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

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:43 pm

You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star!
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 postby viscount aero » Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:48 pm

JeffreyW wrote:You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star!


Ok then you are more like Velikovsky than you lead on to be. Worlds must be constantly in collision else solar systems would not arise.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:36 am

viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star!


Ok then you are more like Velikovsky than you lead on to be. Worlds must be constantly in collision else solar systems would not arise.


I must be incredibly clear with this so that no confusion is had. The two problems I really have with V-man is his claiming that stars eject other stars, and these orbit changes happening within human history. Venus coming out of Jupiter fully formed and differentiated rock does not make any sense at all. And orbit changes within at time period as short as 100,000 years is impossible. It takes many millions of years for orbit changes.

So in short I disagree with V-man on two grounds:

1. Stars creating other stars. In GTSM a star IS a star, it does not create a different one. Electrical fissioning is ad hoc and unnecessary.

2. Orbit changes DO happen, but NOT within human history. Besides, attributing myth to explain orbit changes is unfalsifiable. How are we to falsify such hypothesis?
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 postby viscount aero » Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:29 am

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star!


Ok then you are more like Velikovsky than you lead on to be. Worlds must be constantly in collision else solar systems would not arise.


I must be incredibly clear with this so that no confusion is had. The two problems I really have with V-man is his claiming that stars eject other stars, and these orbit changes happening within human history. Venus coming out of Jupiter fully formed and differentiated rock does not make any sense at all. And orbit changes within at time period as short as 100,000 years is impossible. It takes many millions of years for orbit changes.

So in short I disagree with V-man on two grounds:

1. Stars creating other stars. In GTSM a star IS a star, it does not create a different one. Electrical fissioning is ad hoc and unnecessary.

2. Orbit changes DO happen, but NOT within human history. Besides, attributing myth to explain orbit changes is unfalsifiable. How are we to falsify such hypothesis?


Ok good. Now how are stars formed? What is your chicken and egg idea in that direction?

Orbit changes per GTSM must occur due to collisions. How are these occurring? What makes a body go rogue and collide? What is the impetus for these orbital changes? Who is doing it?

I agree that V-man's claim of virtual overnight orbital changes is extremely hard to accept. So is the Venusian birth scenario. I looked more into that last night, too. The V-man's idea behind Venus' alleged birth is that a large body 3 or 4x the size of Earth, unknown, slammed into Jupiter and then did 2 things: 1. It "vaporized" Jupiter's core, making the new/modern core smaller and hotter. 2. dislodged molten ejecta from this core (which is of heavy elements such as iron and nickel and other elements including those in the Jovian atmosphere) and sent this mass reeling on an orbit into the inner solar system. This mass of material cooled as it went.

But there is more.

En route to its new parking space, Venus the young cometary/semi-molten mass, visited Mars and hit it, too! This is V-man's accounting for the Martian catastrophe that we see today, ie, the virtual lack of an atmosphere, lack of water, and the giant scarring on its surface (Vallis Marineris and a host of other things).

This all happened, too, during the Earth's "BC" period and became recorded in myriad cultural artworks, legends, and lore. That basically sums up in a bottle Velikovsky. He must have been a billiards player or admired them. Now the thing is, a few things that V-man predicted came true which got the attention of Einstein (who was actually his colleague at Princeton for a time). Legend has it that Einstein's office was visited the day of or day after his death. On his desk was found V-man's book!

If you can believe all of that then V-man is your guy.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:11 pm

viscount aero wrote:Ok good. Now how are stars formed? What is your chicken and egg idea in that direction?


A star is born from an electrical z-pinch in which interstellar gases become ionized. We can see pictures of the process of star birth in the book. Here is a list of baby stars, keep in mind to the establishment death cult they are dying stars. WRONG. They are birthing stars.

Cat's Eye nebula, hourglass nebula, ant nebula, etc. Here is a picture of a birthing star. This to the establishment is a dying star. Not so. The establishment is a bunch of blundering idiots. Don't listen to them, they are clueless.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/032/339 ... 1378237497


viscount aero wrote: Orbit changes per GTSM must occur due to collisions.


No, not due to collisions. The host stars shrink and lose their gravitational pull as they die and become what humans call "planet". The host stars die and fling their older stars out of their orbits. To then take up orbit around others. This is why a large percentage of new systems "exo-planets" (deionizing aging stars) have elliptical orbits. In other words an elliptical orbit means it is transitioning hosts, either being newly adopted like Pluto, or about to be flung out of its orbit. A mostly circular orbit is stable.

In other words a high eccentricity means one of two things:

1. Newly adopted.
2. About to be evicted.


viscount aero wrote: If you can believe all of that then V-man is your guy.


I know. But I choose not to have beliefs. I only want an explanation that makes sense. Quite frankly the establishment doesn't make sense either. They have gravity doing everything, what blundering idiots they are. When you really start to understand GTSM you will see how incredibly backwards and irrational the establishment does their "science". It's mostly based in beliefs, not actual observation. Remember their credibility is on the line, either believe what everybody else believes or no money/career for you! They genuinely fired Halton Arp for proposing redshift as quantized phenomenon from quasars being ejected from galaxies. It's not just some story, the establishment really genuinely does not want understanding of the universe, they want money!! They are corrupt, just wave a few tens of thousands of dollars in front of them and they will believe what ever you say!
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 postby JeffreyW » Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:35 pm

Oh and regarding the chicken and the egg, we must be 100% clear I will give you some points to consider as I do not have the "answer" or know what's going on, I only have what I have learned over my time dealing with the discovery of stelmeta.

1. Stars do not create matter.

2. Quasars : acorns :: galaxies : oak trees. (this is DIRECTLY form a transcript I once read from Arp himself, I'll have to find it)

3. Thus quasars must hold the key to matter creation.

Quasars are uninteresting blobs to the establishment:

http://www.calpoly.edu/~rechols/astropi ... quasar.jpg

But since the invention of radio astronomy we can see that they are actually baby galaxies growing new arms. Halton Arp was right. The establishment and their Big Bang Creationism is flat, dead wrong.

Here is a baby galaxy growing new arms. It is Hercules A. When viewed in regular light, the kind Hubble probably used, they just looked like uninteresting blobs.

http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/U/b1/HER_A.jpg

We can see two quasars exiting Andromeda, http://messier.seds.org/Jpg/m31.jpg they will become full grown galaxies themselves. What the establishment needs to do is look at these quasars in radio waves. I don't think they will though because their masters believe in Big Bang Creationism. I guarantee they are ejecting material in bi-lateral configurations. The reason why we will only see the material in radio waves is because when its ejected it is travelling at such a high velocity that the light redshifts all the way to radio frequencies. This ejection of material will sustain and give the appearance of "spiraling" as the galaxies age and move away. Think of a double sided water hose that can rotate.

Hopefully that answers your chicken/egg question.
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 postby viscount aero » Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:56 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Ok good. Now how are stars formed? What is your chicken and egg idea in that direction?


JeffreyW wrote:A star is born from an electrical z-pinch in which interstellar gases become ionized. We can see pictures of the process of star birth in the book. Here is a list of baby stars, keep in mind to the establishment death cult they are dying stars. WRONG. They are birthing stars.

Cat's Eye nebula, hourglass nebula, ant nebula, etc. Here is a picture of a birthing star. This to the establishment is a dying star. Not so. The establishment is a bunch of blundering idiots. Don't listen to them, they are clueless.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/032/339 ... 1378237497


I agree +1000.

The establishment is transfixed on the annihilation of things that are actually birthing events. And their alleged birthing events are never what has been actually observed, only inferred based on no evidence or pure fantasy. It isn't even like they're late to a party. They never arrived to it.

viscount aero wrote: Orbit changes per GTSM must occur due to collisions.


JeffreyW wrote:No, not due to collisions. The host stars shrink and lose their gravitational pull as they die and become what humans call "planet". The host stars die and fling their older stars out of their orbits. To then take up orbit around others. This is why a large percentage of new systems "exo-planets" (deionizing aging stars) have elliptical orbits. In other words an elliptical orbit means it is transitioning hosts, either being newly adopted like Pluto, or about to be flung out of its orbit. A mostly circular orbit is stable.


That's the "aha-moment" I was looking for. Very good! That's very straightforward now that you have spelled it out. That's a great idea, actually. This would populate the cosmos with millions of rogue bodies looking for their next hula-hoop session around an ignited star. This would account for the great diversity and stratification of celestial bodies around the planets and the Sun. The big moons of Jupiter and Saturn are actually planets that were small enough to have been captured farther out from the Sun, whilst the larger planets continued onward to the Sun itself and got parked in an orbit.

JeffreyW wrote:In other words a high eccentricity means one of two things:

1. Newly adopted.
2. About to be evicted.


Exactly.Very good. Brilliant.

Pluto is probably newly captured. However one probably cannot tell in real time if a body is about to be ejected unless its orbital profile is tracked year to year, ie, is the orbit decaying.

This would make Venus not new, then, even though it has the traits of a newer body, rather, an older body--hence its more stable orbit :) Am I getting this right?

viscount aero wrote: If you can believe all of that then V-man is your guy.


JeffreyW wrote:I know. But I choose not to have beliefs. I only want an explanation that makes sense. Quite frankly the establishment doesn't make sense either. They have gravity doing everything, what blundering idiots they are. When you really start to understand GTSM you will see how incredibly backwards and irrational the establishment does their "science". It's mostly based in beliefs, not actual observation. Remember their credibility is on the line, either believe what everybody else believes or no money/career for you! They genuinely fired Halton Arp for proposing redshift as quantized phenomenon from quasars being ejected from galaxies. It's not just some story, the establishment really genuinely does not want understanding of the universe, they want money!! They are corrupt, just wave a few tens of thousands of dollars in front of them and they will believe what ever you say!


That's truer than you can imagine. It is a big clique. If you don't abide by the plantation rules then you are jettisoned from the clique and your orbit "decays" very quickly!

About your theory, it has elements of EU theory but also flies in the face of EU's idea of the order of events and "age" of the bodies. To the EU, Venus is young. To you, it is older than the Sun.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:29 am

viscount aero wrote:
About your theory, it has elements of EU theory but also flies in the face of EU's idea of the order of events and "age" of the bodies. To the EU, Venus is young. To you, it is older than the Sun.


Of course. Again, this is because of Velikovsky. They won't let go of him. He was the guy that got all this started, so he can't be wrong remember? He is the patron saint of EU. You can't blasphemy his writings or else you undermine EU. That is like me going to a conference full of establishment people and claiming Big Bang never happened!

If you KNEW for a fact that the establishment's explanations didn't make any sense, and there was this gentlemen that proposed different sets of mechanisms for how the solar system was arranged, would you consider it? Regardless, what if the establishment's explanations did not make any sense at all, yet this gentlemen considered some very basic ideas, such as the dominant force in the universe was electromagnetism not gravity, thus undermining all of the establishment? That would be incredibly controversial! THAT SELLS BOOKS!!! Regardless if the selling of books was the reason at all!

You would pay attention to everything he said because humans are naturally attracted to controversy! After the initial controversy, your mind would start turning its gears and you would attach yourself to perpetuation of these ideas. You would hold on to every word, hoping that somebody somewhere would continue these ideas for the sake of human understanding! You would make it your life's goal to make sure this individual's memory did not die by continuing HIS ideas and perpetuating his methods.

But here lies the problem: You would also do this even in the face of progress, because the progress regardless if it came from the establishment or outside of the establishment in the case of stelmeta, would appear to undermine the very person and ideas you have clinged to. You cannot undermine the person who started all this regardless if some of his ideas are obsolete! It becomes political! The question then thus arises: What happens when EU doesn't have Velikovsky? What will the EU be like when they disregard the cometary Venus from Jupiter argument?

Here is the scary question, will EU exist even if most of Velikovsky's assertions are falsified and/or obsolete? This isn't a question of science anymore, it is a question of politics and is the same exact mess the establishment fell into with their dear Einstein. The people who then hold Velikovsky on a pedestal and have "rank" in this group have to change, but will they? NO! Yet again, we have the credibility game even inside of non-institutionalized science, which stems from people not wanting to let go of their dogma!

The people who follow Velikovsky and started all this will be highly upset, because it means what they stood for all those dozens of years is going down the drain, or at least it appears to be. But it's not! V was the reason all this was started, he challenged the establishment, he stood for thinking outside the box and was probably the most influential person in all of this, but that does not mean everything he said was correct! I know I myself might be hot on the trail concerning stelmeta, but to say ALL my ideas are true just because? Wrong. Every scientist has ideas that are wrong! They are not infalliable saints who cannot be questioned! This is the trap the establishment fell into with their fantasy black holes. They lifted a person on high pedestal thinking there would be some grand insight, but ended up chasing a straw man! Stephen Hawking! But black holes don't exist! What does this do now to those who report on "seeing them"? It's the emperor's new robes! When the high priest is wrong what does that do to his followers? It makes them dogmatic.
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 postby viscount aero » Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:17 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
About your theory, it has elements of EU theory but also flies in the face of EU's idea of the order of events and "age" of the bodies. To the EU, Venus is young. To you, it is older than the Sun.


Of course. Again, this is because of Velikovsky. They won't let go of him. He was the guy that got all this started, so he can't be wrong remember? He is the patron saint of EU. You can't blasphemy his writings or else you undermine EU. That is like me going to a conference full of establishment people and claiming Big Bang never happened!


Well I see what you're saying. But consider that Arp and Hans Alfven are much more lauded and referenced than the V-man. I'm also very interested in David LaPoint's work on the Primer Fields (which fills in giant gaps in EU theory in my opinion). I don't believe Velikovsky is that prominent of a figure in electric cosmos theory to be considered a poster child for it. I feel you're vastly overstating the matter.

Personally I discovered the V-man quite a bit later than Arp and Alfven. I think planets do collide as do stars and galaxies, but the perfect game of billiards asked of Velikovsky and our solar system is a bit too far for me. I have trouble fully believing that he can purport with such certainty that such highly specific collisions occurred with planets when there is no way to ever really know that--in the highly rigid and tight scenario that he recommends. I don't really buy it despite his other merits. I don't think V is totally wrong. But I think his ideas about Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and Venus require fantastic speculations on parallel with the big bang.

JeffreyW wrote:If you KNEW for a fact that the establishment's explanations didn't make any sense, and there was this gentlemen that proposed different sets of mechanisms for how the solar system was arranged, would you consider it? Regardless, what if the establishment's explanations did not make any sense at all, yet this gentlemen considered some very basic ideas, such as the dominant force in the universe was electromagnetism not gravity, thus undermining all of the establishment? That would be incredibly controversial! THAT SELLS BOOKS!!! Regardless if the selling of books was the reason at all!

You would pay attention to everything he said because humans are naturally attracted to controversy! After the initial controversy, your mind would start turning its gears and you would attach yourself to perpetuation of these ideas. You would hold on to every word, hoping that somebody somewhere would continue these ideas for the sake of human understanding! You would make it your life's goal to make sure this individual's memory did not die by continuing HIS ideas and perpetuating his methods.


His ardent followers were the new guard at the time. Older people didn't much take him seriously because they lacked imagination and were set in their ways. Science tends to make leaps and advances of beliefs only when enough of the status quo ages and dies. The V-man captivated the imagination which makes sense as his was grandiose. In this way I applaud him because it is imagination that leads to breakthroughs, not pre-existing knowledge. Yet I don't think he was out brainwashing people. I think he was a visionary and a pioneer thinker who was vilified up until his death. He died alienated and destitute and nearly forgotten.

JeffreyW wrote:But here lies the problem: You would also do this even in the face of progress, because the progress regardless if it came from the establishment or outside of the establishment in the case of stelmeta, would appear to undermine the very person and ideas you have clinged to. You cannot undermine the person who started all this regardless if some of his ideas are obsolete! It becomes political! The question then thus arises: What happens when EU doesn't have Velikovsky? What will the EU be like when they disregard the cometary Venus from Jupiter argument?


Again I don't think EU is as interested in Velikovsky as it is in establishing a mainstream plasma physics paradigm via Arp and Alfven. Velikovsky has seeds of genius but is largely fantasy. The V-man was useful in jarring people awake to consider another paradigm of thought entirely and we needed that. But he wasn't necessarily someone to absolutely follow. I would wager that most people on this board would agree with me.

JeffreyW wrote:Here is the scary question, will EU exist even if most of Velikovsky's assertions are falsified and/or obsolete? This isn't a question of science anymore, it is a question of politics and is the same exact mess the establishment fell into with their dear Einstein. The people who then hold Velikovsky on a pedestal and have "rank" in this group have to change, but will they? NO! Yet again, we have the credibility game even inside of non-institutionalized science, which stems from people not wanting to let go of their dogma!


Again, I don't think EU is as interested in V as you are making it out to be. To me he is an interesting and tragic player on the stage of history. He should have made movies or novels instead of parroting his theory around as fact for as long as he did. He would have been just as popular and perhaps would have died famous, wealthy, and accepted and his ideas would STILL have gotten spread around the world ;) He could have been an Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke.

JeffreyW wrote:The people who follow Velikovsky and started all this will be highly upset, because it means what they stood for all those dozens of years is going down the drain, or at least it appears to be. But it's not! V was the reason all this was started, he challenged the establishment, he stood for thinking outside the box and was probably the most influential person in all of this, but that does not mean everything he said was correct! I know I myself might be hot on the trail concerning stelmeta, but to say ALL my ideas are true just because? Wrong. Every scientist has ideas that are wrong! They are not infalliable saints who cannot be questioned! This is the trap the establishment fell into with their fantasy black holes. They lifted a person on high pedestal thinking there would be some grand insight, but ended up chasing a straw man! Stephen Hawking! But black holes don't exist! What does this do now to those who report on "seeing them"? It's the emperor's new robes! When the high priest is wrong what does that do to his followers? It makes them dogmatic.


To reiterate, Velikovsky is not a linchpin character of the electric cosmos model. He's more often overlooked than ever mentioned. I've never had a discussion about him thus far, with anyone, except for you :)
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:42 pm

viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
About your theory, it has elements of EU theory but also flies in the face of EU's idea of the order of events and "age" of the bodies. To the EU, Venus is young. To you, it is older than the Sun.


Of course. Again, this is because of Velikovsky. They won't let go of him. He was the guy that got all this started, so he can't be wrong remember? He is the patron saint of EU. You can't blasphemy his writings or else you undermine EU. That is like me going to a conference full of establishment people and claiming Big Bang never happened!


Well I see what you're saying. But consider that Arp and Hans Alfven are much more lauded and referenced than the V-man. I'm also very interested in David LaPoint's work on the Primer Fields (which fills in giant gaps in EU theory in my opinion). I don't believe Velikovsky is that prominent of a figure in electric cosmos theory to be considered a poster child for it. I feel you're vastly overstating the matter.

Personally I discovered the V-man quite a bit later than Arp and Alfven. I think planets do collide as do stars and galaxies, but the perfect game of billiards asked of Velikovsky and our solar system is a bit too far for me. I have trouble fully believing that he can purport with such certainty that such highly specific collisions occurred with planets when there is no way to ever really know that--in the highly rigid and tight scenario that he recommends. I don't really buy it despite his other merits. I don't think V is totally wrong. But I think his ideas about Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and Venus require fantastic speculations on parallel with the big bang.

JeffreyW wrote:If you KNEW for a fact that the establishment's explanations didn't make any sense, and there was this gentlemen that proposed different sets of mechanisms for how the solar system was arranged, would you consider it? Regardless, what if the establishment's explanations did not make any sense at all, yet this gentlemen considered some very basic ideas, such as the dominant force in the universe was electromagnetism not gravity, thus undermining all of the establishment? That would be incredibly controversial! THAT SELLS BOOKS!!! Regardless if the selling of books was the reason at all!

You would pay attention to everything he said because humans are naturally attracted to controversy! After the initial controversy, your mind would start turning its gears and you would attach yourself to perpetuation of these ideas. You would hold on to every word, hoping that somebody somewhere would continue these ideas for the sake of human understanding! You would make it your life's goal to make sure this individual's memory did not die by continuing HIS ideas and perpetuating his methods.


His ardent followers were the new guard at the time. Older people didn't much take him seriously because they lacked imagination and were set in their ways. Science tends to make leaps and advances of beliefs only when enough of the status quo ages and dies. The V-man captivated the imagination which makes sense as his was grandiose. In this way I applaud him because it is imagination that leads to breakthroughs, not pre-existing knowledge. Yet I don't think he was out brainwashing people. I think he was a visionary and a pioneer thinker who was vilified up until his death. He died alienated and destitute and nearly forgotten.

JeffreyW wrote:But here lies the problem: You would also do this even in the face of progress, because the progress regardless if it came from the establishment or outside of the establishment in the case of stelmeta, would appear to undermine the very person and ideas you have clinged to. You cannot undermine the person who started all this regardless if some of his ideas are obsolete! It becomes political! The question then thus arises: What happens when EU doesn't have Velikovsky? What will the EU be like when they disregard the cometary Venus from Jupiter argument?


Again I don't think EU is as interested in Velikovsky as it is in establishing a mainstream plasma physics paradigm via Arp and Alfven. Velikovsky has seeds of genius but is largely fantasy. The V-man was useful in jarring people awake to consider another paradigm of thought entirely and we needed that. But he wasn't necessarily someone to absolutely follow. I would wager that most people on this board would agree with me.

JeffreyW wrote:Here is the scary question, will EU exist even if most of Velikovsky's assertions are falsified and/or obsolete? This isn't a question of science anymore, it is a question of politics and is the same exact mess the establishment fell into with their dear Einstein. The people who then hold Velikovsky on a pedestal and have "rank" in this group have to change, but will they? NO! Yet again, we have the credibility game even inside of non-institutionalized science, which stems from people not wanting to let go of their dogma!


Again, I don't think EU is as interested in V as you are making it out to be. To me he is an interesting and tragic player on the stage of history. He should have made movies or novels instead of parroting his theory around as fact for as long as he did. He would have been just as popular and perhaps would have died famous, wealthy, and accepted and his ideas would STILL have gotten spread around the world ;) He could have been an Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke.

JeffreyW wrote:The people who follow Velikovsky and started all this will be highly upset, because it means what they stood for all those dozens of years is going down the drain, or at least it appears to be. But it's not! V was the reason all this was started, he challenged the establishment, he stood for thinking outside the box and was probably the most influential person in all of this, but that does not mean everything he said was correct! I know I myself might be hot on the trail concerning stelmeta, but to say ALL my ideas are true just because? Wrong. Every scientist has ideas that are wrong! They are not infalliable saints who cannot be questioned! This is the trap the establishment fell into with their fantasy black holes. They lifted a person on high pedestal thinking there would be some grand insight, but ended up chasing a straw man! Stephen Hawking! But black holes don't exist! What does this do now to those who report on "seeing them"? It's the emperor's new robes! When the high priest is wrong what does that do to his followers? It makes them dogmatic.


To reiterate, Velikovsky is not a linchpin character of the electric cosmos model. He's more often overlooked than ever mentioned. I've never had a discussion about him thus far, with anyone, except for you :)




I don't believe Dr Velikosky ever mentioned collisions of celestial objects. Just electrical interactions. It seems You folks know very little of Dr Velikovsky's work. You seem very disrespectful to one of the great minds in history. Wal Thornhill claims Dr Velikovsky was the beginning of enlightenment.

michael steinbacher
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:19 pm

starbiter wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
About your theory, it has elements of EU theory but also flies in the face of EU's idea of the order of events and "age" of the bodies. To the EU, Venus is young. To you, it is older than the Sun.


Of course. Again, this is because of Velikovsky. They won't let go of him. He was the guy that got all this started, so he can't be wrong remember? He is the patron saint of EU. You can't blasphemy his writings or else you undermine EU. That is like me going to a conference full of establishment people and claiming Big Bang never happened!


Well I see what you're saying. But consider that Arp and Hans Alfven are much more lauded and referenced than the V-man. I'm also very interested in David LaPoint's work on the Primer Fields (which fills in giant gaps in EU theory in my opinion). I don't believe Velikovsky is that prominent of a figure in electric cosmos theory to be considered a poster child for it. I feel you're vastly overstating the matter.

Personally I discovered the V-man quite a bit later than Arp and Alfven. I think planets do collide as do stars and galaxies, but the perfect game of billiards asked of Velikovsky and our solar system is a bit too far for me. I have trouble fully believing that he can purport with such certainty that such highly specific collisions occurred with planets when there is no way to ever really know that--in the highly rigid and tight scenario that he recommends. I don't really buy it despite his other merits. I don't think V is totally wrong. But I think his ideas about Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and Venus require fantastic speculations on parallel with the big bang.

JeffreyW wrote:If you KNEW for a fact that the establishment's explanations didn't make any sense, and there was this gentlemen that proposed different sets of mechanisms for how the solar system was arranged, would you consider it? Regardless, what if the establishment's explanations did not make any sense at all, yet this gentlemen considered some very basic ideas, such as the dominant force in the universe was electromagnetism not gravity, thus undermining all of the establishment? That would be incredibly controversial! THAT SELLS BOOKS!!! Regardless if the selling of books was the reason at all!

You would pay attention to everything he said because humans are naturally attracted to controversy! After the initial controversy, your mind would start turning its gears and you would attach yourself to perpetuation of these ideas. You would hold on to every word, hoping that somebody somewhere would continue these ideas for the sake of human understanding! You would make it your life's goal to make sure this individual's memory did not die by continuing HIS ideas and perpetuating his methods.


His ardent followers were the new guard at the time. Older people didn't much take him seriously because they lacked imagination and were set in their ways. Science tends to make leaps and advances of beliefs only when enough of the status quo ages and dies. The V-man captivated the imagination which makes sense as his was grandiose. In this way I applaud him because it is imagination that leads to breakthroughs, not pre-existing knowledge. Yet I don't think he was out brainwashing people. I think he was a visionary and a pioneer thinker who was vilified up until his death. He died alienated and destitute and nearly forgotten.

JeffreyW wrote:But here lies the problem: You would also do this even in the face of progress, because the progress regardless if it came from the establishment or outside of the establishment in the case of stelmeta, would appear to undermine the very person and ideas you have clinged to. You cannot undermine the person who started all this regardless if some of his ideas are obsolete! It becomes political! The question then thus arises: What happens when EU doesn't have Velikovsky? What will the EU be like when they disregard the cometary Venus from Jupiter argument?


Again I don't think EU is as interested in Velikovsky as it is in establishing a mainstream plasma physics paradigm via Arp and Alfven. Velikovsky has seeds of genius but is largely fantasy. The V-man was useful in jarring people awake to consider another paradigm of thought entirely and we needed that. But he wasn't necessarily someone to absolutely follow. I would wager that most people on this board would agree with me.

JeffreyW wrote:Here is the scary question, will EU exist even if most of Velikovsky's assertions are falsified and/or obsolete? This isn't a question of science anymore, it is a question of politics and is the same exact mess the establishment fell into with their dear Einstein. The people who then hold Velikovsky on a pedestal and have "rank" in this group have to change, but will they? NO! Yet again, we have the credibility game even inside of non-institutionalized science, which stems from people not wanting to let go of their dogma!


Again, I don't think EU is as interested in V as you are making it out to be. To me he is an interesting and tragic player on the stage of history. He should have made movies or novels instead of parroting his theory around as fact for as long as he did. He would have been just as popular and perhaps would have died famous, wealthy, and accepted and his ideas would STILL have gotten spread around the world ;) He could have been an Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke.

JeffreyW wrote:The people who follow Velikovsky and started all this will be highly upset, because it means what they stood for all those dozens of years is going down the drain, or at least it appears to be. But it's not! V was the reason all this was started, he challenged the establishment, he stood for thinking outside the box and was probably the most influential person in all of this, but that does not mean everything he said was correct! I know I myself might be hot on the trail concerning stelmeta, but to say ALL my ideas are true just because? Wrong. Every scientist has ideas that are wrong! They are not infalliable saints who cannot be questioned! This is the trap the establishment fell into with their fantasy black holes. They lifted a person on high pedestal thinking there would be some grand insight, but ended up chasing a straw man! Stephen Hawking! But black holes don't exist! What does this do now to those who report on "seeing them"? It's the emperor's new robes! When the high priest is wrong what does that do to his followers? It makes them dogmatic.


To reiterate, Velikovsky is not a linchpin character of the electric cosmos model. He's more often overlooked than ever mentioned. I've never had a discussion about him thus far, with anyone, except for you :)


I don't believe Dr Velikosky ever mentioned collisions of celestial objects. Just electrical interactions. It seems You folks know very little of Dr Velikovsky's work. You seem very disrespectful to one of the great minds in history. Wal Thornhill claims Dr Velikovsky was the beginning of enlightenment.

michael steinbacher


Perhaps revise your beliefs. He wrote a famous book called "Worlds in Collision." Most of the beginnings of the phenomena he describes are predicated either upon collisions with celestial bodies or near-collisions with them.

excerpt:
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... oven-right

"Velikovsky changed the focus of his study from Oedipus to the origins of Venus, and in 1950, MacMillan and Company published his highly controversial book on the subject called Worlds in Collision. In the book Velikovsky postulated – based on a wide range of ancient accounts and references – that the planet Venus must have been formed within the historic memory of mankind as a consequence of the impact of a large astronomic body with Jupiter. This event was recorded in a Greek myth in which Jupiter was said to have swallowed whole a pregnant goddess named Metis, soon after which Athena burst newborn from Jupiter’s head. According to Velikovsky, Venus – whose name in Greek means “the newcomer” – at first “blazed as brightly as the Sun” as it roamed across the sky, far outside the Newtonian bounds of its familiar modern-day orbit. He proposed that Venus, in its travels, had wrought considerable havoc within the solar system, that its trajectory had brought it to a near-miss with Earth around 1500 BCE and that Venus had directly impacted Mars. This impact caused Mars, in turn, to leave its orbit and to become the catalyst for a second series of close encounters between Mars and the Earth. The worst of these happened, according to Velikovsky, around 750 BCE. One serious consequence of this final interaction with Mars, according to Velikovsky, is that it affected the Earth’s orbital period, lengthening it from an ancient 360-day year to our familiar 365-day year, and ejecting Mars into its present orbit."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby nick c » Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:52 pm

Starbiter is quite correct. Velikovsky did not hypothesize actual lithospheric contacts. The collisions he to which he refers were electrical in nature, involving electrical discharges between planetary bodies.
Nobody that has actually read Velikovsky could possibly think otherwise.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:58 pm

Viscount Aero wrote,

"
Perhaps revise your beliefs. He wrote a famous book called "Worlds in Collision." Most of the beginnings of the phenomena he describes are predicated either upon collisions with celestial bodies or near-collisions with them.

excerpt:
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... oven-right

"Velikovsky changed the focus of his study from Oedipus to the origins of Venus, and in 1950, MacMillan and Company published his highly controversial book on the subject called Worlds in Collision. In the book Velikovsky postulated – based on a wide range of ancient accounts and references – that the planet Venus must have been formed within the historic memory of mankind as a consequence of the impact of a large astronomic body with Jupiter. This event was recorded in a Greek myth in which Jupiter was said to have swallowed whole a pregnant goddess named Metis, soon after which Athena burst newborn from Jupiter’s head. According to Velikovsky, Venus – whose name in Greek means “the newcomer” – at first “blazed as brightly as the Sun” as it roamed across the sky, far outside the Newtonian bounds of its familiar modern-day orbit. He proposed that Venus, in its travels, had wrought considerable havoc within the solar system, that its trajectory had brought it to a near-miss with Earth around 1500 BCE and that Venus had directly impacted Mars. This impact caused Mars, in turn, to leave its orbit and to become the catalyst for a second series of close encounters between Mars and the Earth. The worst of these happened, according to Velikovsky, around 750 BCE. One serious consequence of this final interaction with Mars, according to Velikovsky, is that it affected the Earth’s orbital period, lengthening it from an ancient 360-day year to our familiar 365-day year, and ejecting Mars into its present orbit."
User avatar
viscount aero"

Me,


If You can find a quote by Dr Velikovsky stating that Mars and Venus collided it would be better than a magazine review. He never claimed a contact between Jupiter and Saturn. My memory of WiC is that Mars and Venus interacted four times. Then Mars and Earth had four interactions. The electromagnetic nature of the bodies seems to prevent collisions in many cases.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:14 pm

My claims and that citation above derive from the recent book "The Velikovsky Heresies" by Laird Scranton (which is actually a pro-Velokovsky work). Perhaps the author is incorrect :?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XidALJh3m7g

My greater point is that Velikovsky proposes a very specific billiard game, direct contact or near direct-contact, of celestial bodies that have disrupted the solar system's planetary orbital configuration in a very short time. Every celestial body involved would have to have been in the perfect position, at the most exact timing, for any of this to actually happen.

To add, if these are all recent events, why are the orbits of the planets involved today highly stable and non-eccentric?

Don't get me wrong, I think Velikovsky is a visionary as previously stated. He was on to some very important and necessary shifts in cosmology. This is why he has maintained a following almost 70 years after his Collisions book was published. I'm not rejecting him out of hand, not at all. I'm just highly skeptical of the specific billiard game aforementioned.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:19 pm

starbiter wrote:
I don't believe Dr Velikosky ever mentioned collisions of celestial objects. Just electrical interactions. It seems You folks know very little of Dr Velikovsky's work. You seem very disrespectful to one of the great minds in history. Wal Thornhill claims Dr Velikovsky was the beginning of enlightenment.

michael steinbacher


That's exactly the problem I'm running into. This thread will disintegrate into arguments about what Velikovsky really said. I'm not arguing for or against him, I'm actually trying to develop a NEW theory.

But what happens is I get this treatment: Stars and planets being the same objects is silly because everybody in EU knows that stars electrically fission planets. Guess what? This is DIRECTLY from Velikovsky followers.

But GTSM directly contradicts Velikovsky. To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets". But this is in direct contradiction to stellar metamorphosis: A star is a baby planet and a planet is an ancient star.

1. A single star is born from an intergalactic z-pinch.

2. It remains as a hot plasma for a while.

3. The plasma starts neutralizing forming what is called "gas". Thus a star becomes a "gas giant" and shrinks considerably as the shell contracts. This is a basic phase transition known in physics as plasma recombination. It is when a plasma becomes a gas. I don't really like quoting wikipedia but here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_recombination

4. The gas then deposits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition ... nsition%29 and condenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensation as solid/liquid structure. These are called rocks and oceans. Thus gas giants become solid rocky worlds as the gas deposits/condenses at higher temperatures and pressures.

5. All this happens INSIDE of a star as it cools and shrinks.

6. When the process is mostly done the left over gases remain behind sheathing the solid core of the star and we call it an "atmosphere". We are walking on the core of an ancient star that is in the last stages of it's evolution. All the material has already differentiated during earlier stages of metamorphosis.

7. Nobody has hypothesized this. Not Velikovsky, not Alfven, not Arp, not anybody except for two other gentlemen besides me: Tony Abruzzo (2008) and Alex Oparin (1924).

This flies in the face of Velikovsky. He proposed a cometary ejection of Venus from Jupiter. Not so. Venus is the core of an ancient dead star. Jupiter is a brown dwarf star in intermediate stages of metamorphosis. It is forming a planet in it's core as we speak.

This is why I'm having such a difficult time. We are dealing with something extraordinarily simple here, but the reason why people don't understand is because they have prior beliefs and educations that are getting in the way.
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

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests