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 Jan 06, 2018 9:33 pm

Electro wrote:Anyway, let's forget dusty plasmas and especially accretion. The latter is simply ludicrous.

Jeffrey,

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.


Yea, stars are dissipative systems in GTSM.

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.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:32 pm

Well, the conductor is plasma streams. Current is not free flowing in empty space. That would be like saying light is a wave. But a wave is not a thing. It's what something does! So plasma is the electrical cord. Plasma is an excellent conductor and is believed to account for 99.999% of the visible Universe. That is now accepted by Mainstream. As for the generator, it's like asking about God. I don't believe we'll ever know the answer. But when you think about it, electricity is everywhere, from the subatomic to the macro level.

I know EU does not see planets as the end product of a star's life. But, it does at least agree that planets come fron within stars. It's a start. And besides, apart from the gravity driven Universe, what else could it be? We know gravity calls for ad hoc theories to make the hundred year old completely outdated assumptions work. Gravity is certainly not the main driving force of the Universe. It doesn't make any sense. It cannot account for the giant structures we see in space.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:20 pm

Electro wrote:Well, the conductor is plasma streams. Current is not free flowing in empty space. That would be like saying light is a wave. But a wave is not a thing. It's what something does! So plasma is the electrical cord. Plasma is an excellent conductor and is believed to account for 99.999% of the visible Universe. That is now accepted by Mainstream. As for the generator, it's like asking about God. I don't believe we'll ever know the answer. But when you think about it, electricity is everywhere, from the subatomic to the macro level.

I know EU does not see planets as the end product of a star's life. But, it does at least agree that planets come fron within stars. It's a start. And besides, apart from the gravity driven Universe, what else could it be? We know gravity calls for ad hoc theories to make the hundred year old completely outdated assumptions work. Gravity is certainly not the main driving force of the Universe. It doesn't make any sense. It cannot account for the giant structures we see in space.


If plasma streams conduct electricity, why is plasma coming out of the Sun and not into it? The solar wind only goes in one direction, away from the Sun.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Cargo » Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:23 pm

More "Wind"? I guess some will never learn.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:35 am

Cargo wrote:More "Wind"? I guess some will never learn.


Cargo, if you do not believe in a plasma universe (or EU), what exactly are you doing on this forum? This is not the place for mainstream religion.

Do you believe the sun is a nuclear reactor? If not, then what powers the sun? If it's a simple dissipative system, can it really sustain itself for billions or millions or even thousands of years in the cold vacuum of empty space? Surely, there would be much more coming out of the sun than coming in. Stars would not last so long. They would lose matter and shrink much faster.

And in your opinion, how do stars form? From magical collapsing gas clouds? Plasma cosmology proposes the z-pinch, which can at least be demonstrated in the lab. Haven't seen a collapsing gas cloud initiating thermonuclear reactions in the lab yet.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:48 am

Electro wrote:
Cargo wrote:More "Wind"? I guess some will never learn.


Cargo, if you do not believe in a plasma universe (or EU), what exactly are you doing on this forum? This is not the place for mainstream religion.

Do you believe the sun is a nuclear reactor? If not, then what powers the sun? If it's a simple dissipative system, can it really sustain itself for billions or millions or even thousands of years in the cold vacuum of empty space? Surely, there would be much more coming out of the sun than coming in. Stars would not last so long. They would lose matter and shrink much faster.

And in your opinion, how do stars form? From magical collapsing gas clouds? Plasma cosmology proposes the z-pinch, which can at least be demonstrated in the lab. Haven't seen a collapsing gas cloud initiating thermonuclear reactions in the lab yet.


Hi Electro,

Cargo meant that 'wind' is used by mainstream scientists to describe the solar discharge, it is not a wind, it is a plasma accelerated by an electrical field. Don Scott has some excellent electrical explanations for this.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:56 am

D_Archer wrote:
Electro wrote:
Cargo wrote:More "Wind"? I guess some will never learn.


Cargo, if you do not believe in a plasma universe (or EU), what exactly are you doing on this forum? This is not the place for mainstream religion.

Do you believe the sun is a nuclear reactor? If not, then what powers the sun? If it's a simple dissipative system, can it really sustain itself for billions or millions or even thousands of years in the cold vacuum of empty space? Surely, there would be much more coming out of the sun than coming in. Stars would not last so long. They would lose matter and shrink much faster.

And in your opinion, how do stars form? From magical collapsing gas clouds? Plasma cosmology proposes the z-pinch, which can at least be demonstrated in the lab. Haven't seen a collapsing gas cloud initiating thermonuclear reactions in the lab yet.


Hi Electro,

Cargo meant that 'wind' is used by mainstream scientists to describe the solar discharge, it is not a wind, it is a plasma accelerated by an electrical field. Don Scott has some excellent electrical explanations for this.

Regards,
Daniel


Oops! If that is what Cargo meant, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Haven't had my coffee this morning... I feel pretty dumb right now. :oops:
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:02 am

Daniel, could you please point me to these explanations from Don Scott? I have a lot of respect for the man.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:13 am

D_Archer wrote:
Electro wrote:
Cargo wrote:More "Wind"? I guess some will never learn.


Cargo, if you do not believe in a plasma universe (or EU), what exactly are you doing on this forum? This is not the place for mainstream religion.

Do you believe the sun is a nuclear reactor? If not, then what powers the sun? If it's a simple dissipative system, can it really sustain itself for billions or millions or even thousands of years in the cold vacuum of empty space? Surely, there would be much more coming out of the sun than coming in. Stars would not last so long. They would lose matter and shrink much faster.

And in your opinion, how do stars form? From magical collapsing gas clouds? Plasma cosmology proposes the z-pinch, which can at least be demonstrated in the lab. Haven't seen a collapsing gas cloud initiating thermonuclear reactions in the lab yet.


Hi Electro,

Cargo meant that 'wind' is used by mainstream scientists to describe the solar discharge, it is not a wind, it is a plasma accelerated by an electrical field. Don Scott has some excellent electrical explanations for this.

Regards,
Daniel


Okay, that is fine. A plasma accelerated by an electrical field. Though I am wondering, if the Sun is electrically powered, then why are all the charged particles moving out of the Sun and not towards it?

This is very important because it means that via the conservation of mass, if something loses mass, then it becomes less massive. Since the charged particles are not replenished, they are all moving away from the Sun, not towards it, then it means the Sun is becoming less massive, which is predicted by GTSM.

The Sun is now a G2V star. It will become a G3V and then a G4V for its next stages of evolution.

This is impossible in EU, because they do not have stars evolving.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:35 am

In EU, there's no reason for electrical input to be stable for billions of years. The current density could very slowly be fading out, therefore with the stars evolving just like in GTSM. If the sun was losing mass and energy with no input ever, I seriously doubt it would take billions or even thousands of years for it to "burn" out. Even in a dissipative system, I don't believe the matter input from the environment could be sufficient enough to sustain a star for so long. I'm not questioning dissipative system theory, only the time frame that is in my opinion unrealistic.

And what if currents died out suddenly? What would happen to the star? Perhaps that could be when real cooling occurs? Just saying. Evolution/cooling towards a planet could be much faster than you think, but only after cutting off the power?
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:15 am

Electro wrote:In EU, there's no reason for electrical input to be stable for billions of years. The current density could very slowly be fading out, therefore with the stars evolving just like in GTSM. If the sun was losing mass and energy with no input ever, I seriously doubt it would take billions or even thousands of years for it to "burn" out. Even in a dissipative system, I don't believe the matter input from the environment could be sufficient enough to sustain a star for so long. I'm not questioning dissipative system theory, only the time frame that is in my opinion unrealistic.

And what if currents died out suddenly? What would happen to the star? Perhaps that could be when real cooling occurs? Just saying. Evolution/cooling towards a planet could be much faster than you think, but only after cutting off the power?


That's why I'm saying, there is no fear of it dying out suddenly. For the Sun to die out suddenly all of its mass would need to be lost as well, and the gravitational field of the star is so strong the mass can only be lost slowly.

I think it takes extreme amounts of time for the star to evolve. The younger stages do happen quicker though because the rate of mass loss/energy loss is so high. It slowly down exponentially, meaning the younger the star, the faster it reaches the next stages, and the older the star the more stable and less energetic it is.

Conceptually though, 1 million years is a very, very long time, yet compared to stellar evolution it is a heartbeat. So if you think about it, the young stars DO in fact suddenly die out as compared to their older companions. Think of it like this, what would tree growth look like from a rocks perspective? Trees would look like they explode out of the ground, but from our perspective they look unchanging. The same goes for stars in various stages to evolution. From our perspective they are unchanging and stable, but if you speed up time, the younger stages really ARE sudden.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:54 am

If a z-pinch was a short-lived event only seen at star birth, would we be seeing such structures for very long?

Image
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:04 pm

Electro wrote:If a z-pinch was a short-lived event only seen at star birth, would we be seeing such structures for very long?

Image


A structure that remains stable for 100,000 years relative to how long it takes a star to evolve is short lived.

Yet, from our perspective 100,000 years is an eternity.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:24 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:If a z-pinch was a short-lived event only seen at star birth, would we be seeing such structures for very long?

Image


A structure that remains stable for 100,000 years relative to how long it takes a star to evolve is short lived.

Yet, from our perspective 100,000 years is an eternity.


That's why I propose that the real cooling and metamorphosis of a star begins when the input current is cut off for some reason. This cooling period might take a long while as well, but not seen in stars in arc mode, like our sun. A red dwarf for instance, or a brown dwarf, could be "turned off" and well into cooling stage?
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:42 pm

Electro wrote:
That's why I propose that the real cooling and metamorphosis of a star begins when the input current is cut off for some reason. This cooling period might take a long while as well, but not seen in stars in arc mode, like our sun. A red dwarf for instance, or a brown dwarf, could be "turned off" and well into cooling stage?


I think it would be wiser to propose that there is no "input current", there is just an area where feedback mechanisms are present to allow for a cloud to heat itself up, such as a location of large scale charge separation, as is extremely similar to ball lightning and its formation mechanisms. Only the ball lightning (the star) is so large, that it has feedback mechanisms to keep it stable for extremely long periods of time. Ball lightning is so small in Earth's atmosphere that they dissipate extremely fast.

I wrote that young stars are giant ball lightning back in 2013 (four years ago, hard to believe!)http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0053v1.pdf

So the idea of what causes its power source to be cut off is a problem that never needed to be asked to begin with, there is no input current being cut off, because the input current never existed, the star is an independent structure.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v1.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1856
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