The Fissioning Process of Stars

[john666]

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?

Ocean planets sounds even better.
When you mentioned oceans, it came to me, that there is another indirect way to prove that Earth fissioned from Saturn.
Namely, Saturn's rings are 99.9 percent made of water, and they are the only object in the Solar system that is made of water, in such high concentration.
On the other hand, water on the Earth, is the only water mass, known to exist on the surface of any of the Solar system's planetoids.

[dougettinger]

Hello John666 and others,

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

Pretty please, don't mention those words around these parts. Writing those words is swearing and heresy.

But you did open Pandora's Box by now asking what created the first stars. So let us look inside. What did create the first stars? Is there anything wrong with taking pieces of the puzzle and trying to assemble them into a model. Among some of the major pieces of the puzzle are -

1. The periodic table of elements.
2. The list of most abundant molecules on the solar system's planets.
3. The arrangements of galaxies and star systems.
4. The standard model of elementary particles.
5. The stars of various sizes and colors and distances from Earth.
6. The galaxies of various sizes and colors and distances from Earth.
7. The physical laws of mechanics and electromagnetics.

Take your own best shot or read about other's who have taken their best shot. The model that builds all the elements is very impressive; it is difficult to improve this model. Of course, the modelers had to deal with the simplest of elements (atomic nuclei): H, He, Li, and Be firstly. The first things do come first in the scale of time as envisioned by man; there is no other type of time for man. Give it your best shot. If you do not have your own model then never criticize the models of someone else. So now is the time to ask yourself, what created the first stars. Be careful for you may verge on heresy.

Always a student,
Douglas Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[john666]

"dougettinger",

The way you responded to me, makes me think that you believe that either the first stars were and are eternal, or that they were created by God, in an instant.
If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

As far as I am concerned, I think that the stars are being created in nebulae.

[Sparky]

If you do not have your own model then never criticize the models of someone else.

That seems to be a nonsense argument. First off, it is possible to see errors in a model without being able to correct the model. The standard models are examples of that.
And, a model is not related directly with reality, so reality may be so far from what the model is attempting that no corrections could fix it.

FIRST STAR considerations:
1. The periodic table of elements.
2. The list of most abundant molecules on the solar system's planets.
3. The arrangements of galaxies and star systems.
4. The standard model of elementary particles.
5. The stars of various sizes and colors and distances from Earth.
6. The galaxies of various sizes and colors and distances from Earth.
7. The physical laws of mechanics and electromagnetics.

1. - 7: No need to consider. 4. I guess needing to know about ions would be helpful.
The most scientific position to take would be , we don't know and never will...
The first stars assembled just as they do now, from z-pinches in the birkeland currents running through the universe's plasma. Electricity: Moving charges!

[dougettinger]

Hello Sparky,

FIRST STAR considerations:
1. The periodic table of elements.
2. The list of most abundant molecules on the solar system's planets.
3. The arrangements of galaxies and star systems.
4. The standard model of elementary particles.
5. The stars of various sizes and colors and distances from Earth.
6. The galaxies of various sizes and colors and distances from Earth.
7. The physical laws of mechanics and electromagnetics.

1. - 7: No need to consider. 4. I guess needing to know about ions would be helpful.
The most scientific position to take would be , we don't know and never will...
The first stars assembled just as they do now, from z-pinches in the birkeland currents running through the universe's plasma. Electricity: Moving charges! quoted by Sparky

I sense that you have taken a scientific position: that is of first stars being formed by z-pinches in Birkeland currents running through the universe's plasma that has no beginning or end.

And voila, strings of stars form; and voila, strings of galaxies form; and voila, all the elements are formed at z-pinches with a favoring of hydrogen and helium; and voila, and voila, the most favored elements and molecules are formed for the planets and their moons; and voila, the planets and moons are arranged in similar orbital and spin vectors. VOILA !

Scientifically, your hard fast position does not seem so satisfying. Once upon a time, there was no B_ _ B _ _ _, but only plasma that went berserk. And ,we don't know and will never know why.

Anyway, I am willing to accept numerous versions including yours - only if they can supply a string of answers that gets us to this time and place from another distant place and an earlier time. I really, really like science.

Always a student,
Douglas Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[jacmac]

Doug,

Your question about the first stars assumes a time when there were no stars. What is the basis for that assumption? You seem to fault E/U for having no answers to a Big Beginning question. Do I have that part right?

Jack

[dougettinger]

Hello Jacmac,

I am not a fanatical, absolute believer in any beginning. Everything is probably cyclical. But nothing is wrong with trying to go farther into the past. There is nothing wrong with asking how the first stars were created assuming that stars produced most of the elements and molecules of this universe and created other stars.

If certain scientists build a model that takes them beyond the first stars, I applaud them. And, everyone else is welcome to build their own model if so inclined.

Always a student,
Douglas Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[D_Archer]

Back to Fissioning.

There are currently no observations of this process happening in the cosmos. It is only assumed by EU to be a "likely" process and only based on mainstream "observations" that there are close orbiting stars (which i doubt).

In a Z-Pinch only 1 plasmoid is formed in the center, i have never seen or read about experiments where 2 form or 1 splits...

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

Back to Fissioning.

There are currently no observations of this process happening in the cosmos. It is only assumed by EU to be a "likely" process and only based on mainstream "observations" that there are close orbiting stars (which i doubt).

In a Z-Pinch only 1 plasmoid is formed in the center, i have never seen or read about experiments where 2 form or 1 splits...

As far as assumptions and the "likely" process goes, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a theory that needs to be evaluated in the context of the reinterpretation of the observations. If future observations falsify it, well that it is the process of science. So far the theory is viable and has explanatory power better than it's competitors, that is my opinion.

Have you read pages 157-159 of The Electric Sky? where Scott describes the fissioning mechanism and gives some examples which seem to fit the model. Obviously it would be nice to observe the described process "in the act" (though preferably not in this solar system.) That may very well happen in the near future as observational techniques are perfected and refined. Nova type events occur frequently throughout the observable galactic neighborhood and these usually involve double stars. Whether the close companion is part of the cause of the nova event or the result, remains to be seen. Maybe some time in the future a known single star will be observed to go nova and afterward a companion will be observed, it is possible that may have already taken place although that will require further research.

Stars with close orbiting companions and/or hot Jupiters are fairly common, considering that many are known; even though it requires a near perfect alignment between the component stars/gas giant and the Earth. It is fair to assume that there are many more that elude detection because they are not aligned with the Earth's viewpoint. Hot Jupiters and close orbiting binary stars are a fairly common component of the galaxy's stellar menagerie.

Mainstream's methodology is sound and there is no reason for the EU to dispute that. It is the theoretical interpetation (fusion model/big bang/etc. etc.) of the observations that is contested by the EU.

The light curves are explained by one or more companions.
see: Light Curve for Eclipsing Binaries
A newly discovered eclipsing multiple binary:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog ... ar-AAcIVrN
This type of star is probably a candidate for a recent fissioning event. Now does that mean it happened last week? No, it could have been several or more thousand years ago. We are not sure of the timescales involved but they are most certainly vast when compared to a human lifetime.

It is a fact that the Sun and other stars periodically expel material, this has been observed. While CME's are not fissioning or planetary birthing events, they are a case of matter being ejected from the star albeit on a much smaller scale. More on scalability below...

Fissioning events have been observed on cometary bodies, as these electrical/plasma events are scalable; there is no reason that this should not also occur on the stellar scale, given the same type of electrical conditions causing stress on the parent body...whether that is a star or smaller body such as a comet. The scalability of plasma phenomena was established by Alfven and is a lynch pin of the EU model. We think of comets as being small rocks. But the word "comet" in the EU does not describe a type of object but is rather a description of an electrical condition. A comet can be planet or star sized given the appropriate electrical environment. Indeed, examples of each of these have already been discovered:
Neptune Sized Planet Masquerading as a Comet
A Star With A Comet's Tail

If one accepts the scalability premise, and I do, then it follows that fissioning of celestial objects will occur if the ambient electrical/plasma environment is overly stressing the object in question. Perhaps the scalability issue is really the bone of contention that EU opponents should be addressing. But that is probably best done on another thread. I have not checked, but there may already be such a thread buried somewhere in the pages of this board.


[As a preemptive note.... any dispute of the reality of binary stars or related topics should not be discussed on this thread or on the Electric Universe board as that is not an EU related topic (see the Forum Rules and Guidelines). We have a board that provides a venue for such topics (NIAMI).]

[comingfrom]

What if we think of stars, and their systems, as being products of magnetic fields, rather than being the producers of other products.

If enough matter is dragged into a magnetic knot, or pinch, to be concentrated to a certain density and energy, a glow forms. If yet more matter is concentrated in, then arcing will occur. If the situation stabilizes, a constant sphere of arcing results, and so you have photosphere.

Now suppose we have our arcing photsphere and a dense source of matter joins the currents in the magnetic field towards the photoshere, like a current surge.

The surface area of the photosphere is unable to contain the extra load, and explosions occur, and matter is ejected. The magnetic field which created the star also provides the angular momentum, while the dense cloud of plasma condenses, and most of it's atoms neutralize, and it forms into a planetary body, and is stabilized into an orbit by the same magnetic field.

~~~`
And thank you all, for your thought provoking contributions.
`Paul

[Robertus Maximus]

‘Current protoplanetary dust coagulation theory does not predict dry silicate planetesimals, in tension with the Earth. While remedies to this predicament have been proposed, they have generally failed numerical studies, or are in tension with the Earth's (low, volatility dependent) volatile and moderately volatile elemental abundances.’

Quite an admission- current theories of planet formation don’t work. Will this latest study go some way to correct that?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... young-sun/

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.38 ... 213/aa6dae

Although the researchers are still wedded to the accretion model at least a ‘flare-up’ is acknowledged, how long will it take for consensus science to make the next step and to suggest that stellar companions are formed by a fissioning process?

[D_Archer]

What if we think of stars, and their systems, as being products of magnetic fields, rather than being the producers of other products.

If enough matter is dragged into a magnetic knot, or pinch, to be concentrated to a certain density and energy, a glow forms. If yet more matter is concentrated in, then arcing will occur. If the situation stabilizes, a constant sphere of arcing results, and so you have photosphere.

Now suppose we have our arcing photsphere and a dense source of matter joins the currents in the magnetic field towards the photoshere, like a current surge.

The surface area of the photosphere is unable to contain the extra load, and explosions occur, and matter is ejected. The magnetic field which created the star also provides the angular momentum, while the dense cloud of plasma condenses, and most of it's atoms neutralize, and it forms into a planetary body, and is stabilized into an orbit by the same magnetic field.

~~~`
And thank you all, for your thought provoking contributions.
`Paul

Hi Paul,

A surge would be happenstance, this would mean any 'planets' that form from a z-pinch are 'lucky', but nature does not work this way. We need natural processes.

I think we should marry EU stellar birthing with GTSM, then we have 2 natural processes, 1 for astron birth and 1 for the evolution of an astron.

Both EU and GTSM acknowledge astron capture as a viable method to form solar systems, capture would also be another natural process, a hot young astron will capture older/colder astrons.

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

I think we should marry EU stellar birthing with GTSM, then we have 2 natural processes, 1 for astron birth and 1 for the evolution of an astron.

That is not an appropriate topic for the 'Electric Universe' board.

[D_Archer]

I think we should marry EU stellar birthing with GTSM, then we have 2 natural processes, 1 for astron birth and 1 for the evolution of an astron.

That is not an appropriate topic for the 'Electric Universe' board.

Oki, i will make a new thread for this in Niami in a while.

ps. GTSM has stellar birthing represented exactly as in EU (with a Z-Pinch) so i thought it was a valid suggestion as a counter to this 'fissioning' stuff.

pss. Fissioning in EU should really be looked at by its proponents, it is suggested too casually in TPODs etc when there is no actual evidence at all. This thread shows there is nothing really to substantiate this 'fissioning'.

Regards,
Daniel

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Daniel.

Solar Flares are your average observable "garden variety" fissioning process.

When a large flare and CME occurs, a huge spinning ball of plasma is ejected from the Sun.
I hypothesize, that when a critical mass/energy level is ejected, that such a CME will form into a celestial body.

And after celestial bodies form they draw in currents from their parent star's emitting field and grow.
~Paul