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 Electro » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:30 pm

Interesting article on star formation. Something I had been looking for! Stars being formed in the galactic jets.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114604.htm

Seems they're confirming our predictions more and more, without knowing it...
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Cargo » Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:44 pm

Electro wrote:The magnetic fields haven't started yet.


That's a bold assumption I believe.
Cargo
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:21 am

Cargo wrote:
Electro wrote:The magnetic fields haven't started yet.


That's a bold assumption I believe.


Well, if it is, please tell me how they come to be.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:09 am

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10591 ... s-form.htm

http://www.firstpost.com/news%26analysi ... 86731.html

It's staring at them in the face and they still don't get it!

I know, Jeffrey, that you and a certain BG have had your differences, but I believe that what he says in his video makes a lot of sense. Actually, I was thinking the same thing long before I saw his video. A lot of what he says on his website is crap (homosexuality, rope hypothesis, 9/11 conspiracy...), but his critics against mathematical physics, Einstein, quantum mechanics, all make sense... His explanations about a galaxy's magnetic field are very simplistic I agree, but I get the general idea. We can do away with black holes...

https://youtu.be/KiDwqnanAYA
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:11 am

Electro wrote:When I say first stars, I mean in a new galaxy, as they can form at any time.

I believe it's human nature to ask these questions. There IS an answer for everything. We just don't know everything.

Don't get me wrong. I do find your theory very interesting and believe it makes way much more sense than what mainstream is proposing. However, some things aren't clear to me. Like your gravitational collapse inside a "hollow" shell. That's why I was asking if you were familiar with Newton's Shell Theorem. And you haven't answered.

It is not "hollow" it is a homogeneous plasma with a vibrant surface that gives the appearance of being liquid. I wrote a beginning paper on that so yes, it has been answered. I just have a difficult time finding all the papers. http://vixra.org/pdf/1705.0227v1.pdf

The white dwarf shell expands outwards and maintains a surface. The surface then begins collapsing (as a surface) and becomes gaseous as the material falls inwards due to the properties of the material, g collapse and high energy deposition in the internal regions.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:32 am

Electro wrote:You're basically using the term "gravity" and gravitational collapse as the main mechanism responsible for the chemical reactions going on inside stars. The same gravity in mainstream's gravitationnal collapse and supernovae, and whatnot. A gravity that is a very weak force, if we understand it the way mainstream does.

But what is gravity? Nobody knows. We only know Newton's math about it, and Einstein's nonsense about warped "concepts". Until someone can explain the real nature of gravity, I cannot accept it as the main force responsible for shaping the universe. Besides, "we" already know it isn't...

Wal Thornhill has an explanation for gravity in the following video, one of the very few that actually try to give us one. When we finally understand gravity in this manner, instead of a mysterious magical entity, we can then link it to everything we see in space. Not saying THIS is the right one. I don't know, but at least it's something to work on.

https://youtu.be/YkWiBxWieQU


G collapse is just the star crushing itself. It crushes itself until it cannot crush itself anymore, meaning it will have a hard time once the material is rocks/minerals with a metal core. It is kind of difficult for a star to crush a billion cubic kilometer iron/nickel alloy core.

Oh and gravitation's strength is not in physical pulling alone. Remember it is long range and has a sort of multiplier effect. Think about something falling from a building. If you drop a rock that weighs about 10 lbs from about 1 inch off the ground the force that it hits the ground with is tiny. Take that same 10 lb rock and toss it off a tall building. It can destroy an engine block to a car, because its potential energy is a lot higher due to being higher off the ground. So yea, gravitation is weak, but I assure you, it is extremely powerful put in the correct context. That force holds the Earth in orbit around the Sun. Pretty powerful stuff.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:36 am

Electro wrote:Interesting article on star formation. Something I had been looking for! Stars being formed in the galactic jets.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114604.htm

Seems they're confirming our predictions more and more, without knowing it...


They are headed in the right direction, but using objects that do not exist to explain the phenomenon, black holes are nonsense. There is actually something physically there, as well, the fantasy black hole sucks in matter, so to form stars from something that blows "wind" outwards contradicts itself.

AGN's or radio galaxies are where star birth takes place. I wrote about that back in 2012. We can even see them. A good picture of one is in this paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1705.0227v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:43 am

Electro wrote:
Cargo wrote:
Electro wrote:The magnetic fields haven't started yet.


That's a bold assumption I believe.


Well, if it is, please tell me how they come to be.


In the general theory, a planets magnetic field is just the continuation of its earlier stage of evolution, it just shrinks as it shrinks. (loses mass) The magnetic field is one of the leftover features of its earlier stages of evolution and will eventually disappear as the star dies. (mercury/mars)

http://vixra.org/pdf/1705.0178v1.pdf Magnetosphere Evolution
http://vixra.org/pdf/1601.0197v1.pdf magnetic flux amplification
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:49 am

JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:When I say first stars, I mean in a new galaxy, as they can form at any time.

I believe it's human nature to ask these questions. There IS an answer for everything. We just don't know everything.

Don't get me wrong. I do find your theory very interesting and believe it makes way much more sense than what mainstream is proposing. However, some things aren't clear to me. Like your gravitational collapse inside a "hollow" shell. That's why I was asking if you were familiar with Newton's Shell Theorem. And you haven't answered.

It is not "hollow" it is a homogeneous plasma with a vibrant surface that gives the appearance of being liquid. I wrote a beginning paper on that so yes, it has been answered. I just have a difficult time finding all the papers. http://vixra.org/pdf/1705.0227v1.pdf

The white dwarf shell expands outwards and maintains a surface. The surface then begins collapsing (as a surface) and becomes gaseous as the material falls inwards due to the properties of the material, g collapse and high energy deposition in the internal regions.


Oh! OK. Seems like you changed your original assumption about a gaseous star (plasma). I wasn't aware you had adopted Pierre-Marie Robitaille's liquid sun model.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:29 am

Electro wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:When I say first stars, I mean in a new galaxy, as they can form at any time.

I believe it's human nature to ask these questions. There IS an answer for everything. We just don't know everything.

Don't get me wrong. I do find your theory very interesting and believe it makes way much more sense than what mainstream is proposing. However, some things aren't clear to me. Like your gravitational collapse inside a "hollow" shell. That's why I was asking if you were familiar with Newton's Shell Theorem. And you haven't answered.

It is not "hollow" it is a homogeneous plasma with a vibrant surface that gives the appearance of being liquid. I wrote a beginning paper on that so yes, it has been answered. I just have a difficult time finding all the papers. http://vixra.org/pdf/1705.0227v1.pdf

The white dwarf shell expands outwards and maintains a surface. The surface then begins collapsing (as a surface) and becomes gaseous as the material falls inwards due to the properties of the material, g collapse and high energy deposition in the internal regions.


Oh! OK. Seems like you changed your original assumption about a gaseous star (plasma). I wasn't aware you had adopted Pierre-Marie Robitaille's liquid sun model.


I'm just trying to make sense of everything in a good context that people can understand. Robitaille doesn't have a model for stellar evolution or planet formation, nor does he realize it is the same process. Nor does he realize that white dwarfs are vastly better as examples of his ideas (versus the Sun at its current stage of evolution), nor does he understand that they are the beginning stages of a star's evolution (the Sun and white dwarfs are actually very, very young stars as compared to the Earth, which as rocks/minerals and is fully differentiated.

I tried to get him to help in development of GTSM as well, but he just ignores me. Its wild. You think that people (other dissidents) would jump on board with a complete picture of a star's evolution (planet formation), but as it turns out they still are (Mr. Robitaille and Crothers and all of the electric universe powers that be) convinced that there are two different types of objects, stars and planets. They still to this day do not realize they are the same things, only different stages of metamorphosis. Even after 6 years of me screaming it, it still falls on deaf ears. Only the people who have not been strongly conditioned into the belief of stars being mutually exclusive of "planets" can understand what is happening.

I already wrote a paper back in April of 2016 which further clarifies the reasoning why the sun is a homogeneous young star. http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0181v1.pdf The data that was collected in the 1970's was ignored in favor of the fusion model. Basically the fusion model was "too big to fail".
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:18 am

Robitaille does not tell us how such a star is born. He claims the core is made out of solid metallic hydrogen. That doesn't fit with your model which should have an iron core. He also doesn't tell us how the liquid sun is maintained for billions of years without nuclear fusion...
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:56 am

Electro wrote:Robitaille does not tell us how such a star is born. He claims the core is made out of solid metallic hydrogen. That doesn't fit with your model which should have an iron core. He also doesn't tell us how the liquid sun is maintained for billions of years without nuclear fusion...


Very, very good points. In GTSM a core is formed via plasma/gas deposition, this is why the iron/nickel cores of ancient stars are made of such pure iron/nickel. That's why iron/nickel meteorites have only trace amounts of heavier metals, because the process of core formation doubles as a kind of core purification system as well includes the material being sorted by mass (gold/iridium/osmium being trace amounts found in meteorites). Engineers even use vacuum deposition chambers in industry to form things such as diamonds, and thin films. Given an entire star is the deposition chamber, and it is collecting up material from all over the galaxy, it essentially functions as a planet oven. The Sun is an planetary easy-bake oven.

What is great about GTSM is that we can even directly experiment on core material. Meteorites are pieces of core material of long dead stars that have been destroyed due to impacts with other rocky objects. Robitaille will have an incredibly difficult time against GTSM because he has no justification for the core being solid metallic hydrogen, esp. in light of actually being able to hold core material in your hand (GTSM). Holding a piece of dead stellar core in your hand is far from theory.

Yes, he doesn't actually say how the liquid sun is maintained for billions of years, because in light of the dissident that he is, he still accepts the Sun-like stars as being billions of years old. They are not. They are very young stars that are still energetic from the birthing process, relatively speaking. Tens of millions of years old is not young, but when compared to objects such as the Earth, or even Venus? yea. Its a baby.

It also figures that he should accept the Sun as being billions of years old, because that is the paradigm and he is not proposing anything threatening to the status quo. The status quo has young stars and old stars the same ages, due to the assumption that since they orbit one another, they are the same age. Which is very poor reasoning. Clearly the solar system has objects that are all different ages, all you need to do is look at them to see that. If they were all the same ages then why are they all different? This fact will not be absorbed by Mr. Robitaille because he represents the status quo in that regard.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:31 pm

Forgive me but I'm still a little confused. Do you consider the sun as being a liquid or a gas (plasma)?
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:48 pm

Electro wrote:Forgive me but I'm still a little confused. Do you consider the sun as being a liquid or a gas (plasma)?

The sun is definitely mostly plasma (ionized gas). The "liquid" aspect really in terms Robitaille is probably addressing should be applied to earlier stages of a star's evolution, when it is a white dwarf and very, very dense. The "liquid shell" is definitely plasma, but not in terms I am familiar with. It loses the properties Robitaille discusses as it evolves though, that is 100%, because we see older stars that do not resemble the younger ones, those are the red dwarfs, brown dwarfs, grey dwarfs... all down the line.

But it isn't "liquid" in terms of oh its just like water. No, not really. Maintaining a "liquid" when the white dwarf is in excess of 50,000 Kelvin on the surface would just make people confused. A liquid "plasma" would be more fitting. It is a dense soup of ions which expands outwards, maintaining the shell, but then the shell begins collapsing and the star shrinks after it fully expands.

I guess I need to write another paper to explain it better.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:04 pm

But Robitaille does bring a few convincing arguments. A sphere of gas without a surface does not make much sense. What about the ripples on the surface we see in a picture he shows of a solar flare? What about the granular surface? I'm no expert, but he does bring compelling arguments.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest