new papers. I also invite you and others to my new thread on improving science and science discussion at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 41#p112941. I started a game there, called Doutery. Its purpose is to improve critical thinking and science discussion. I want to practice the game with other critical thinkers and improve the game enough to perhaps have an effect on improving science. The game will have to be FUN in order to succeed. To me it will probably be fun already, but for others it may need tinkering with to make it much better. So I hope you can take a little time to post there for a while, like for a few days or weeks, if you like. I submitted Big Bang as a theory for Doutery, but feel free to submit other theories, even including your own, if you like. We're not trying to disprove any theory, but only to find the best counter-evidence to theories. That should help improve critical thinking, which science greatly needs, I think.

[JeffreyW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ1SVP7pMqk

I know this will probably get posted onto the main thread of stellar metamorphosis, but I can't help but to try and show some people here that wouldn't otherwise go to the NIAMI portion of this forum. Fact is, it is just too important. Way, way too important to not share. All of the planets in the universe are just evolving stars. Stars and planets are not mutually exclusive. As they age, they cool shrink and solidify into rocky differentiated worlds.

Its funny. The light curve data for each individual star found here:

http://kepler.nasa.gov/science/about/ta ... ghtcurves/

Every single light curve signals a young hot planet, because that is what a star is. A hot, young planet.

So the Kepler scientists are looking for the older exoplanets, the young ones produce the light itself. I think there are about 24 million light curves they are looking at... that's 24 million hot young exoplanets right off the bat. Right in front of them. We're literally standing on one of the older stars in our galaxy. It is right beneath us.

[JeffreyW]

Jeffrey, I hope to get time to read your interesting new papers. I also invite you and others to my new thread on improving science and science discussion at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 41#p112941. I started a game there, called Doutery. Its purpose is to improve critical thinking and science discussion. I want to practice the game with other critical thinkers and improve the game enough to perhaps have an effect on improving science. The game will have to be FUN in order to succeed. To me it will probably be fun already, but for others it may need tinkering with to make it much better. So I hope you can take a little time to post there for a while, like for a few days or weeks, if you like. I submitted Big Bang as a theory for Doutery, but feel free to submit other theories, even including your own, if you like. We're not trying to disprove any theory, but only to find the best counter-evidence to theories. That should help improve critical thinking, which science greatly needs, I think.

I would participate but my mind is stretched to the max right now. Between classes in school, work and theory development (helping Baz at the moment) I'm stretched thin.

[Electro]

Hey Jeffrey!

Was just reading on the "metaphysical" supernovae. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblpUePWb_U

Can you spot what's wrong...?

Seems they got it all backwards (2 min 10 sec and on). According to them, supernovae provide all the elements from within stars needed to form planets and life. Why would stars need to explode instead of simply evolving according to GTSM???

[comingfrom]

Thanks for that, Electro.

Can you spot what's wrong...?

At 1:50, "it is the subsequent cooling of this material that causes the glow".

I think it is an established fact, that heat or energy has to be applied to make a gas, or dust, glow.
And cooling (or turning off the energy supply) stops the glowing.

At 2:10, "these explosions are (more or less) directly responsible for creating all the elements...heavier than iron...were forged in these violent explosions... "

Seems to be a pretty big assumption to me.
Even to himself, I think; that he had to include "more or less" in his statement
(just in case we don't know everything yet, about how all the elements formed).

The dust seems to have spread far and wide, considering their estimated time for the nova to have occurred,
to me.
(The nebula is 6 times the size of a full moon in the sky, and supposedly popped 5 to 10 thousand years ago.)
Just my intuitive feeling, I haven't done the math.

Finally, "the bright blue star", at 0:43 secs, looks yellow.

Mind you, the pictures and the facts about this nebula make this video a worthwhile watch.
But it might just be an interesting and ongoing electrical display, for all they really know.

I think we could be looking at currents running through and lighting up the existing medium.
There is no need to presume the nebula is the remnants of a star at all, imo.
Maybe it is a region of space where the charge and plasma densities cause the medium to reach glow mode in places.
(Which doesn't make it less interesting)

~Paul

[Electro]

I fully agree with you, Comingfrom.

[JeffreyW]

New video

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

Introducing the concept of stellar co-evolution. The objects all evolve together when they get into stable orbits.