The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

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

Locked
User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:26 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:The problem there is that we have plenty of pictures -- we just have no idea what we're looking at! :) Which are the birthing stars? Which are the dieing stars? Which are the dusty plasmas determined to stay that way? We have only a snapshot at one specific point in time, and we're trying to infer the nature of processes that probably take millions or billions of years to come full circle. Maybe we should be focusing on the novae, when a new star appears where there was nothing before. There aren't many of them that have been recorded since the advent of modern astronomy. Should we do case studies on those?
I have the idea of what we are looking at when it comes to dying stars. A dying star is a "planet". We can tell how long it has been around roughly by looking at it. The big bright ones are very young, the gaseous ones are middle aged and much less bright, the older ones are liquid and smaller than the really big diffuse gas and plasma ones, the ancient ones are old, solid balls similar to Earth, with left over liquid. The dead ones have no magnetic fields and are solid throughout.

The biggest problem with astronomy is their assumptions. They assume planets and stars are mutually exclusive, yet they are not. They are the exact same objects, only in different stages to their evolution. Will this be known by mainstream astronomers in my lifetime? Nope. It will probably take a full 150-200 years before they realize it.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:49 pm

JeffreyW wrote:M84 just looks like a big blob in visible light.Image

It is not a blob. It is ejecting matter in bi-polar configurations.
Image

It is a growing galaxy. The reason why we can't see the arms growing is because the material is traveling so fast away from the central object that it is literally redshifting all the way to the radio frequencies. Mr. Halton Arp was right. A quasar is ejected from its parent galaxy and becomes a galaxy itself, like an acorn falling from an oak tree and growing into a tree itself.
There is another EM explanation for the radio jets, which takes more of the data into account. We know that the rotation in an elliptical galaxy produces a magnetic field, by the dynamo effect. The field is toroidal, with its central axis parallel to the minor axis of the ellipsoid. This drawing shows the magnetic field produced by an elliptical galaxy:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... it_wbg.png

Relativistic ejecta from collisions in the AGN are charged particles moving in the presence of a magnetic field, and thus are deflected in the direction of the field. IOW, they're Birkeland currents, traveling parallel to the magnetic lines of force, which in the center of the galaxy point straight out along the minor axis of the ellipsoid. We also know that the charged particles in Birkeland currents spiral around the magnetic lines of force. This produces synchrotron radiation. If the particles are relativistic, this radiation gets up into the radio band. So this isn't redshifted stellar photons, with the appropriate emission/absorption bands characteristic of known elements. It's broad-band synchrotron radiation at arbitrary frequencies, centered on the average revolution rate of a charged particle moving at the speed, in a magnetic field of that density.

Then we can observe that the radio jets splay outward with distance from the AGN, eventually falling apart. This is the expected behavior of a Birkeland current following a magnetic field whose density diminishes with distance from the AGN, and whose lines of force splay outward in toroidal form.

But there isn't any reason to consider radio jets to be stellar nurseries, or baby galaxies. If they were, we'd see the stars so produced in the visible spectrum. Rather, the highly ionized plasma in the radio jets will be the last thing to form aggregates. And by the time substantial charge recombination has occurred -- after the bipolar jets have become completely disorganized -- the matter is too diffuse for star formation.

The exception is the quasars that we observe moving outward along the minor axis of elliptical galaxies. But I don't understand the conclusion that quasars are galactic seeds, just on the basis of what information is available.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Native
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Native » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:27 am

@CharlesChandler,
You wrote:
The problem that I have with z pinches forming stars is that z pinches operate selectively on charged particles, where the greater the charge, the greater the pinch. Also note that polarity matters. In a magnetic pinch, like charges are pushed together, while opposite charges are pushed apart (assuming they'll all traveling in the same direction). So a z pinch pushes like charges together. But like charges repel, and cannot be forced to condense into any sort of aggregate (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma), due to the electric force, which is much more powerful than gravity and the magnetic force put together.
AD: Maybe the Z-Pinch phenomenon should be interpreted more as a “magnetic sorting out mechanism" in the middle of a galaxy where gas and matter are funneled into the center via the 2 swirling “black holes” which squeezes the gases and particles more and more together in the funnels, thus heating it all up into larger molted spheres of gas (stars) and matter (planets)?

I can imagine this magnetic field mechanism in galaxies as a quadrupole magnet:
Quadrupole Magnet.jpg
Quadrupole Magnet.jpg (31.02 KiB) Viewed 9596 times
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

Native
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Native » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:54 am

JeffreyW,
You wrote:
I have the idea of what we are looking at when it comes to dying stars. A dying star is a "planet". We can tell how long it has been around roughly by looking at it. The big bright ones are very young, the gaseous ones are middle aged and much less bright, the older ones are liquid and smaller than the really big diffuse gas and plasma ones, the ancient ones are old, solid balls similar to Earth, with left over liquid. The dead ones have no magnetic fields and are solid throughout.
AD: In the most positive way, I find this very difficult to comprehend. Ages and compositions of stars and planets doesn´t in my opinion depend on the luminosity and how liquid they are.

If you agree on that mini-galaxies; stars; planets and their moons and everything else being formatted in the centers of galaxies, all these objects are formatted according to the actual inflow and composition of gas and matter in an actual galactic center. These compositions of course varies from one galaxy to another.

This process of course heats up and sorts out gas and matter in the galactic center and when the newborn objects leave the galactic center, they immediately begin to cool off, and in my opinion the objects don´t change very much out in the galactic arms afterwards.

Specific stars and planets are formatted from the gas and matter at hand, and they keep this formation – but if we agree that the formation in galaxies goes in circuits, all objects will sooner or later once again be re-formatted in the same process that created these. This is in my opinion the genuine stellar- and planetary metamorphosis.
Last edited by Native on Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:05 am

CharlesChandler wrote: But I don't understand the conclusion that quasars are galactic seeds, just on the basis of what information is available.
This is Halton Arp's discovery, first theorized by Armbartsumian. A quasar is like an acorn that falls off an oak tree. It becomes a tree itself.

In Arp's own words:

"Synchrotron emission coming from a filament that you would expect to find, maybe scattering polarization, that’s what I expected. But in any case I later came to the conclusion that magnetic fields are not so important and began to gradually realize the importance of explosive and ejecta, ejection phenomena in the galaxies and gradually led into the present, my consuming interest. Which is what goes on in the nuclei of the galaxies and the ideas that I had about galaxies, being ejected, protogalaxies, quasars being ejected to form galaxies and whole deep developmental, the cosmogony of where galaxies come from. And just at about that time I got the scent of the suspicion that the orthodox, conventional viewpoint of the galaxy formation was not correct. That seemed so big and so interesting that I followed it ever since. I started studying these peculiar interacting galaxies. I came independently to the conclusion that Ambartsumian came to in 1957, I came to, I don’t know, 1965 somewhere in there, 1964-1965, just by studying the galaxies the photography Ambartsumian had done, beginning to get into the classification of looking up and trying to figure out. I came to the conclusion in fact that we were erupting and throwing out material and stuff like that. And then when I read the Solvay Conference in 1957 in which Ambartsumian spoke, then it was just an enormous revelation that Ambartsumian had seen the same thing prior, independently. Do you know the story of the Solvay Conference?"


"Yeah, I was just in Jodrell Bank giving a talk there and Sir Bernard Lovell was there. He was at that Solvay Conference 1957, he reminded me of that situation which I already knew. The situation again, the Solvay Conference is a very top level conference, where in the past they have had Einstein, Planck, Bohr and all these people down through the years. So they’d run it in astronomy down through the years also. They’d invited the top people at the Solvay Conference, also there were Oort, and Lovell and Hoyle, all the top astronomers. And they decided for some reason that they had to get a representative from the Soviet Union and they figured well, they heard about this Ambartsumian. They invited him from the Soviet Union and he came, nobody knew him. He came and gave this paper which nobody understood. What they thought was complete trash and they thought it was so crazy. Bernard Lovell was telling me that they were embarrassed because it was so bad. They didn’t want to be rude to this representative of the Soviet Union, so they didn’t say much but they were really embarrassed by the paper."

"But then they went on about the important business and this paper was published in the proceedings. That was in 1957. Well, about eight, nine, ten years later it began to appear that the things Ambartsumian had said in his paper, that far from being crazy, were, in fact, quite true and as time goes on his paper got more and more prophetic, more and more far reaching and insightful. When I was with him at the Brighton IAU, the IAU before Australia, six years ago, and I was sitting next to Oort, and Oort said to me, “it turned out that Ambartsumian was right.” And so it was generally concluded, I still don’t think they realized how right he was. I mean, I still, I’m sure, my opinion, contemporary astronomers really have not grasped the extent to which he is right. "


"Well, he just looked at galaxies on the Palomar Sky Survey. He said, well, galaxies eject other galaxies, free galactic material and they form other galaxies. And you see that the implication of that was to rock the whole foundation of our ideas of where galaxies come from. The whole idea is just the Big Bang, diffuse medium, galaxies condensed, clouds form, that’s how galaxies are formed. Ambartsumian was saying something completely different. He was saying that the material comes from inside of galaxies, goes out and forms other galaxies. And if you carry forward the implications, if you believe that, then you begin asking yourself questions like, was the Big Bang really like this generally assumed or maybe started out with one body which had successive fragmentation, or maybe the universe is turning itself inside out from inside. You see this way raises really unsettling questions which contemporary astronomers are not prepared or willing to face at all, despite what I think is the beginning of an enormous amount of evidence piling up in this direction. That’s where it is nowadays. "
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:18 am

Native wrote:JeffreyW,
You wrote:
I have the idea of what we are looking at when it comes to dying stars. A dying star is a "planet". We can tell how long it has been around roughly by looking at it. The big bright ones are very young, the gaseous ones are middle aged and much less bright, the older ones are liquid and smaller than the really big diffuse gas and plasma ones, the ancient ones are old, solid balls similar to Earth, with left over liquid. The dead ones have no magnetic fields and are solid throughout.
AD: In the most positive way, I find this very difficult to comprehend. Ages and compositions of stars and planets doesn´t in my opinion depend on the luminosity and how liquid they are.
This is the theory itself. Matter undergoes phase transitions, thus plasma will not always remain plasma, it will undergo recombination and become gas. The gas will undergo another well known phase transition, this is called deposition, in which voluminous gaseous matter becomes solid matter.

Gaseous stars will shrink and solidify to become rocky (very, very time consuming process) stars. The left over liquid material that did not freeze will remain on the surface depending on its thermal coefficient of expansion. (how voluminous it gets when heated).

Jupiter will solidify into a rocky star about the size of Earth.

Image

This is blasphemy to astrophysics, because to them thermodynamics doesn't exist in outer space. All stars are the same size forever to them, in a universe that came out of nothing. They don't realize that stars age and their compositions change.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Native
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Native » Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:38 am

This is the theory itself. Matter undergoes phase transitions, thus plasma will not always remain plasma, it will undergo recombination and become gas. The gas will undergo another well known phase transition, this is called deposition, in which voluminous gaseous matter becomes solid matter.

Gaseous stars will shrink and solidify to become rocky (very, very time consuming process) stars. The left over liquid material that did not freeze will remain on the surface depending on its thermal coefficient of expansion. (how voluminous it gets when heated).
Jupiter will solidify into a rocky star about the size of Earth.
(Image)
This is blasphemy to astrophysics, because to them thermodynamics doesn't exist in outer space. All stars are the same size forever to them, in a universe that came out of nothing. They don't realize that stars age and their compositions change.
AD: I agree on thermodynamics everywhere, also in outer space, but I don´t understand how a gaseous star/planet can solidify into heavier elements.
When scientists call Jupiter a gas giant, they aren't exaggerating. If you parachuted into Jupiter in hopes of hitting the ground, you would never find firm landing. The atmosphere of Jupiter is 90 percent hydrogen. The remaining 10 percent is almost completely made up of helium, though there are small traces of other gases inside. From http://www.space.com/18388-what-is-jupiter-made-of.html
In my opinion, nuclear/atomic thermodynamics deals only with expansion and contraction of the actual matter at hand in a star or planet and these can only change between being fluent or solid according to the actual temperature and actual composition and not via some kind of fusion from, let´s say, hydrogen/helium into other heavier elements. (Isn´t this just like the (reversed) Standard Model explanation?)

