I agree that EU doesn't have a proper explanation for planet formation and/or star evolution. That's why I was proposing an aliance with them, to add GTSM to their cosmology. They do admit though that planets come from stars, but without providing the mechanism that it desperately needs.JeffreyW wrote:I'm also learning that people think I'm trying to make a "cosmology". I'm not. I'm designing a theory of star evolution, in that it is planet formation.Electro wrote:I see that you do not agree with the EU concept. Mainstream does not recognize currents in space. But, the same mainstream sees stars as nuclear furnaces, and gravity (with dark matter) as the main driving force of the Universe. So, in my opinion, my guess, or your guess, is as good as their's. And, your dissipative star model, is no less speculative than the EU model.
For a theory of star formation and evolution to be valid, you have to inevitably consider the big picture, the puzzle, the cosmology. If one piece of the puzzle, let's say GTSM, does not fit with the puzzle, it probably should be discarded. Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever. Not saying it's your case, coz we'll never know. But you need to link your idea to something, be it Big Bang or EU, or any other new or existing cosmology, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is unclear in your case.
As an example, I've spoken recently with a Stephen Goodfellow about his theory of gravity. He was basically saying that the sun was a hollow sphere with a hydrogen shell and its interior was composed of "non-space"... Gravity was simply induced by zero pressure inside the sun, pulling everything towards it. He was comparing this idea to manifestations seen on Earth in whirlpools, tornadoes and the like. So, the first question that popped in my mind was, what about the Earth and other planets? Are they hollow too? He could not answer. Well, the theory just died right there.
This means that any cosmology, such as EU and mainstream that calls old stars "planets", is not a cosmology, because they do not have an explanation for stellar evolution (planet formation).
I've been saying this for quite sometime now. Planets and stars are not mutually exclusive. They are the same objects, only they LOOK different. The star as a dissipative event gravitationally collapses slowly over many billions of years, cools and dies, becoming the "planet".
If EU is going to be a cosmology, they need to explain what the Earth is, as well as Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and all the exoplanets (old stars) are in the sky.
So far their explanation of Earth is non-existent. The establishment has one, but that fails because they don't realize stars are young, hot exoplanets.
This theory is not a cosmology, it is an explanation of what happens to stars as they evolve. Cosmologies can't offer that, their purpose as I've seen is to talk in vague abstractions that have no real meat. With GTSM we now have a reason why Earth is so huge and why it is so old, it is the remains of a very old star at the very end of its life, which both explain why its so large and old.
And I get that GTSM is NOT a cosmology, nor that it's your intention of developing one. I'm just saying that whatever the cosmology we choose, GTSM has to be consistent with it for anything to make sense. Otherwise, it's just like throwing a bunch of ideas around, like the ones from Goodfellow.