Yea, stars are dissipative systems in GTSM.Electro wrote:Anyway, let's forget dusty plasmas and especially accretion. The latter is simply ludicrous.
Been reading a lot on Electric Universe theory lately. Not that I do not agree with GTSM, on the contrary, but, I needed to consider a larger picture of the Universe. A complete cosmology. To me, there's no doubt in my mind the Universe is electric. Even GTSM agrees with electric star formation at least.
As you've mentioned a few times, EU, unfortunately, does not say much about planet formation. However, it does assert that planets come from stars, their cores specifically. But, EU gives very few details about the precise process of planet formation within a star. It does mention Marklund Convection and electrosratic deposition as an explanation for the different layers in planets, but that's about as far as it will go. It has stars or brown dwarfs spitting out gas giants, and gas giants spitting out rocky planets. But, no real explanation for the mechanisms involved in such ejections. EU sees Venus as a very young planet, one of Saturn's babies... Seems to me GTSM is the answer. It would complete the EU theory nicely with details it desperately needs. Heavy elements are fused in the photosphere of stars, and then redistributed inside by Marklund Convection and ionization potentials. Electrostatic deposition then forms the different layers of the core.
The use of mythology, in my opinion, as well as catastrophism à la Velikovsky, has for certain been detrimental to EU's acceptance in the scientific community. The Electric Universe theory certainly didn't need mythology to make its point. Intelligent man appeared around 50 000 years ago. It would be quite unlikely that our solar system would have known a radical rearrangement during that short period, and we know Venus is a lot older than that. It doesn't even have a magnetic field!
That being said, I still believe EU has a much better understanding of what is really going on in our Universe than mainstream astronomers. I also believe electrical star birth and evolution theory would benefit from both EU and GTSM together. So, Jeffrey, have you ever considered contacting Wal Thornhill or David Talbott and perhaps offering some kind of "partnership"? It would probably mean abandoning the idea of stars being simple dissipative systems without any external power supply. Like EU, I do not believe there are islands in empty space. If a star is not internally powered by nuclear fusion, it has to come from the outside! Everything seems to be connected electrically, the stars being transistors, and galaxy cores being plasmoids. Evidence for these giant galactic filaments, or plasma streams, or Birkland currents is being discovered by mainstream astronomers on a regular basis. Same for electromagnetic phenomena in galaxies and galaxy jets. At least, we have to consider Plasma Cosmology, where EU finds its origins.
They have stars being "powered" because they do not have them evolving.
In GTSM stars evolve, in EU they do not evolve...
Thus, in EU there are two mutually exclusive objects just like in establishment.
There's no way they can be reconciled. They are completely different worldviews.
EU needs to get to the brass tacks of planet formation. I tried to help, but alas, it is no use. They have a different worldview.
Not only that, but there are simple, serious objections that even laymen can ask of EU such as if the stars are electrically powered, where is the electrical generator? How does the electric current get to the star without a conductor? Outer space is mostly vacuum. Not only that, but why are they observed to cool and shrink and differentiate their interiors if they do not evolve as proposed by EU? Clearly we have found literally thousands of stars in various stages of evolution, yet EU still calls them "planets".
The list is endless.