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 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:01 am

And to keep another subject alive I must include a very basic concept of chemistry that is ignored by EU, for reasons unknown to me.

1. Exothermic reactions: reactions that release "energy" in the form of heat, light, sound, electricity (battery)

2. Endothermic reactions: reactions that absorb "energy" in the form of heat, light, sound, electricity

What we shall see though when the person looks up these two definitions, exothermic and endothermic are heavily suited to describing the chemical reactions. Thus either a release of heat or a net gain of heat. But this is atrocious. They take assumption after assumption to make descriptions that conflict.

This should cause the person to think considerably about many issues at hand:

1. Heat can be considered light. Heat can be considered infrared radiation. So chemical bonds release light. So why label exothermic as "heat" only if exothermic can mean radio waves, microwaves, gamma rays, etc.? Why the inconsistency?

2. Since exothermic reactions release light and some exothermic reactions, by definition, release electricity as in the case of a battery, could we safely assume that electricity IS a type of light? If it is what would determine it's wavelength? Is electricity simply coherent patterns of heat transfer? I mean, is electricity a certain frequency of heat?

3. Repeat for endothermic reactions which are the type that absorb "heat/light/electricity/sound". Absorb sound? What does that mean? Well, could we safely assume that sound itself is something other than bouncing atoms? Besides, what exactly is doing the bouncing? Are atoms billiard balls? Have we ever considered that sound could also be a manifestation of electricity? Have we even considered how our ears REALLY process sound except for the tiny bone structure in the inner ear... How do our brains process sound?

It is appropriate to consider these lateral thinking exercises so that we can further the discovery process while GTSM is already underway. This is how stellar metamorphosis was discovered, via lateral thinking. Taking assumptions out, and then flipping the assumptions on their heads. Stars are not planets becomes: Stars are planets. From there it is easy to work out that the assumptions have been keeping people in the dark, it's not their intelligence. Take any wrong assumption and there will not be any amount of logic/math that will fix it. It doesn't matter how high your I.Q. is or what your advanced degree is in, if you have the wrong assumptions you are going to be IN THE DARK.
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 nick c » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:39 am

JeffreyW,
Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect.
Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.

The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's.
His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."

Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members.
So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:54 am

nick c wrote:JeffreyW,
Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect.
Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.

The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's.
His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."

Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members.
So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.


Nick, then my question is this: did the V-man pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"? If so then that is a bombshell. That means that he directly affected the mainstream which uses this idea willy nilly yet is attributable to a man who they deem is a crank and fraud!
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 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:07 am

nick c wrote:JeffreyW,
Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect.
Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.


Excellent. As long as we have that clarified. That is what this entire thread is about, a "planet" is the end result of star evolution. Planets are stars.

The reason why I am having such a difficult time with EU is because they believe planets are ejected from stars, via Velikovsky. So naturally, I will be an enemy of electric universe. Thus I will always be on the defense and attack all hypothesis that do not agree with it for the sake of this thread and this thread alone. Sorry. This isn't a personal attack on people, it's an attack on a idea that is obsolete.
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 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:13 am

viscount aero wrote:
nick c wrote:JeffreyW,
Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect.
Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.

The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's.
His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."

Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members.
So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.


Nick, then my question is this: did the V-man pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"? If so then that is a bombshell. That means that he directly affected the mainstream which uses this idea willy nilly yet is attributable to a man who they deem is a crank and fraud!


I guess I have to spell it out again:

Velikovsky supporters believe stars eject planets.

GTSM states that a planet is an ancient star.

So naturally any theory development for either side will directly contradict the other and be perceived as an "attack". Thus this very thread is threatening to the EU because it does not support Velikovsky!
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 starbiter » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:20 am

viscount aero wrote:
nick c wrote:JeffreyW,
Your protestations aside, you made a specific statement concerning Velikovsky and I showed through a quote that the statement was incorrect.
Velikovsky never postulated that planets were the end result of stellar evolution.

The purpose of my post was to show that Velikovsky in the 1940's recognized that the distinction between a gas giant planet and a small star was not clear cut. That is a concept many years ahead of its' time. The first brown dwarf star was not discovered until the 1990's.
His reasoning probably originated in ancient references to Saturn being a "sun."

Discussion of Velikovsky is an unnecessary diversion of this thread. However; the blame for this lies with you, since you have used this thread to launch attacks that can only serve to provoke a response from various forum members.
So if that is the way you want your thread to go, then so be it.


Nick, then my question is this: did the V-man pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"? If so then that is a bombshell. That means that he directly affected the mainstream which uses this idea willy nilly yet is attributable to a man who they deem is a crank and fraud!



http://www.varchive.org/itb/satjup.htm

This entire website is required reading before commenting on Dr Velikovsky. Of course Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval also. The events described between Saturn and Jupiter were probably more electrical then Dr Velikovsky described. That being said, he was still a leader in seeing the electrical nature of the Solar System.

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 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:35 pm

Ok I'll ask the question again: Did Velikovsky pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"?
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 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:53 pm

viscount aero wrote:Ok I'll ask the question again: Did Velikovsky pioneer and propose originally the modern idea that the gas giants are "stars"?


Based on the incredible amounts of ridicule I've been receiving from EU calling me a crank for proposing it, I'd have to say unmistakably, "No".

This is why I wrote a short paper calling them out on it:

Page 22. I make it 100% clear so that they cannot claim discovery. It is in their best interest to not claim discovery or else be labeled as frauds.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf
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 seasmith » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:59 pm

Were Jupiter and Saturn free from the bonds of the sun, they could be considered as stars or suns. Were two such stars set in space close to one another, they would constitute a double-star system, both stars circling around a common focus.

http://www.varchive.org/itb/satjup.htm
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby celeste » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:57 pm

I think if we understand power laws like Titius-Bode's or Dermott's, that will help quite a bit in this thread. From these link's,http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/bodes_law.htm, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law we see that planets, moons of planets, and extrasolar planets, all may show signs of obeying these kinds of power laws. The point here, is that this means planets are to be considered more as stars in their own right, as opposed to just companions to the sun.
If we start with the sun, and say mercury orbits it, then say Venus also orbits the sun, right away we have trouble explaining any power law. If, by comparison, we say the sun is on some filament, and mercury on another, each spiraling around the other, we get our long range attraction and short range repulsion that defines our first orbit. Then if Venus is also on a filament, it spirals about that first PAIR. Now our power law is born. You don't have to agree with me on the filament idea. What is important, is that for the power law to hold, each planet must play a significant role in defining the orbit of the next. The sun, being the most massive, still determines the center of mass of the solar system, and leads to the delusion that each planet merely orbits it.
So, point one, is this is evidence of planets being more like stars, than different objects entirely.
Point two, is that we can address the issue of seeming coincidences in timings of planetary orbit changes. I won't bring up that one name again, but in any theory of either slow or catastrophic evolution of planetary orbits, changing one orbit must influence the rest.
I do have an issue with the idea of mercury, venus, or the moon's lack of magnetic field being proof of them being older. They are each slow spinners, and we should expect weaker magnetic fields for that reason alone, even if they are every bit as charged as other, faster spinning planets. The idea of slow spin itself being a sign of age, is more mainstream nonsense we need to forget. In EU,we get spin up or spin down. With the mainstream, we only get spin down, at least after we have exhausted gravitational collapse.
Last edited by celeste on Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:11 am

celeste, You mean you have an opposing view to Velikovsky or an agreeable one?

I've been reading up on him and will comment when I've educated myself a bit more on his views.
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 celeste » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:47 am

viscount aero wrote:celeste, You mean you have an opposing view to Velikovsky or an agreeable one?

I've been reading up on him and will comment when I've educated myself a bit more on his views.


I believe Dave Talbott's ideas are most correct on the changes we've had in the solar system. I think the mechanism is clear too, once we consider forces OUTSIDE our solar system.
In keeping to the point of this thread, Talbott has argued for Saturn once being our sun (clearly now a gas giant planet). The question is whether this evolution is one way. JeffreyW would argue that there is no going back, I'm not convinced that is true. Wal Thornhill argues that we can go from blue star,to red star, and back to blue, simply by changing current input. I don't know why planetary evolution has to occur in one direction either.
The idea of Titius-Bode type laws is consistent with another of those stories brought up of any earlier solar system configuration: the "closer sky". These power laws give us no information on absolute planetary orbital distances, just relative distances. IF these laws are correct, they would actually allow for planets being closer,as long as we brought them ALL in by the same percentage.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:03 am

celeste wrote:
viscount aero wrote:celeste, You mean you have an opposing view to Velikovsky or an agreeable one?

I've been reading up on him and will comment when I've educated myself a bit more on his views.


I believe Dave Talbott's ideas are most correct on the changes we've had in the solar system. I think the mechanism is clear too, once we consider forces OUTSIDE our solar system.
In keeping to the point of this thread, Talbott has argued for Saturn once being our sun (clearly now a gas giant planet). The question is whether this evolution is one way. JeffreyW would argue that there is no going back, I'm not convinced that is true. Wal Thornhill argues that we can go from blue star,to red star, and back to blue, simply by changing current input. I don't know why planetary evolution has to occur in one direction either.


Yes. Although Jeffrey's theory is clean and neatly stated, the point about stellar classes is an issue. I don't know how that figures into Jeffrey's theory.

As for me, I am not entirely convinced that all planets (stars) have cores. I think some of them are hollow. I also tend to think that planets like Saturn are actually spherical vortices whose inner structure is a recirculating torus confined to an oblate spheroid, the core being a vertical/columnar structure that is the central focus of circulation. The polar vortices of these planets, to me, speak to this possibility.

Were the Jovian planets actually ignited as shining stars? I will say yes possibly. Mainstream alleges they are failed stars, so they are close. I think they could have been full-out glow mode plasmoids.

celeste wrote: The idea of Titius-Bode type laws is consistent with another of those stories brought up of any earlier solar system configuration: the "closer sky". These power laws give us no information on absolute planetary orbital distances, just relative distances. IF these laws are correct, they would actually allow for planets being closer,as long as we brought them ALL in by the same percentage.


Yes I am apt to agree with the "mainstream" Titus-Bode law insofar as harmonic distancing of the planets. I do believe that a solar system can shift and adapt to changes very quickly, however, unlike the mainstream idea of a "fossilized" solar system whose configuration never changes except over billions of epochs.
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 » Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:08 am

viscount aero wrote:
Yes. Although Jeffrey's theory is clean and neatly stated, the point about stellar classes is an issue. I don't know how that figures into Jeffrey's theory.


It's not my theory. I've been developing it. If I say "its my theory" then I have to deny the fact that Mr. Oparin and Mr. Abruzzo both came to the same conclusions. I have to defend their insight as well as my own, even though I made the discovery mutually exclusive in both time and place of these two people.

Concerning stellar classes. A single star is all classes. It undergoes metamorphosis. It is born as a big bright blue star O, then cools to become a B, A, F, G, K, M... then it's to brown dwarfs (L, T, Y, Jupiter is a Y as well as Saturn, they are brown dwarf stars), blue dwarfs, green-blue dwarfs, black dwarfs...

Its on one gigantic continuum. This is why the Earth is many billions of years old. It had to work its way down from all the other classes before settling into a life sustaining star with a solid surface and water oceans. All stars will eventually become life sustaining as they cool and shrink.
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 seasmith » Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:32 am

viscount aero wrote:
As for me, I am not entirely convinced that all planets (stars) have cores. I think some of them are hollow. I also tend to think that planets like Saturn are actually spherical vortices whose inner structure is a recirculating torus confined to an oblate spheroid, the core being a vertical/columnar structure that is the central focus of circulation. The polar vortices of these planets, to me, speak to this possibility.


Good point. Of course all rotating systems have a "core", or energetic axial centroid, but Sol-type suns i agree, probably do not have a solid core.

Also, all this hand-waving about the legacy of Velikovski is just a distraction. For example i've read Mein Kampf and Stellar Metamorphosis, but that doesn't mean i'm a "follower" of either author.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest