The Fissioning Process of Stars

[dougettinger]

Hello Forum,

I have studied Thornhill's ideas about one star fissioning into two stars or one star creating its own gas planet or dwarf due to the star reducing electrical stresses. Questions do arise about this miraculous process. If some of the answers are not known or in limbo, just state that status.

1. Does the material for the second body eject from the polar region or the equatorial region or either?

2. Where does the angular momentum come from to provide the fast orbit for the second smaller body or an equal sized body?

3. Is this concept correct? The smaller the second body, the farther it can be ejected into an orbit. How do some binaries have large separation distances?

4. In the case of Jupiter did the planet fission to produce its four major moons? And if so, did this event occur at one time?

5. In the case of the rocky terrestrial planets, were they normally ejected from gas planets? Did their iron cores come from the iron cores of the gas planets?

6. Does EU have any proposed evolution of the Sun's planetary system? I realize that the proto-Saturn system combined with the Sun's system. When this event occurred where was Jupiter and the ice giants? How were these planets formed? Why are the outer planets divided into gas and ice giants?

7. Where does and when does nucleosynthesis occur during the star system production? I know the answer involves z-pinches, but when and where.

8. How did the very first stars develop?

Please be brief or reference one of your presentations. I am trying to grapple with the proto-Saturn and star fission process.

Always a student,
Douglas Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[john666]

Hello dougettinger.

Let me give you my own view, on the issues that you mentioned.

1.From the equatorial region.

2.The "parent body", must eject the other body with great force, otherwise the other body would remain inside the "parent body".

3.I think that this concept is correct, however, if you you are speaking about binaries as being stars, you would be in the wrong. Stars do not create other stars, but only giant planets(liquid).

4.It did fission them, but the process was "one after the other".

5.The rocky terrestrial planets were ejected from giants, but I think that the correct designation for the giants is not "gas planets", but liquid planets, or liquid giants. Namely these planets are made of liquids, and not of gas.
As for the iron cores, we actually do not know whether the terrestrial planets have cores or not, but I think that before the ejection, the "rocky objects", were the cores, of the giants.

6.As far as this issue is concerned, my own views differ very much from the views of most EU proponents.
I think that all the giants of the Solar system, were "birthed" by our Sun.
The reason why many in the EU community, falsely think that Saturn was an "outsider", to the Solar system, is because they put too much faith into Dwardu Cardona, and his "interpretation" of events.
As for the reason behind the division between bigger and smaller liquid giants, I have a "very controversial theory", for this.
I think that in the not so distant past, there was a battle between Saturn and Neptune "alliance" on one side, and Jupiter,Uranus and Planet X "alliance", on the other side.
You see, I think that all the planets are living beings, with emotions, and that there was a certain "emotional imbalance", between the two confronted sides, that ended in a war.
The asteroid belt is the remnant of the Planet X core, and Ceres was a terrestrial planet of Planet X.
The Great Red Spot was a place at which Saturn with its godlike thunderbolt, impaled Jupiter, and almost ended his life, like he ended the life of Planet X.
I think that Saturn had the strength and the will to kill Jupiter, but was stopped in his godlike endeavor, by the massive photon discharge of the Sun!
The reason why there is division between bigger and smaller liquid giants, is because the charge fields of Neptune and Uranus - then, as well as now - are much weaker from the Saturn's and Jupiter's charge fields, and were therefore able to offer much less resistance, to the photon discharge, which is precisely why they were pushed much further into the space(relative to the Sun).
The reason why the charge fields Neptune and Uranus, are weaker than those of Saturn and Jupiter, is because they are much smaller, and therefore can not recycle as many photons.

[Sparky]

Stars do not create other stars, but only giant planets(liquid).

Do you have insight that we are not aware of? The fission model does produce other stars, depending on the local electrical stress. It could also produce a scattering of matter. We don't know. It is evidence based speculation. When we see binary stars, it could be evidence of fissioning. When we see two stars so close that matter is being transferred between them, that may be even stronger evidence of fissioning.

And do you have documentation that suggests a liquid over a gas planet?

[john666]

Stars do not create other stars, but only giant planets(liquid).

Do you have insight that we are not aware of? The fission model does produce other stars, depending on the local electrical stress. It could also produce a scattering of matter. We don't know. It is evidence based speculation. When we see binary stars, it could be evidence of fissioning. When we see two stars so close that matter is being transferred between them, that may be even stronger evidence of fissioning.

And do you have documentation that suggests a liquid over a gas planet?

Many of the celestial objects that we register as stars, may be giant planets, who have "only recently" came out from their "parent star", and therefore appear more luminous, than they will appear in the future, when they will drift further from their "parent star".

As for the giant planets being liquid and not gas, even mainstream science says that they are "fluid" - which is nothing more, but a "fancy" word for liquid - but they "twist" this fact with their convoluted logic, so as to mean that they are "somehow gaseous". But they are not gaseous. They are liquid.
The best way in which you can see this for yourself, is if you look at the video of storms on Jupiter, in real time.
If you look at that video, you will see that the storms move - for want of a better word - as an ocean during stormy weather, if looked from above.

[Sparky]

http://www.universetoday.com/110205/ast ... tar-known/
http://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso1409a/

The best we can do at this point in time...

[dougettinger]

Hello Forum and experts on the fission of stars,

I seems that this fissioning process is one of EU's weakest claims. No experiments and no astronomical observations support this claim. Herbig-Haro (HH) objects are ejected from the polar regions of proto-stars under certain conditions. And, these HH objects are only observed at distances of light years from the star. Also, no calculations or computer simulation support such claims. How would any objects in polar alignment possibly align themselves in an equatorial plane in the same orbital and same spin vectors?

Any fission theory has the same problems that theorists had when such a process was suggested for the Sun providing the materials for its own planets many years ago.

1. The necessary angular momentum is not available even if another passing star pulled away materials on the surface.
2. There is no mechanism for the compositions differing significantly from the present composition of the Sun.
3. There is no mechanism for the compositions differing between the various planets.
4. For the tidal-pull or fission process to work, two unrelated processes, stellar formation and close approach of another star, need to occur very close in time which is very unlikely.
5. Some EU proponents suggested that a part of the core was ejected due to electrical stresses without destroying the star. Such a claim presently has no basis unless this process is a supernova.
6. The fatal problem is that the ejected filament of material would dispersed rather than condense into planetisimals, let alone planets. Due to gravitational reasons only, any planets would have to form with about 4 solar radii; Mercury lies at 60 solar radii.
7. The abundances of deuterium and lithium are highly depleted in the Sun due to thermonuclear reactions, but are present at cosmic abundance levels in the planets. The material now in the planets could not have been resident in the Sun for any extended period.

Both the EU model and the nebular hypothesis have serious issues about the formation of our solar system and other star systems. My personal ideas are that supernovae seed the galactic environment with highly magnetic spinning iron orbs that attract other electrically charged plasma to form various sizes of cosmic bodies. The iron orbs form quickly after being ejected from the core during the final explosion of a supernova progenitor star. Other materials that electrically and magnetically gather around these orbs came from previous explosions of surface materials on the SN progenitor star and nearby molecular clouds. See EttingerJournals.com / Supernova Seeding Hypothesis.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[viscount aero]

Stars do not create other stars, but only giant planets(liquid).

Do you have insight that we are not aware of? The fission model does produce other stars, depending on the local electrical stress. It could also produce a scattering of matter. We don't know. It is evidence based speculation. When we see binary stars, it could be evidence of fissioning. When we see two stars so close that matter is being transferred between them, that may be even stronger evidence of fissioning.

And do you have documentation that suggests a liquid over a gas planet?

Many of the celestial objects that we register as stars, may be giant planets, who have "only recently" came out from their "parent star", and therefore appear more luminous, than they will appear in the future, when they will drift further from their "parent star".

As for the giant planets being liquid and not gas, even mainstream science says that they are "fluid" - which is nothing more, but a "fancy" word for liquid - but they "twist" this fact with their convoluted logic, so as to mean that they are "somehow gaseous". But they are not gaseous. They are liquid.
The best way in which you can see this for yourself, is if you look at the video of storms on Jupiter, in real time.
If you look at that video, you will see that the storms move - for want of a better word - as an ocean during stormy weather, if looked from above.

You are onto something
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... erior.html

excerpt:

"Most of the interior of Jupiter is liquid (primarily hydrogen and about 10% helium). The central temperatures are thought to lie in the 13,000-35,000 degree Celsius range, and the central pressure is about 100 million Earth atmospheres. We infer indirectly that the small core (perhaps a few tens of Earth masses) is rocky.

Liquid Metallic Hydrogen

The inner layers of highly compressed hydrogen are in a state that has never been produced on the Earth. Normally, hydrogen does not conduct heat or electricity very well, which are defining characteristics for a metal. Thus, under normal conditions hydrogen is not a metal. Under the extreme pressure found deep inside Jupiter, theory suggests that the electrons are released from the hydrogen molecules and are free to move about the interior. This causes hydrogen to behave as a metal: it becomes conducting for both heat and electricity.

The intense magnetic field of Jupiter is thought to result from electrical currents in this region of metallic hydrogen that is spinning rapidly and thought to compose 75% of the planet's mass. We are limited in our understanding of Jupiter's interior by the fact that we have no laboratory knowledge of the behavior of hydrogen under such conditions and are forced to rely on theory. Conversely, the properties of Jupiter provide a stringent test of our understanding of matter under such extreme conditions."

[Sparky]

metallic hydrogen that is spinning rapidly and thought to compose 75% of the planet's mass.

So to be really precise, it is a metallic hydrogen planet?

[viscount aero]

metallic hydrogen that is spinning rapidly and thought to compose 75% of the planet's mass.

So to be really precise, it is a metallic hydrogen planet?

Be reminded, as you already know, that science uses "Metallic" in reference to a gas when the gas is electrically conductive, ie, a plasma. To add, they don't really know what is inside of Jupiter anymore than they know what is inside of the Earth. They think it is hydrogen.

Also, if Jupiter is only hydrogen, then why are there dramatic color variations in its layers and exterior banding? Why are there latitudinal demarcation zones and boundaries with vortices? If it was all hydrogen it ought be a homogenous, monochromatic, ball. But it's not.

[john666]

dougettinger, according to you, how did the stars form?

[john666]

Thank you Sparky and viscount aero, for the links that you gave.
As for the giant planets being liquid, and not gaseous, I also have to say the following.
I think that the reason mainstream science falsely claims, that the giants are "gas giants", is that, they don't want the people to realize the following things:

Stars are the biggest spheroid celestial objects, and they are the least dense. They are made of material that is in the gaseous state(plasma).
Giant planets are the second biggest spheroid celestial objects, and they are the second least dense. They are made of material that is in the liquid state.
Terrestrial planets are the third biggest spheroid celestial objects, and they are the third least dense. They are made of material that is in the solid state.

If the people would realize, the three above mentioned, simple facts, it would not be too long, before they would begin to "connect the dots", and the PTB that control mainstream science, don't want this to happen, because they don't want the people to be "too smart".
That is why the PTB use, Neuro-linguistic manipulation, and in that way, the giant planets, that are made of liquids, are actually not "liquid giants", but "gas giants", because - according to the following twisted logic - the materials, of which the giants are made would, IN THE EARTH ATMOSPHERE, be in the gaseous state!?!?!?!?
I think it's time, that we free ourselves from Neuro-linguistic manipulation.

[viscount aero]

Thank you Sparky and viscount aero, for the links that you gave.
As for the giant planets being liquid, and not gaseous, I also have to say the following.
I think that the reason mainstream science falsely claims, that the giants are "gas giants", is that, they don't want the people to realize the following things:

Stars are the biggest spheroid celestial objects, and they are the least dense. They are made of material that is in the gaseous state(plasma).
Giant planets are the second biggest spheroid celestial objects, and they are the second least dense. They are made of material that is in the liquid state.
Terrestrial planets are the third biggest spheroid celestial objects, and they are the third least dense. They are made of material that is in the solid state.

If the people would realize, the three above mentioned, simple facts, it would not be too long, before they would begin to "connect the dots", and the PTB that control mainstream science, don't want this to happen, because they don't want the people to be "too smart".
That is why the PTB use, Neuro-linguistic manipulation, and in that way, the giant planets, that are made of liquids, are actually not "liquid giants", but "gas giants", because - according to the following twisted logic - the materials, of which the giants are made would, IN THE EARTH ATMOSPHERE, be in the gaseous state!?!?!?!?
I think it's time, that we free ourselves from Neuro-linguistic manipulation.

Yes they are relating Hydrogen and Helium to gases within the Earth's climate. So they are using a Ptolemaic view of the solar system whereby everything must relate to and revolve around the Earth literally. Science is still prone to the Ptolemaic view. Therefore "gas giants" are referred to--confusing and misleading the reader as these planets are mostly liquid. Moreover, they use the sleight of hand "Metallic" to avert using the word "plasma state." I know it is scientific shorthand but it misleads the reader. If something "behaves like a metal as it becomes electrically conductive" then that is exactly a plasma. It's shorter and more accurate to just call it "plasma" but they don't.

For some reason the realization that Jupiter and the other Jovian planets are actually giant bodies of liquid in space, at cryogenic temperatures, is to be avoided in science. More appropriately the giant planets are ocean planets, not balls of gas.

This presents a big problem for core accretion theory: How do you get a vast and utterly huge ball of coalesced liquid and metallic hydrogen to accrete around a small rocky body/core--in essence forming a runaway ocean atmosphere on a colossal scale?

[Metryq]

in essence forming a runaway ocean atmosphere on a colossal scale?

"Runaway" effects are a staple in mainstream theories. Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. Black holes are runaway gravity wells. And the dish ran away with the spoon.

Oh, I forgot. There is no spoon.

[dougettinger]

Hello John666,

dougettinger, according to you, how did the stars form?

This question is moving away from the thread of the discussion, but I will briefly answer.

Any star including other celestial bodies such as planets and moons need a seed or highly magnetic spinning orb of material of high atomic number - preferably iron but no higher than iron. This seed magnetically and electrically gathers other charged plasma materials in its vicinity. A proto-disk of materials spin inward toward this seed creating high pressures and eventually temperatures that start thermonuclear reactions if the seed was large enough and the material gathered was sufficient. These seeds come from previous stars that generated higher atomic number elements in their cores that were then expelled in supernovae explosions. Prior to these seeds being expelled other lighter materials were ejected from the layers of the progenitor stars. These material are then collected around the expelled iron orbs that are expelled in the final explosion. See EttingerJournals.com / Supernova Seeding Hypothesis.

You might ask how the very first stars, called Population III stars, are created to produce stellar nucleosynthesis ( the synthesis of all the other elements from hydrogen and helium) and the first supernovae. Then you are asking about the beginning of beginnings. Do you want to venture to that time and place? I can help you if you are interested. Be very wary for you might go crazy. I'll give you a little quiz so you don't open Pandora's Box too far and fall in. Did the chicken or the egg come first? Did man or the human DNA come first? Did a galaxy or a star come first. Did a star or the elements come first? Did the atom or the quarks come first? Did plasma or the void come first? Does fusion or fission come first?

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[john666]

Hello dougettinger,

Hello John666,

dougettinger, according to you, how did the stars form?

This question is moving away from the thread of the discussion, but I will briefly answer.

Any star including other celestial bodies such as planets and moons need a seed or highly magnetic spinning orb of material of high atomic number - preferably iron but no higher than iron. This seed magnetically and electrically gathers other charged plasma materials in its vicinity. A proto-disk of materials spin inward toward this seed creating high pressures and eventually temperatures that start thermonuclear reactions if the seed was large enough and the material gathered was sufficient. These seeds come from previous stars that generated higher atomic number elements in their cores that were then expelled in supernovae explosions. Prior to these seeds being expelled other lighter materials were ejected from the layers of the progenitor stars. These material are then collected around the expelled iron orbs that are expelled in the final explosion. See EttingerJournals.com / Supernova Seeding Hypothesis.

You might ask how the very first stars, called Population III stars, are created to produce stellar nucleosynthesis ( the synthesis of all the other elements from hydrogen and helium) and the first supernovae. Then you are asking about the beginning of beginnings. Do you want to venture to that time and place? I can help you if you are interested. Be very wary for you might go crazy. I'll give you a little quiz so you don't open Pandora's Box too far and fall in. Did the chicken or the egg come first? Did man or the human DNA come first? Did a galaxy or a star come first. Did a star or the elements come first? Did the atom or the quarks come first? Did plasma or the void come first? Does fusion or fission come first?

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

So if I understand you correctly, you think that the Big Bang created the first stars?