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 Jun 18, 2013 8:04 am

magicjava wrote:I have two more questions.

GTSM states that the sun has no internal or external power supply, it is just plasma recombining to gas that creates its heat.

Question 1
Does anyone know of any papers that would show whether or not plasma recombining in this way would produce a blackbody curve like the sun is known to produce?

Question 2
Does anyone know of any papers that estimate how long the sun could burn via recombination before running out of fuel?


q1: I don't know of any. But one thing is for sure, plasma recombination to gas is an exothermic reaction. Exothermic reactions release heat, and are similar to chemical explosions. Thus is plasma.

q2: I don't know of any. GTSM states that recombination isn't the only process. The plasma becomes mostly gas and the superheated gas eventually combines (as it is still partially ionized) to form hundreds of different molecular compounds on the Earth and all stars as solids and liquids. This process causes the star to shrink and solidify over a timeframe of many hundreds of millions of years. While this process is ongoing, the ionized material is still differentiating according to it's ionization potential. This is known as Marklund Convection and can be seen in the weather differentials on all stars, the Earth and most notice-ably on Jupiter. Marklund Convection = weather = planetary differentiation. :mrgreen:
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:00 pm

magicjava wrote:Question 1: Does anyone know of any papers that would show whether or not plasma recombining in this way would produce a blackbody curve like the sun is known to produce?

Following in Balfour Stewart's footsteps, Gustav Kirchhoff canonized the essential characteristics of different types of EM radiation in his three laws of spectroscopy.5,6

  1. A hot solid object produces light with a continuous spectrum (i.e., black-body radiation). (Wilhelm Wien went on to say that the power distribution has a bell curve that depends on the temperature.7)
  2. A hot tenuous gas produces light with spectral lines at discrete frequencies, and in combinations that depend in a more complex way on the temperature. (Niels Bohr later developed the concept of electron shells, and traced the spectral lines down to the degrees of ionization in the gas, which are a function of temperature.8)
  3. A hot solid object surrounded by a cool tenuous gas produces black-body radiation, but with gaps at discrete frequencies (which are the same as the emission frequencies of the gas, and likewise depend on the degree of ionization).
More recent research has demonstrated that supercritical fluids, well above their boiling points but under sufficient pressure to still be at or near their liquid densities, produce BB radiation.17 Instead of covalent bonds constraining the motion of atoms, Coulomb forces between closely packed ions do the same thing. So instead of a crystal lattice, it's a Coulomb lattice, so to say. The greater the pressure, the closer the atoms, and the higher the frequency of vibration, even with the same atomic speeds. So Kirchhoff's "4th law" should have been that a hot, high-pressure plasma does not produce spectral lines (because of a lack of bound electrons), but it does produce BB radiation (from the oscillations of atomic nuclei with short mean free paths).

Since the Sun is comprised of hot, high-pressure plasma, this emerging "4th law" explains solar BB radiation. Plasma recombination produces only spectral lines, per Kirchhoff's 2nd Law.

References:
5. Kirchhoff, G., 1860: Ueber das Verhältniss zwischen dem Emissionsvermögen und dem Absorptionsvermögen der Körper für Wärme and Licht. Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 109: 275-301

6. Robitaille, P. M., 2003: On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31 (6): 1263-1267

7. Wien, W.; Lummer, O., 1895: Methode zur Prüfung des Strahlungsgesetzes absolut schwarzer Körper. Annalen der Physik, 292 (11): 451-456

8. Bohr, N., 1913: On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules. Philosophical Magazine, 26: 1-25

17. Tsintsadze, L. N.; Callebaut, D. K.; Tsintsadze, N. L., 1996: Black-body radiation in plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics, 55: 407-413

magicjava wrote:Question 2: Does anyone know of any papers that estimate how long the sun could burn via recombination before running out of fuel?

Here is what Wikipedians had to say:

Wikipedia wrote:In the early years of the modern scientific era, the source of the Sun's energy was a significant puzzle. Lord Kelvin suggested that the Sun was a gradually cooling liquid body that was radiating an internal store of heat.[153] Kelvin and Hermann von Helmholtz then proposed a gravitational contraction mechanism to explain the energy output. Unfortunately the resulting age estimate was only 20 million years, well short of the time span of at least 300 million years suggested by some geological discoveries of that time.[153] In 1890 Joseph Lockyer, who discovered helium in the solar spectrum, proposed a meteoritic hypothesis for the formation and evolution of the Sun.[154]

References:
153. Thomson, W. (1862). "On the Age of the Sun's Heat". Macmillan's Magazine 5: 388–393.
154. Lockyer, J.N. (1890). The meteoritic hypothesis; a statement of the results of a spectroscopic inquiry into the origin of cosmical systems. Macmillan and Co.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:31 am

Plasma is only a fraction of the story. Why do electric universe people ignore solids, liquids and gases? These are the materials that we interact with on a daily basis?

Its like with the mainstream astronomers. Try to explain everything with gravity only. Only with EU its try to explain everything with plasma only.

Strange. It's like they are so in their own heads that they literally mimic the establishment's one hammer does everything mentality.

I'm not joking! It's like every single thread ignores basic thermodynamics like heat, phase transitions, pneumatics, hydraulics, heat capacities of liquids, electrically insulating materials (*gasp*, some materials are electrically insulating, much to the chagrin of electric universe people)... If it doesn't fit the paradigm it gets ignored! Why?
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:03 am

@JeffreyW:

I stand and applaud your comments. So far, I haven't found anything that can be explained with just gravity, nor EM, nor anything else for that matter. All of the most accurate constructs are thorough integrations of all known forces. I have butted heads with the EU because electrostatics figures significantly in a lot of my work, and they only consider electrodynamics. :D But such an all-or-nothing attitude just doesn't seem to work in the real world -- we always have to consider the inertial, gravitational, electromagnetic (static & dynamic), and nuclear properties of the matter in question, and yes, it isn't all plasma -- the properties of solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, and supercritical fluids all need to be considered. In my work, competition among multiple forces creates instabilities that can resolve into a wide variety of forms, depending on the balance of forces. One force can generally only do one or a couple things, but several competing forces can do many, many different things. So I'm looking for the force feedback loops responsible for the distinctive behaviors that we observe. And it always seem to turn out that everything is a mix of factors.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Shadows-de-Babylon » Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:25 pm

That seems true JeffreyW and Charles Chandler. It seems as though most people like to work with one theory. One theory does not cut the butter, but the synthesis of opposing theories gets closer to the truth. Gravity people love dreaming mechanical forces only. For instance, one gravity worshiper said that the hot corona around the sun speeds up the electrons due to only the kinetic energy of the corona. That person would not consider electrodynamic or electrostatics for electron acceleration. I am not saying kinetics play no part, but please do the Hegelian dialectic. Then the electric universe folks like to disregard all dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. Surprisingly, Stephen Crothers supports that Mitchell-Laplace bodies could exist.
User avatar
Shadows-de-Babylon
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Shadows-de-Babylon » Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:32 pm

It also seems like you two know much about behavior of various gases, plasma, and materials. Could you two take a look at this post and offer meaningful comments for improvement of model. If you are interested into intellectual gun-slinging, go somewhere else.

This is the posts: Magnetic Flux Ropes/Jacob's Ladder

Posts is under: New Insights and Mad Ideas
User avatar
Shadows-de-Babylon
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:28 pm

Shadows-de-Babylon wrote:This is the posts: Magnetic Flux Ropes/Jacob's Ladder

You shouldn't typically cross-post like that, but I cut you some slack and provided my comments there. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:03 pm

I like the details, I really do and they are absolutely required for understanding to be developed, but my main issue here is quite simple gentlemen. Please pay attention, I've been telling the EU people this for about 2 years now and all I get is name calling and scoffing.

Grab a drink of something before you continue. Use the bathroom. Calm your mind. Take away the distractions.

****Pay attention****

Stars are young planets. Planets are ancient stars. They are the EXACT same objects. We can figure out star evolution by studying dead ones! We are standing on one that is dying!

I'm a back woods, nature boy type person, and it's like bright as day to me the #1 problem in the astronomy sciences.

They have stars and planets as objects that are mutually exclusive! It's like saying caterpillars will never become butterflies! It's really simple, elegant, basic... and highly ignored and ridiculed. Unless we realize this, that when we look up at the "stars" at night and realize that they are young planets still in their plasma state, then humanity will not survive. I'm telling ya. I got the dang Cassandra Syndrome fellas! I'm not much for intellectual bantering or argumentation, all I have to offer is simple insight. We have used assumptions that are wrong. It's the root assumptions that have never been questioned that are holding us back! That's it! It's really that simple!

The plasma ones are young, the gaseous ones are middle aged, the liquid/solid ones are old. This can be explained to a barmaid, but the educated people have their heads full of wrong assumptions so of course it looks dumb, coming from some crank/crackpot.

We have exhausted the inventory of the universe gentlemen. Planet formation IS star evolution itself!
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:53 am

@JeffreyW:

I didn't get a chance to read your vixra article before it got removed, and of course Wikipedia doesn't tolerate anything outside of the mainstream. You can post your article on my site if you like, where there are no restrictions (except for obscenities, slander, and sedition). We have a number of threads going, to further explore the ideas of Mathis, Cardona, Cook, Mozina, Callahan, myself, and others. It's all good, as long as you strive to state your points clearly, and listen carefully to criticisms, since they represent opportunities for intellectual growth.

In general, I "think" that I agree that planets are the remnants of stars. While the Universe as a whole is mostly hydrogen, planets are mostly heavy elements, which can only be fused in the cores of stars. Conventional theory states that stars fuse the heavy elements, and then disperse them in supernovae. The Sun and its planets would then be second-generation aggregates, which condensed from the ejecta from the former star. But...

  • I find it hard to believe that the gravitational field would be strong enough to pull the ejecta back in for a second-generation aggregation. (Does the ejecta from a stick of dynamite get drawn back to the center of the explosion by gravity, and if not, why not?)
  • I also find it hard to believe that the heaviest elements (such as uranium), which are fragile, would have survived the violent particle collisions inside a supernova. I actually think that supernovae, if they are thermonuclear explosions, would be more like atom smashers, where ejecta have all been reduced to sub-atomic particles, which only recombine into atomic matter after colliding with other stuff outside of the supernovae. Once they have been slowed down to non-relativistic velocities, the particles are candidates for recombination into atomic matter. Until then, they're atom smashers. :) As evidence, the sites of nuclear explosions have been investigated, and nobody found any little remnants -- at the center of the explosion, everything gets vaporized. So this is what I'd expect of a nuclear explosion on a stellar scale.
  • If planets were condensations of supernovae ejecta, they wouldn't be almost entirely heavy elements -- they would have slightly higher concentrations of heavy elements, but still be composed of mainly hydrogen. If a star manufactures heavy elements and then spews them out into the interstellar medium, and that medium condenses again, it should contain a mix of the former medium plus the recent ejecta -- it wouldn't be just the heavy elements.
  • If our solar system condensed from supernova ejecta, and if the Sun is (supposedly) made up of mostly hydrogen, why would heavier elements congregate further out in the rocky planets?
So the conventional model just doesn't make sense. It seems more likely that stars have heavy-element cores, and that any large aggregation of heavy elements is a stellar remnant. It is also more likely that supernovae are not necessarily thermonuclear explosions -- some of them might simply be catastrophic charge recombination. On another thread we analyzed the behavior of the Chelyabinsk meteor, and all were in agreement that the flare-up was an EM phenomenon of some sort, and nobody argued that it was a thermonuclear explosion. And after the primary flare-up, a smaller remnant continued on before flaring up itself, and after that, an even smaller piece continued on, the fate of which has not been determined. So electrical stress can cause a large object to split into smaller pieces, or simply to lose a lot of matter to catastrophic out-gasing of ions. The same could be true of highly ionized stars, which flare up as red giants when the charge separation fails, leaving behind a heavy-element core, which just wouldn't be there in the conventional thermonuclear supernova model.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:52 am

This is the latest edition of JeffreyW's paper, for those interested:-

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:05 am

I found this, which may be of interest to people in the thread:-


As I learned from the Ay20 class today, Kepler mission has found more than 1200 planet candidates. One quarter of that amount are expected to be "super-earth." Several studies suggest that those rocky planets might be a result of failed formation of Jupiter-sized gas giants.
Most astronomers believe that a planet is formed by the core accretion process. Huge disk of gas surround the new born planet. Dusts in the disk stick together and become larger objects called planetesimals which collide with each others to create bigger and bigger objects. When the substance's mass reaches the critical point, its gravitation starts to pull in gases in the disk.

However, Sergei Nayakshin from University of Leicester in United Kingdom proposes a new theory called tidal downsizing which should work at faster rate. In that theory, a disk of gas is formed into a big ball of gas with a distance further away from most planets in solar system. Those gases get colder and shrink into a huge planet (around 10 times mass of Jupiter.) In this contraction, dust particles develop into a larger object and fall into the core of the gas ball. Thus, new born rocky planet is hidden inside the ball of gas.

As Nayakshin explained, when you have a core, it might create atmosphere around it. The atmosphere is mostly consisted of hydrogen but it still has more chemical element than the fossil dust element. Bigger the core, larger the atmosphere. Moreover, the atmosphere also grow with time which ends as a gas giant with rocky core, for example, super Jupiter.

Nevertheless, the surrounding disk pulls a planet toward a star so the outer atmosphere of the planet is pulled and disturbed by the star. Thus, before a planet completes its formation, almost all of its atmosphere is stolen. What is left is the rocky core and a thin layer of atmosphere since it is more dense. The left over rocky core should be very similar to rocky planets that we known of. It could have a mass from zero to 10 times of Earth mass.

After that, a planet can continues its journey toward the star or drifts away into a place called habitable zone (places where liquid water can exist on a surface of a planet) which is unique for each star. Those stars orbit in the habitable zone have a great likelihood of having living organisms.


http://ay20-mee.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/ ... anets.html

I don't think we can really exclude this new theory, to be honest. I am of the view that the EU needs a new theory of planetary formation because I cannot see how something such as Jupiter (for example) could give birth to planetary objects via sudden discharging. The atmospheric composition is virtually all made up of helium and hydrogen with trace gases making up a tiny percentage. The upper portion of the atmosphere is likely to be where the greatest degree of ionization lies and if such bodies ever did "nova" then the ejections would be of the conductive plasma and hence very light elements. This would form a sort of mini nebula made of cooling glowing gas. Recombination of the plasma into water and oxygen may well take place, and there may be some trace dust included. But no significant heavy elements. Even if the nova was powerful enough to conduct through the outer plasma into the center of the gas giant the solid material would disintegrate due to the very rapid drop in pressure with altitude. Therefore, I think while nova elements can occur in virtually any star of varying ages - they are more likely to simply give birth to other stars that eventually recombine into gaseous giants of lower ionized hydrogen and helium which eventually lose their thick atmospheres and unveil their solid cores. Asteroids and moons, on the other hand - may well be the result of either planetary collisions or, more likely - the electrical discharge machining of rocky bodies via highly elliptical orbits.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:12 am

I don't think stars form ANY elements.

Element formation comes from pulsars dying (galactic birth). We can see this process of charge separation happening in the bi- polar outflows from Hercules A.

The entire FUSION dogma is wrong. Elements do not stick together to make heavier elements. That is the same mentality of alchemy, still alive in the 21st century. Strangeness.

The entire view of what elements REALLY are is still unknown as of July 25, 2013. They are just brushed off as being "discrete bits of matter", which by far is a circular definition. What is matter made of? Matter? See what I mean? If anything the "element" patterns we see are not matter bits and pieces they are patterns of electromagnetic interaction. We can only know the elements by their properties, not by what they are "made of". Nobody has ever counted the electrons, protons, neutrons swimming about in an "atom" because it is myth. Nature operates much more elegantly than that. Billard ball model is false dogma.

Stellar metamorphosis has a long way to go, but this is a main avenue of approach. WE can not look at reality as being billiard balls like our ancestors did. As well, we much look at reality as being emergent, NOT intrinsic bits of matter. What we can experiment on is a manifestation of properties of reality itself, not intrinsic bits of matter that act according to ad hoc math formulas!
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:52 pm

http://ccosmology.blogspot.com/2013/05/ ... hosis.html

This is a post on a blog a friend of mine named Nicholas made. It overviews it, not completely but gets the main idea down in a different way so that confusion can be cleared up in different avenues. It's really not complicated to understand at all. A star is a new planet, and a planet is an aging star. Nick gets it, and he's not even a professional astronomer!
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:41 pm

I wrote up a quick paper explaining why lava is so hot. It is still ionized from earlier stages of metamorphosis. Earth is a cooling star that is combining elements together to make rocks. 8-) Just like all the other cooling, shrinking, neutralizing stars.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1307.0158v1.pdf

Electric Universe people don't like rocks because they are neutralized matter. They are not plasma. Yet they get walked on every single day and are ignored. Why? Because people have the greatest understanding right beneath their feet but their heads are in the clouds. :oops:
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:07 pm

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/E ... nload/4571

I put the Ockham's Razor definition for planet and star in the general science journal back in 2012 which is about the same time I started this thread. I'm trying to let the EU people see this but it's whatever. I'm starting not to care anymore, I will just post updates to the theory on here.

As well I have placed for the record the understanding or shall I say, false understanding of the establishment.

:twisted: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/E ... nload/4569 :twisted:
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
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 1 guest

cron