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 toni » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:57 pm

JeffreyW

You are very right that everything evolves and it starts with every atom and up.
The best example would be the dinosaur and the plants in the beginning of earth's evolution.
Atoms were at their beginnings just like everything else, which is tubular or empty within.
The dinosaur were very fast for that reason, completely different from, for instance, the elephant
of today, where the atomic structure is at the carbon stage or solid core.
When you speak of the star though, I cannot agree with you. Stars are the seed of life throughout
the universe. Power comes in through the poles and is dissipated via the equators, in formation
of four rings. The rings condense in the cold space and form planets. Our sun today is in its prime,
a perfect sphere or carbon state of evolution and thereof the planets that would be formed with the
next outburst of energy will be at the carbon stage too. I reckon the sun is around 20 billion years
of age and if it goes through normal evolution, it will slowly disintegrate into cold space where it
came from. We have plenty of evidence throughout the universe to support this statment.
toni
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:31 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:33 am

toni wrote:JeffreyW

When you speak of the star though, I cannot agree with you. Stars are the seed of life throughout
the universe.


That's what the theory says. http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0272v1.pdf

First page #1: Life is formed from the energy of a single star's evolution.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:12 pm

Toni, planets are the end product of stars in the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis.

Planets formed from accreting rings of material could not acquire such complex structures and chemical compositions. Besides, in the vacuum of space, matter would not clump and acquire angular momentum. It would take magic.

20 billion years though, as you put it, would fit the whole process of stellar evolution nicely. A star evolving, cooling to red dwarf stage, then to brown dwarf, then to gas giant, then to rocky planet...
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:21 pm

Electro wrote:Besides, in the vacuum of space, matter would not clump and acquire angular momentum. It would take magic.


Yes, because angular momentum is a conserved quantity, meaning that any angular momentum of trillions upon trillions of pebbles floating about would have to match Earth's about the Sun, which is vastly unlikely. It is more likely that pebbles and matter is collected by a large body which then lets it sink to the interior, this is what happens to stars, they are interstellar shrapnel collectors and any previous angular momentum of the pebbles is transformed into heat due to friction from entering a star and to chemical synthesis and various other energy transformations.

Basically stars are hot big and bright protoplanet clouds. Pretty wild that there are billions of them, and we can even see them in other galaxies. jesus.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:10 pm

Even NASA believes ejected gas from galaxy centers form stars. Not hard to imagine, if you consider that hydrogen has a critical ionization velocity of 50.9 km/s. That is way below the velocity of gases and matter being ejected. We can definitely do away with the nebular hypothesis.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:14 pm

(not having more time to edit posts is very annoying!)

Galaxy centers, where all the combined magnetic fields of the galaxy converge, suck matter (stars, planets, gases, dust, rocks...) in and spit it all out with tremendous energy to form new stars. This is a perpetual process.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby toni » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:58 pm

I would like to see exactly your opinion on the formation of the stars, planets, and moons and only then can we compare and see which is true or not. One law for micro and macro and knowing the workings of the atom - we can draw a good conclusion on the workings of space.
toni
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:31 am

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:35 pm

toni wrote:I would like to see exactly your opinion on the formation of the stars, planets, and moons and only then can we compare and see which is true or not. One law for micro and macro and knowing the workings of the atom - we can draw a good conclusion on the workings of space.


Unless you wish to get an answer from Jeffrey exclusively, I believe I have already given my opinion. Keep in mind though, that nothing can really be called truth. Nobody should be arrogant enough for that (only Establishment is that arrogant). It's all theory and hypothesis until it can be proven with DIRECT observation without doubt. Obviously, black holes are definitely not proven concepts.

My opinion on star evolution is GTSM. Planets are the end product of stars, period. However, how do stars begin in the first place? Hannes Alfvén proposed the Critical Ionization Velocity. Since stars are mostly made of hydrogen with a CIV of 50.9 km/s, it will easily form plasma from cold gases in space.

Since galaxy cores are some of the strongest microwave emitters in the universe, and that microwave radiation can ionize gas into plasma, I propose this is a good mechanism for star formation from all the high velocity gases and matter ejected from galaxy cores. You can do a very simple experiment in your own kitchen. Using a microwave oven, you can create a ball of plasma very easily. Microwave ovens work by using microwave about 12 centimeters in length to force water and fat molecules in food to ROTATE. The interaction of these molecules undergoing forced rotation creates heat, and the food is cooked.

A phenomenon here on Earth can also be used to explain star formation from plasma and microwaves. Ball lightning is thought to form from microwaves trapped in a plasma bubble.

Microwaves are everywhere in space. They could account in part for Jeffrey's dissipative system model of stars in GTSM.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:31 pm

Electro wrote:Microwaves are everywhere in space. They could account in part for Jeffrey's dissipative system model of stars in GTSM.


That is a good idea, I should add microwaves to explanation of how stars evolve and dissipate energy. I also need to remember to include x-rays, infrared light (basically heat), gamma radiation, radio waves and ultraviolet.

All frequencies are important because different energies can allow for different types of chemical (and nuclear) reactions as well, which can get extremely complex really quickly. I would also stress reading basic literature already written concerning the synthesis of chemicals, as well as applying that literature towards explaining what is probably happening in the atmospheres of stars as they evolve and cool down.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:24 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:Microwaves are everywhere in space. They could account in part for Jeffrey's dissipative system model of stars in GTSM.


That is a good idea, I should add microwaves to explanation of how stars evolve and dissipate energy. I also need to remember to include x-rays, infrared light (basically heat), gamma radiation, radio waves and ultraviolet.

All frequencies are important because different energies can allow for different types of chemical (and nuclear) reactions as well, which can get extremely complex really quickly. I would also stress reading basic literature already written concerning the synthesis of chemicals, as well as applying that literature towards explaining what is probably happening in the atmospheres of stars as they evolve and cool down.


The reason I haven't chosen gamma rays for instance to generate a plasma, is that the problem with producing a plasma with gamma rays, at least here on Earth, is that gamma rays will very rarely collide with air molecules. If you reduce the pressure there will be even less collisions.

Of course, the entire electromagnetic spectrum can be part of the dissipative system.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 pm

Electro wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Electro wrote:Microwaves are everywhere in space. They could account in part for Jeffrey's dissipative system model of stars in GTSM.


That is a good idea, I should add microwaves to explanation of how stars evolve and dissipate energy. I also need to remember to include x-rays, infrared light (basically heat), gamma radiation, radio waves and ultraviolet.

All frequencies are important because different energies can allow for different types of chemical (and nuclear) reactions as well, which can get extremely complex really quickly. I would also stress reading basic literature already written concerning the synthesis of chemicals, as well as applying that literature towards explaining what is probably happening in the atmospheres of stars as they evolve and cool down.


The reason I haven't chosen gamma rays for instance to generate a plasma, is that the problem with producing a plasma with gamma rays, at least here on Earth, is that gamma rays will very rarely collide with air molecules. If you reduce the pressure there will be even less collisions.

Of course, the entire electromagnetic spectrum can be part of the dissipative system.


With gamma rays it would be mainly used as evidence of isotopic abundances changing. Nuclear decay would give rise to different isotopes of the same element. Thus nuclear decay would be faster in more energetic stars, meaning it would throw off radiometric dating methods for stars as they cool down and begin formation of things like zircon crystals which trap much more pristine samples of Earth's early atmosphere. http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0205v1.pdf

What I'm saying is that the isotopic abundances of the material that a zircon crystal can trap should be measured to be similar to a star such as Jupiter or even younger. The isotopic abundances of the trapped material in a zircon crystal should match that of Jupiter or a younger star, which then can lead to understanding the interior of much larger gas type stars. Of course this can already be done by studying igneous rocks and minerals, but its just too much to think about right now. I'm not really there yet.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 am

Looking at the energy level of microwaves, I think it might not be enough, for microwaves by themselves, to reionize hydrogen in space. Since galaxy cores emit the complete electromagnetic spectrum, the more energetic wave lenghts, UV and up, would be more appropriate in the theory. To ionize neutral hydrogen, an energy larger than 13.6 eV is required, which corresponds to photons with a wavelength of 91.2 nm or shorter.

However, added to the electromagnetic radiation, is the incredible velocity of ejected gases from the core. The CIV of hydrogen being 50.9 km/s, ionization can thus be greatly facilitated even for lesser energetic wavelengths.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:24 pm

Electro wrote:Looking at the energy level of microwaves, I think it might not be enough, for microwaves by themselves, to reionize hydrogen in space. Since galaxy cores emit the complete electromagnetic spectrum, the more energetic wave lenghts, UV and up, would be more appropriate in the theory. To ionize neutral hydrogen, an energy larger than 13.6 eV is required, which corresponds to photons with a wavelength of 91.2 nm or shorter.

However, added to the electromagnetic radiation, is the incredible velocity of ejected gases from the core. The CIV of hydrogen being 50.9 km/s, ionization can thus be greatly facilitated even for lesser energetic wavelengths.


The gravitation of a large star can re-ionize hydrogen. It is a feedback loop on the surface of young big hot stars like the Sun. Material is ionized, recombines (releases heat), falls back into the star to get re-ionized, on and on.

I made a short talk of it back in the summer of 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlwtA6eCpg

The escape velocity of the Sun is what, 618 Km/sec? That means if material doesn't reach that speed it cannot leave the surface, it also means the reverse. Material falls into it at an acceleration of 273 meters/sec^2. At ~30 g's rate of acceleration of in falling material back into the Sun, my guess is that any material would become re-ionized.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Electro » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:52 pm

Yes, I do believe your are right. However, I was mainly referring to star formation, which does not yet include gravitation. I'm trying to come up with a theory to debunk the nebular hypothesis and Birkland current Z-pinch as the mechanisms of star formation.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:32 pm

Electro wrote:Yes, I do believe your are right. However, I was mainly referring to star formation, which does not yet include gravitation. I'm trying to come up with a theory to debunk the nebular hypothesis and Birkland current Z-pinch as the mechanisms of star formation.

You got me on that. I have no idea. Best guess is to look at stars that are "being born" so to speak. These are stars being born IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_nebula

Oh and from my experience debunking is okay, but what you are really trying to do is replace. That is the real powerful method for getting rid of an idea that doesn't work. For instance heliocentrism replaced geocentrism, thermodynamics replaced caloric theory, oxygen replaced philgeston (sp?), germ theory replaced miasma theory, etc.

Replace, replace, replace. The debunking will come in hindsight.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1868
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 3 guests