The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[viscount aero]

What if matter isn't necessarily created but compressed magnetically and recirculated?

That is beyond me then, definitely WAY beyond me. lol GTSM is just a theory of Earth/planet formation, when it comes to matter creation and/or explaining what it really is... I have no idea at all. Zero.

The best thing I'm allowed to do is point you in the right direction: Pulsars. I think these are the places matter is synthesized regardless if its created or "compressed and recirculated". They are the beating hearts of baby galaxies. Not the "black holes" nonsense of establishment. Those are just plain ridiculous. A point having extension? They ignore basic high school geometry! lol

Yes I'm not a black holer. I think those are highly specious things.

[JeffreyW]

Black holes have no place in stellar metamorphosis.

1. A star is physical matter that has extension.

2. A black hole by definition is a singularity without extension.

3. Thus black holes do not fit anywhere in stellar metamorphosis, because all objects in stellar metamorphosis have extension (are 3 dimensional, not 1 dimensional like black holes)

4. Since they do not fit anywhere in stellar metamorphosis, I can disregard them and the people that believe in them without any damage. In other words, I don't need them to explain anything.

5. Since stellar metamorphosis can completely disregard them, it actually doesn't matter if they exist or not. They are moot.

[viscount aero]

I understand.

[JeffreyW]

Just so we can keep consistency, stellar metamorphosis requires plasma to undergo recombination.

People in EU need to become familiar with this process or else their theories risk being obsolete. So to continue,

1. Plasma recombination is the process in which free ions of an element capture free energetic electrons to form neutral atoms.

Just so we are familiar with this, it means that a plasma can and does neutralize, in large or small quantities. Thus:

2a. Plasma in large quantities will take a considerable amount of time to neutralize.
2b. Plasma in small quantities will take a very short amount of time to neutralize.

Thus we are lead to the conclusion:

3a. Areas where there are considerable amounts of plasma will take a considerable amount of time to neutralize
3a1. Examples include all young stars, and areas where there is a dense concentration of plasma such as
3a2. Quasars, which have not had enough time to form stars and more than likely inside of
3a3. Pulsars, which are the "beating hearts" of quasars.

3b. Any laboratory based experiment (plasma in small quantities) with plasma will have to take in effect the size differences between young stars such as the Sun, and even the largest Earth based experiment. Any lab based experiment will take considerably less time for the plasma to neutralize, because of the sheer size differences. The Sun is 109 times the diameter of the Earth. Thus saying a Earth based experiment takes the same amount of time for plasma recombination to occur as the Sun is incredibly myopic. Filling your glass up with water in the faucet is not the same as filling up the grand canyon with your faucet.

4. Conclusion: Laboratory experiments can mimic the effects of plasma on large scales, but in no way should be attributed to being exactly the same. Matter interacts different on larger scales in both size and time, but can be scaled up, I.E. Alfven's scalable plasma cosmology is workable, but the time scales are currently very, very difficult to imagine. Just writing a number 4,500,000,000 is not comprehension in human time scales and experience, but it is comprehensible if we are to measure the stars against themselves. Thus the Sun could be 65,000,000 years old, and Earth 4,500,000,000 years old would be simply Earth is 4,500 and the Sun is 65.

These are just some ideas so that I can start creating new papers. If anybody would like to make additions or provide links to show these ideas please feel free. I know there is a lot of work to do, thus I can not do this on my own, it's a huge task.

[viscount aero]

^^^ that all generally sounds consistent with what I believe

[nick c]

JeffreyW,
Stars have been observed to change their positions on the H-R diagram.
Scott gives several examples here:
http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

Virginia Trimble, professor of physics at the University of California, Irvine, and visiting professor of astronomy at the University of Maryland, has said recently:
"We don't often see stars change their spectral types in a human lifetime. Thus, FG Sagittae, which brightened, cooled from about BO to K, and added lines of carbon, barium, and other elements to its spectrum in the century after 1890 was long seemingly unique. The standard interpretation has been that it experienced its very last flash of helium shell burning (the products are carbon and oxygen) and was about to become an R Coronea Borealis variable. These are carbon-rich stars that fade suddenly and unpredictably (which FG Sge started doing a couple of years ago) and that have hydrogen-depleted atmospheres (which FG Sge has just developed). In addition, the "galloping giant" is no longer alone. Examination of old images and spectrograms reveal that V 605 Aquilae, studied by Knut Lundmark in the 1920's was a similar sort of beast, though it is now very faint And the latest recruit is V 4334 Sagittarii, better known as Sakurai's object, for its 1994 discoverer. It, too, changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly, and is now hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich, and well on its way to becoming the century's third new R CrB star."

FG Sagittae has been observed to change spectral type several times in the 20th C.

[viscount aero]

^^^ exactly.

I was alluding to that initially.

I don't see a provision in Jeffrey's developing theory to account for such abrupt spectral class changes.

[JeffreyW]

JeffreyW,
Stars have been observed to change their positions on the H-R diagram.
Scott gives several examples here:
http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

Virginia Trimble, professor of physics at the University of California, Irvine, and visiting professor of astronomy at the University of Maryland, has said recently:
"We don't often see stars change their spectral types in a human lifetime. Thus, FG Sagittae, which brightened, cooled from about BO to K, and added lines of carbon, barium, and other elements to its spectrum in the century after 1890 was long seemingly unique. The standard interpretation has been that it experienced its very last flash of helium shell burning (the products are carbon and oxygen) and was about to become an R Coronea Borealis variable. These are carbon-rich stars that fade suddenly and unpredictably (which FG Sge started doing a couple of years ago) and that have hydrogen-depleted atmospheres (which FG Sge has just developed). In addition, the "galloping giant" is no longer alone. Examination of old images and spectrograms reveal that V 605 Aquilae, studied by Knut Lundmark in the 1920's was a similar sort of beast, though it is now very faint And the latest recruit is V 4334 Sagittarii, better known as Sakurai's object, for its 1994 discoverer. It, too, changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly, and is now hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich, and well on its way to becoming the century's third new R CrB star."

FG Sagittae has been observed to change spectral type several times in the 20th C.

I see. Thank you for sharing this. Though I must state again quite clearly so that no confusion is had:

1. Donald Scott's top HR diagram stops at magnitude 18, red and brown dwarfs...

2. Donald Scott's bottom HR diagram stops at T dwarf brown stars.

3. This theory (stellar metamorphosis) states that the star continues on in its evolution, it doesn't just stop. A star continues cooling, shrinking, solidifying and all it's elements form molecules. Human scientists call them "planets/exo-planets". You are walking on one. Earth still has an active photosphere (albeit much less active than younger stars), it's called lightning.

4. As to saying this phenomenon does not exist, a star transitioning from BO type to red, I am not opposed. What I am opposed is to having only one explanation for the change in spectra:

4a. What if it's moving through a cloud of material? Can you look at the sun when it's behind a cloud? What does the sun's color look like during a sunset? Does it not turn red and then go back to being brilliant again the next morning on the opposite coast? Are the refractive properties of trillions of tons of material in outer space accounted for in the space between?

4b. What if it collided with another star? This would make it change color don't you think? Or are young stars running into each other impossible?

Again, thank you for your insight.

[viscount aero]

Those are great points. Are you, then, opposed to a star changing spectral class due to electrical/charge density fluctuations? What about pulsars whose repetitive bursts of energy are probably electrical emissions as the body sheds charge/shorts out? Your theory is very accommodating to quite a lot of electrical phenomena. Do you consider spectral class changes a hybrid theory of electrical/current density states as well as a mechanical evolutionary process that happens anyway? I like the idea of the earth's "photosphere" being its ionosphere and terrestrial/atmospheric lightning.

[JeffreyW]

Are you, then, opposed to a star changing spectral class due to electrical/charge density fluctuations?

Please clarify this. What exactly do you mean in simple terms?

What about pulsars whose repetitive bursts of energy are probably electrical emissions as the body sheds charge/shorts out?

I think pulsars are the hearts of baby (quasars), middle aged and old galaxies, thus they are the objects that "create" matter. How they do this I have no idea. I think it has something to do with being the area where the initial charge separation occurs. Thus stars being the objects that combine the charge (sort it out into cohesive balls called "planets" as they die and neutralize). Just to re-emphasize: I think pulsars hold the key to "matter" creation, not stars. Stars are dissipative events that sort the charge and eventually neutralize into little "rocks" called "planets".

Your theory is very accommodating to quite a lot of electrical phenomena. Do you consider spectral class changes a hybrid theory of electrical/current density states as well as a mechanical evolutionary process that happens anyway?

I see what you are saying. The electrical/current density states are EU's territory. I really have no idea about that unless clarified. I am attacking this theory from the point of mechanical evolution because metaphysics confuses the hell out of me. I understand pneumatics/hydraulics, chemical reactions, etc. Those are very well put together already, but are highly ignored by the establishment in regards to star evolution. So for instance the establishment for our sake is ignoring both the electrical properties of stars, which is the EU's argument, AND the mechanical/observational properties of stars from stellar metamorphosis. So essentially, yes, there must be some sort of hybrid required. Like a vampire werewolf, or a Liger. LOL

I like the idea of the earth's "photosphere" being its ionosphere and terrestrial/atmospheric lightning.

Yes. The Earth is an ancient star at the end stages of its evolution. It is many billions of years old and has passed though all stages of metamorphosis from O blue star, Sun like star, red dwarf, brown dwarf, grey dwarf, blue dwarf, and now here we are.

[viscount aero]

Are you, then, opposed to a star changing spectral class due to electrical/charge density fluctuations?

Please clarify this. What exactly do you mean in simple terms?

The theory is that when a star changes spectral class it has changed its state. Its prior state changes to another one due to its overall current density changing. A star can go from being hot to cooler, or vice versa, depending on the specific conditions within its environment (which to EU would be the star's conditions within its local filament structure). As a star is powered from "without", its connection to its outer web of filaments is akin to a string of Christmas lights on a wire. If there is a short or surge in the wire then all the lights flicker, dim, or spike in their luminosities. Stars are like that.

[JeffreyW]

The theory is that when a star changes spectral class it has changed its state. Its prior state changes to another one due to its overall current density changing. A star can go from being hot to cooler, or vice versa, depending on the specific conditions within its environment (which to EU would be the star's conditions within its local filament structure). As a star is powered from "without", its connection to its outer web of filaments is akin to a string of Christmas lights on a wire. If there is a short or surge in the wire then all the lights flicker, dim, or spike in their luminosities. Stars are like that.

I see. That is easy to understand, but in stellar metamorphosis stars shine because the plasma is undergoing recombination, becoming gas. In stelmeta the Sun will shrink and become a "red dwarf" as most of the plasma is recombined into gas, and then eventually a brown dwarf star (mostly gas). Recombination is incredibly exo-thermic, meaning as the plasma becomes gas it releases heat, light, electric current. In stelmeta the electric current is going away from the star in all directions, not towards it. There is nothing "powering" a fully formed star. It is a dissipative event in stelmeta.

[JeffreyW]

When I mean dissipative event, I mean large scale non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The establishment believes that stars are in thermodynamic equilibrium. Which makes sense if you are to do math equations, but is atrocious for reality based physics. All their "models" for stars are completely ad hoc and rely solely on gravitation! Bah!

Not only do they ignore electricity, they ignore thermodynamics!!!!

[viscount aero]

The theory is that when a star changes spectral class it has changed its state. Its prior state changes to another one due to its overall current density changing. A star can go from being hot to cooler, or vice versa, depending on the specific conditions within its environment (which to EU would be the star's conditions within its local filament structure). As a star is powered from "without", its connection to its outer web of filaments is akin to a string of Christmas lights on a wire. If there is a short or surge in the wire then all the lights flicker, dim, or spike in their luminosities. Stars are like that.

I see. That is easy to understand, but in stellar metamorphosis stars shine because the plasma is undergoing recombination, becoming gas. In stelmeta the Sun will shrink and become a "red dwarf" as most of the plasma is recombined into gas, and then eventually a brown dwarf star (mostly gas). Recombination is incredibly exo-thermic, meaning as the plasma becomes gas it releases heat, light, electric current. In stelmeta the electric current is going away from the star in all directions, not towards it. There is nothing "powering" a fully formed star. It is a dissipative event in stelmeta.

From my understanding of electricity (which is very rudimentary) the idea is that of a circuit. A circuit, to my knowledge, requires a flow and balance of charge to have the circuit remain in equilibrium.

The notion that stars are powered from without is, to me, somewhat of a misnomer when considering that the electrical nature of things requires a mutuality. Electrons are either shed or gained. There is anode and a cathode. There is a "two to tango" principle in electricity. So the question really is: what is powering what? I think the nature of the circuit leaves no answer as it is a mutuality.

What is construed to be entirely an "external power source" for the star in EU theory ought to be clarified to include what I have stated above. Otherwise EU is at fault for an extreme and one-sided reasoning that is seen in mainstream stellar theory that postulates that the star is entirely fueled from within itself.

A circuit is not a unilateral thing. It is a mutuality. A star, if on a circuit, is both fed from outside and then feeding back (from within itself) to the remote filament to which it is part of.

This is why a star can change its state as it is a "node" of intense plasma density that is strung onto a filamentary "wire," like ropelights or Christmas lights along the roof of a house. Although you have to plug the string of lights into the house, unless the nodes are "alive" then they will not glow. The star must be alive and feeding back. This is the same as lightning that strikes the ground: There is the "outer" bolt that comes from the sky and then there is the ground-based "leader" that reaches up from the ground to find the lightning bolt. And then once they find each other they meet and the lightning strikes. It is a circuit, not a one-way affair.

Your theory seems to imply a one-way affair of the plasma being ONLY a self-contained "core" structure that eventually cools down to a solid state. EU isn't quite like that. Indeed, plasma eventually changes state into a solid but its path to this end isn't linear as you suggest it to be. EU doesn't quite abide by an absolute state of entropy. To my knowledge, EU violates one of the laws of Thermodynamics in that regard.

[viscount aero]

When I mean dissipative event, I mean large scale non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The establishment believes that stars are in thermodynamic equilibrium. Which makes sense if you are to do math equations, but is atrocious for reality based physics. All their "models" for stars are completely ad hoc and rely solely on gravitation! Bah!

Not only do they ignore electricity, they ignore thermodynamics!!!!

RIght. The mainstream stellar model assumes that a star is ABSOLUTELY powered from within itself and under a balance between this "outwardly directed pressure" from within and its mass that threatens at any moment to "collapse" the spherical structure. The "dead star" then "collapses" as it can no longer exert the outward force necessary to keep the star in balance. The matter then falls into the star and "bounces off the core" thus "exploding" the star in a supernova. In my opinion, that is a fantasy unicorn.