- But maybe I misunderstand your metamorphosis theory?
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:57 am

JeffreyW wrote:A quasar is like an acorn that falls off an oak tree. It becomes a tree itself.
I agree that quasars are excellent scavengers, and that once organized, they're going to goggle up everything in their paths. I further contend that the energy that they gain in this process gives them the ability to eject themselves from their parent galaxies.

But I don't see the utility of the "galactic seed" concept. What observations are you (and previously Arp and Ambartsumian) trying to explain? I remember seeing an image of a smaller galaxy with some quasars in it, near a larger galaxy, and Arp said that the small one was the child of the big one. But the same image could also be explained as the larger pre-existing galaxy gobbling up the smaller pre-existing galaxy. (If you see a picture of a big fish with a little fish in its mouth, it might be the birth, or the death, of the little fish, if you know nothing else of fish.) Somewhat more tellingly, if you're talking about a general principle, there needs to be more than one example -- a general rule of galaxy propagation would have many or most galaxies lying near other, larger galaxies, and along the axes of rotation. Otherwise, you have one example, with a general rule based on it, but the general support lacking, which is tantamount to disproof of the general rule.

My opinion of this aspect of Arp's work is that he was just accessorizing his work on redshift re-interpretation. His work brought him into conflict with Big Bang cosmologists. So he broadened the attack. That doesn't make him right. ;) I agree that redshifts are not reliable indicators of distance, and thus age, and that the "Hubble Constant" is a vast oversimplification. Arp's work was brilliant and brave in that respect. On the basis of this, I'm not convinced that the Universe is expanding, and therefore I see no more than a little bit of sloppy data and a lot of creationism in support of Big Bang cosmology. But galactic evolution, the way the mainstream has it, isn't directly tied to the Big Bang, and just removing the Big Bang doesn't lend any support to the galactic seed idea. Even in a steady-state Universe, galactic acorns are just an unsupported epiphany. They don't explain how the first galaxy got started (i.e., the "chicken & the egg" problem); they don't explain galactic forms (i.e., peculiar, elliptical, lenticular, & spiral); more specifically, they don't provide a force that induces angular momentum in galaxies; and they don't identify the physics by which a parent manufactures and ejects the child. So it's just an idea, with all of the tough work still ahead of it.

But before tackling all of those problems, I'd suggest questioning the implications of success in the endeavor. If you could provide great answers to those questions, then you'd have to explain why there is so little evidence of galactic families -- most of them are separated by vast distances, and moving slowly away from each other (if you believe in Big Bang cosmology) or not at all (if you go with steady-state cosmology). Galactic parent/child relationships prescribe direct relationships between the ages of related galaxies, the distances between them, and the relative velocities between them.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:33 am

Native wrote: AD: I agree on thermodynamics everywhere, also in outer space, but I don´t understand how a gaseous star/planet can solidify into heavier elements.
Well, we must look at the basics first. The composition of rocks such as feldspar is one part potassium, two or three parts aluminum/silicon, and eight parts oxygen. This is just feldspar! The most abundant mineral in the crust of the Earth.

Now think, what if all that oxygen was trapped inside of the feldspar was expanded to its gaseous state? Would not a rock of volume 1 cubic meter become much more voluminous if you were to separate their constitutients into their gaseous phase, or even more so completely ionize them? A 1 cubic meter chuck of feldspar in its fully ionized state would probably be at least 1000 cubic meters of plasma. The Earth could easily dwarf the Sun in size if all the rocks on the Earth were a complete plasma! The Earth was probably bigger and hotter than the Sun at one point! It was a giant blue star!

It is very surprising to me how astro people completely ignore rocks! Beryl has even more oxygen! You know, emerald, aquamarine, heliodor? Its chemical formula is Be3Al2(SiO3)6. That is a whole bunch of oxygen!



How did all that oxygen combine and become crystalline structure to begin with? How did rocks form? There is no answer in all of the internet. No geology book on the Earth can explain to you why/how rocks form. They say, "plates" squished together making lots of heat and pressure... well, how did the rocks form to get crushed together in the first place? Its circular reasoning, the same circular reasoning that has them creating entire Earth sized objects absent a gravitational field! This problem is emphasized via Mr. Stephen Crothers in his disprove of general relativity as a theory for gravitation.

Rocks are the end result of a star's evolution, this is what stellar metamorphosis covers. Its actually quite a boring theory once you understand it. All the gas in a star will eventually become crystalline matter, that is after of course the plasma recombines into gas. So basically we are looking at step one:

1. Interstellar gas created via superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanism is ejected creating vast clouds of material. This is the birth of a galaxy.

2. This material is so expansive that it will start arranging itself based on how the material is charged and where, in places it will magnetically pinch forming a "star". The current is so great, and the pinch so strong that it will completely ionize the gas.

3. The superhot star (already has ALL the elements natually occurring) will begin cooling from plasma to gas.

4. The gas starts crystallizing.

5. They settle out on the interior of the star creating a core. (of course the iron/nickel sorted out first because it is highly magnetic in the presence of an electrical field).

6. This core grows like the particle in a pearl. The star builds material on the inside of the star creating the "planet".

7. Over time all the material is completely solidified, leaving a brand new Earth, still hot in its interior.

8. The majority of the left over material with higher ionization potentials (helium/hydrogen) will have exited the star and occupy interstellar medium, like water squeezed out of sponge.


The establishment has Jupiter as "small traces of other elements" because they are ignorant. They do not want to use their brains. Tell me, how many colors do you see here? You mean to tell me this is all "hydrogen/helium"?

Image

It's clear as day that the giant red spot is iron oxide. The blue areas are large amounts of oxygen... I could continue. Jupiter is a gas giant yes, but to say its mostly helium/hydrogen is ignoring common sense.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:41 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:A quasar is like an acorn that falls off an oak tree. It becomes a tree itself.

But I don't see the utility of the "galactic seed" concept. What observations are you (and previously Arp and Ambartsumian) trying to explain?
Well the way I see it, a tree doesn't just pop into existence in the forest. It had to at one point be a tiny little thing. Look at a giant sequoia tree seed:

Image

Tiny right? What ever a galaxy WAS, it was very very tiny, and strange looking. The seed looks nothing like the tree does it? The only tiny strange objects I can think of are pulsars. Thus the line of reasoning I am using (absent both Arp and Armbartsumian) is that a "pulsar" is the galactic "seed". We must research them some more. I think they are superconducting. I think they store incredibly vast amounts of energy in the form of magnetic fields. The energy is so great it's like nature is stuffing 1,000,000 tons of donkey shit into a 1 lb bag.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:38 am

JeffreyW wrote:The establishment has Jupiter as "small traces of other elements" because they are ignorant. They do not want to use their brains. Tell me, how many colors do you see here? You mean to tell me this is all "hydrogen/helium"? [...] It's clear as day that the giant red spot is iron oxide. The blue areas are large amounts of oxygen... I could continue. Jupiter is a gas giant yes, but to say its mostly helium/hydrogen is ignoring common sense.
Bravo!!! The mainstream is fond of hydrogen/helium, because this is necessary in the fusion furnace model. The Sun does have the pressure to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core, but it doesn't have the pressure to fuse heavier elements, because the Coulomb barrier goes up exponentially with atomic number, and the Sun just isn't big enough for heavy element fusion. But having locked down on this model in the 1920s, astronomers no longer care what else about astronomy they have to bastardize, to protect the fusion furnace model. There are many, many proofs that there are much heavier elements in the Sun, and in the gas giants, and that the fusion furnace model is simply untenable. But to acknowledge any of that, astronomers would have to toss 100 years' worth of work, which they're not willing to do. So show them a true-color image of Jupiter, and they'll say, "Yep -- that's all just hydrogen and helium." :D
JeffreyW wrote:...a tree doesn't just pop into existence in the forest. It had to at one point be a tiny little thing.
I agree. But I have a simpler way of a star growing from a "seed".

The smallest dust grain that can support a Debye sheath has roughly 1 million atoms. At that point, it will be visible only under an electron microscope. So that's the seed.

How did that dust grain form? Simply by condensation (i.e., polymerization, riming, or whatever). Once a dust grain gets big enough that it can host a sustained net negative charge (> 1 million atoms), the condensation accelerates, because free electrons in the surrounding plasma get lost in the electron cloud of the dust grain, and +ions are then attracted to the dust grain by the electric force. When the individual +ions impact the dust grain, instead of just picking up their lost electrons and bouncing off, they might get captured by covalent bonding, and thus the dust grain has just gained another atom. And the larger the dust grain, the more net charge it can support, so the Debye sheath gets stronger. So the process accelerates. (This is how snowflakes can form from supercooled water vapor in less than 1 hour inside a thunderstorm.)

Multiple Debye cells also generate a body force between them, due to the "like-likes-like" principle. Now the dusty plasma is bound to collapse into a star sooner or later.

So there's a step-by-step process that explains stellar formation, starting just with individual atoms, and invoking forces that have all been proven in the laboratory. It explains solitary stars, "beads on a string" stellar nurseries (due to the enhanced body force in a linear configuration), and the collapse of random assortments of stellar systems, as peculiar galaxies, which will produce an elliptical galaxy, and ultimately, a spiral. If there's an "i" that I haven't dotted, or a "t" that I haven't crossed, I can't find it. So I think that this is "it". ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:15 am

The establishment has Jupiter as "small traces of other elements" because they are ignorant. They do not want to use their brains. Tell me, how many colors do you see here? You mean to tell me this is all "hydrogen/helium"? [...] It's clear as day that the giant red spot is iron oxide. The blue areas are large amounts of oxygen... I could continue. Jupiter is a gas giant yes, but to say its mostly helium/hydrogen is ignoring common sense.
These people are not "ignorant!" They may chose to follow what they were taught, but they have observed and measured many more things than you have, jeffrey.
And if ignorance were to be applied to errors in conclusions, then your extreme errors in cognition, and their conclusions need to be considered.

More nonsense! :roll: ..For those who would use science, wikipedia, with all of it's faults, still has more reliable information than jeffrey will ever have if he continues on this line of illogical nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter
he atmosphere contains trace amounts of methane, water vapor, ammonia, and silicon-based compounds. There are also traces of carbon, ethane, hydrogen sulfide, neon, oxygen, phosphine, and sulfur. --------trace amounts of benzene and other hydrocarbons have also been found
Notice that iron is not mentioned!! :roll:
The orange and brown coloration in the clouds of Jupiter are caused by upwelling compounds that change color when they are exposed to ultraviolet light from the Sun. The exact makeup remains uncertain, but the substances are believed to be phosphorus, sulfur or possibly hydrocarbons.[30][45] These colorful compounds, known as chromophores, mix with the warmer, lower deck of clouds. The zones are formed when rising convection cells form crystallizing ammonia that masks out these lower clouds from view
The different compounds may be collected and sorted by Marklund currents that are forming the "storms."
"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

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:20 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:The establishment has Jupiter as "small traces of other elements" because they are ignorant. They do not want to use their brains. Tell me, how many colors do you see here? You mean to tell me this is all "hydrogen/helium"? [...] It's clear as day that the giant red spot is iron oxide. The blue areas are large amounts of oxygen... I could continue. Jupiter is a gas giant yes, but to say its mostly helium/hydrogen is ignoring common sense.
Bravo!!! The mainstream is fond of hydrogen/helium, because this is necessary in the fusion furnace model. The Sun does have the pressure to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core, but it doesn't have the pressure to fuse heavier elements, because the Coulomb barrier goes up exponentially with atomic number, and the Sun just isn't big enough for heavy element fusion. But having locked down on this model in the 1920s, astronomers no longer care what else about astronomy they have to bastardize, to protect the fusion furnace model. There are many, many proofs that there are much heavier elements in the Sun, and in the gas giants, and that the fusion furnace model is simply untenable. But to acknowledge any of that, astronomers would have to toss 100 years' worth of work, which they're not willing to do. So show them a true-color image of Jupiter, and they'll say, "Yep -- that's all just hydrogen and helium." :D
JeffreyW wrote:...a tree doesn't just pop into existence in the forest. It had to at one point be a tiny little thing.
I agree. But I have a simpler way of a star growing from a "seed".

The smallest dust grain that can support a Debye sheath has roughly 1 million atoms. At that point, it will be visible only under an electron microscope. So that's the seed.

How did that dust grain form? Simply by condensation (i.e., polymerization, riming, or whatever). Once a dust grain gets big enough that it can host a sustained net negative charge (> 1 million atoms), the condensation accelerates, because free electrons in the surrounding plasma get lost in the electron cloud of the dust grain, and +ions are then attracted to the dust grain by the electric force. When the individual +ions impact the dust grain, instead of just picking up their lost electrons and bouncing off, they might get captured by covalent bonding, and thus the dust grain has just gained another atom. And the larger the dust grain, the more net charge it can support, so the Debye sheath gets stronger. So the process accelerates. (This is how snowflakes can form from supercooled water vapor in less than 1 hour inside a thunderstorm.)

Multiple Debye cells also generate a body force between them, due to the "like-likes-like" principle. Now the dusty plasma is bound to collapse into a star sooner or later.

So there's a step-by-step process that explains stellar formation, starting just with individual atoms, and invoking forces that have all been proven in the laboratory. It explains solitary stars, "beads on a string" stellar nurseries (due to the enhanced body force in a linear configuration), and the collapse of random assortments of stellar systems, as peculiar galaxies, which will produce an elliptical galaxy, and ultimately, a spiral. If there's an "i" that I haven't dotted, or a "t" that I haven't crossed, I can't find it. So I think that this is "it". ;)
Wait wait wait.

Two different things.

1. Stars (the by-product of galaxy formation), which cool and die to become what are called "planets/moons", and or smash against each other to make asteroids/meteorites/protoplanetary disks.

A. This firmly places stars outside the construct of "fusion".

2. Pulsars into galaxies. The pulsar being the galaxy seed. When the pulsar releases its energy it releases all matter. all elements, from hydrogen to uranium.

A. This firmly places pulsars inside the construct of "fusion".

Simply put, the establishment have been chasing a straw man. Fusion happens in embryonic galaxies (pulsars) not stars (the by product of galaxy formation/dissipative events).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by Sparky » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:33 am

1. Stars (the by-product of galaxy formation), which cool and die to become what are called "planets/moons", and or smash against each other to make asteroids/meteorites/protoplanetary disks.

Regions can be star forming. Galaxies come from an abundance of stars. ;)

2. Pulsars into galaxies. The pulsar being the galaxy seed. When the pulsar releases its energy it releases all matter. all elements, from hydrogen to uranium.
Not enough is known about pulsars, but we know that your wild prononcements to be impossible or at least highly questionable. Any evidence to the contrary? :?
"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

User avatar
JeffreyW
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread post by JeffreyW » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:50 am

As well, the "elliptical galaxies" of establishment science are actually "quasars". Since establishment does not allow for quasars to be very close like they are in reality, they will assign "ellipticals" their incredibly vast structure. They are actually much, much smaller and closer young galaxies with high populations of new stars, and very few older stars like the Earth.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests