Jupiter/Saturn are brown dwarf stars, not planets.

[JeffreyW]

I do though think it's quite funny how "Einstein" and his bunch figured out the "motion" of the "planets/moons" but couldn't even put two and two together!

Stars cool and shrink. Billions of stars = billions of stellar cores. It's a life cycle. The star forms in a z-pinch, grows, forms elements, the elements that stick together do so, and eventually the star keeps wandering the galaxy and cooling, eventually gets grabbed by a larger younger star, and there you have it! A solar system!

Why do you think our solar system has so many objects that are stellar cores? We are on the outside of the galaxy. We are where stars go to die. The young ones are in the middle and haven't gotten thrown out of the nest yet.

[Sparky]

So, what is powering our sun now? Is it still in a z-pinch?

[Aristarchus]

Just a side note: Space is neither cold nor hot, at least as far as a near vacuum is concerned. Temperature only becomes relevant when measuring the energy contained in atomic particles. Or to put another way, in the book, Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton, when the Arab protagonist complained that the rain was cold and wet, one of the Viking's the protagonist was traveling with laughed and stated that it was the protagonist that felt cold and wet, because it is impossible for the rain to feel either cold or wet.

[JeffreyW]

Just a side note: Space is neither cold nor hot, at least as far as a near vacuum is concerned. Temperature only becomes relevant when measuring the energy contained in atomic particles. Or to put another way, in the book, Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton, when the Arab protagonist complained that the rain was cold and wet, one of the Viking's the protagonist was traveling with laughed and stated that it was the protagonist that felt cold and wet, because it is impossible for the rain to feel either cold or wet.

Bravo! This kind of thinking is what I was looking for. We must correct our perceptions first before we think scientifically.

The vacuum is what I am working on now. Are there any fresh ideas on it? My stellar metamorphosis theory can be built upon.

[JeffreyW]

So, what is powering our sun now? Is it still in a z-pinch?

Sparky, we must come to an understanding before we can move on.

Stars cool and shrink, leaving their iron cores and various other elements that have formed molecules and various other molecular structures (hydrocarbons/water/methane/graphite/diamonds/feldspar/granite/quartz/obsidian/gneiss/etc). The consistency the material retains after being synthesized depends on pressures/temperatures. The pressures/temperatures do not determine the elements made, only their molecular structures and levels of unique differentiation.

All matter is synthesized in solar coronas. Przybylski's star proves my point. Uranium and other heavy elements are in overabundance in the corona of that star. (yet mainstream ignores this star, because it debunks ALL OF THE STELLAR EVOLUTION MODELS.) Material is not synthesized in the center of stars, and definately NOT in the big bang, and certaintly NOT in "supernovas". Astrophysicists just like to smash things together like cavemen with rocks to explain things they don't understand. I'm sure you understand how ludicious the LHC is.

The action called "fusion" by scientists does not happen in the center of stars. Your scientists think "pressure" makes elements, yet ignores the fact that ocean water stays ocean water even with hundreds of atmospheres of pressure in the deepest trenches of the Earth. Not to forget geothermal vents and activity, surely the pressure of trillions of tons of magma can change water into wine, eh? Not really!

We can see these stages of stellar metamorphosis in our own "planets" which are actually stars. Jupiter/Saturn are brown dwarf stars. Uranus/Neptune are blue dwarf stars, Earth is a black dwarf star, the moon and other moons/planets that have lost their global magnetic fields and have zero plate tectonics (for defintions sake) are stellar remnants or stellar cores, whichever you choose.

The scientists have also found "exoplanets". They are not "exoplanets" they are just "stars" or "stellar cores". Protoplanetary disks never occured. One star = one eventual stellar core.

Their spherical shape and the fact that they are differentiated can only be explained if they were once stars. A cooling star that combines the elements is perfectly reasonable. Don't you think?

If we do this, come to an understanding what "moons and planets" really are, decaying stars, then whatever begins the formation of a star will probably retain the after effects we term "gravity".

We can also then come to a more reasonable conclusion as to what "powers" the sun. What I personally think is that the sun is extremely cold in the center, not hot like what mainstream believes. If it were HOT then why as we go deeper does it get cooler? Corona= tens of millions of degrees, surface = ~5000 degrees, sun spots (magnetic holes as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) = a few thousand degrees colder? Right? So what if we go deeper? What would make much more sense is that the sun resembles a large hollow electric bubble. The bubble has so much "gravity" because it "pushes" out the vacuum? Maybe? What do you think?

[JeffreyW]

Ball lightning anybody? Is the sun ball lightning?

[hertz]

indubitably ol' boy, indubitably...and as such unstable as hell...just not in a timeframe we generally recognize

[Sparky]

Sparky wrote:So, what is powering our sun now? Is it still in a z-pinch?

JeffreyW ,

Sparky, we must come to an understanding before we can move on.-----We can also then come to a more reasonable conclusion as to what "powers" the sun.----What would make much more sense is that the sun resembles a large hollow electric bubble. The bubble has so much "gravity" because it "pushes" out the vacuum? Maybe? What do you think?

How does the sun "resemble" a hollow bubble? Just because there are temp. gradations? The earth and it's atmosphere have varying
gradations also. Is the earth hollow?

What vacuum? If there were a vacuum, what pushes it out, and why?

You can't convince me that the moon is a dead star by repeating that scenario. Saturn and Jupiter may have acted as a stars at one time. Now you say that they are going to shrink to the size of our moon? It does not make sense. You have a quantity of matter, and unless you compress it, it will occupy the same space.

Birkeland currents separate elements by atom weight. Denser elements may be affected more by gravity than lighter ones in the environment of the sun. There is so much "churning", I don't know what is happening.

You have not presented a sound argument. Dead stars? I don't know. It seems reasonable that if the star was disconnected from it's power source, that it would go into glow, then dark mode, and maybe cool off. I don't know. If such a thing did happen, then we should see more very large, cold planets.


Maybe once a star becomes a star, it can not be disconnected from it's power source.

[Sparky]

Sparky wrote:So, what is powering our sun now? Is it still in a z-pinch?

JeffreyW ,

Sparky, we must come to an understanding before we can move on.-----We can also then come to a more reasonable conclusion as to what "powers" the sun.----What would make much more sense is that the sun resembles a large hollow electric bubble. The bubble has so much "gravity" because it "pushes" out the vacuum? Maybe? What do you think?

How does the sun "resemble" a hollow bubble? Just because there are temp. gradations? The earth and it's atmosphere have varying
gradations also. Is the earth hollow?

What vacuum? If there were a vacuum, what pushes it out, and why?

You can't convince me that the moon is a dead star by repeating that scenario. Saturn and Jupiter may have acted as a stars at one time. Now you say that they are going to shrink to the size of our moon? It does not make sense. You have a quantity of matter, and unless you compress it, it will occupy the same space.

Birkeland currents separate elements by atom weight. Denser elements may be affected more by gravity than lighter ones in the environment of the sun. There is so much "churning", I don't know what is happening.

You have not presented a sound argument. Dead stars? I don't know. It seems reasonable that if the star was disconnected from it's power source, that it would go into glow, then dark mode, and maybe cool off. I don't know. If such a thing did happen, then we should see more very large, cold planets.


Maybe once a star becomes a star, it can not be disconnected from it's power source.

[JeffreyW]

Stars just disappear because they are only electrical phenomena? Show me a picture of a star that has disappeared.

Proving a negative is going to be tough.

With my theory, we can SEE the stages that the star undergoes as it gives off energy and loses mass, via E=MC^2.

The planets are just cooling stars. The stars that have lost their global magnetic fields and have zero plate tectonics are stellar cores. The moon is a stellar core. The radiometric dating samples from the Apollo mission brought back pieces of the moon that were up to 26+ billion years old.

The moon is the core of a star that was born and died long before the Earth fully formed a crust. This is why there are "lava oceans" on only one side of the moon. The Earth was heating that side of the moon up. Mystery solved. You can thank me later.

[Sparky]

Your hypothesis is nonsense. You even contradict yourself!

Come up with a better thought out hypothesis, with less bombast in presentation, and I'll consider it.

[Aristarchus]

Your hypothesis is nonsense. You even contradict yourself!

Come up with a better thought out hypothesis, with less bombast in presentation, and I'll consider it.

With all due respect, Sparky, I don't neccesarily adhere to what is being advanced by JefferyW, but perhaps the discussion would be better served with a proper discourse for presenting an argument.

Remember ...

"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." ~ Thomas Henry Huxley

[nick c]

Sparky,
Rather than dismissing a theory as nonsense, it is much preferred that you simply present the evidence that falsifies the theory (hypothesis).

JeffreyW,
A few questions:
Do you subscribe to the electric star/sun theory as put forth by Thornhill, Scott, et al?
If so, how does that fit in with your hypothesis?
How did all these stellar (hundreds if you include planets, asteroids, and moons) husks and remnants accumulate in such a relatively tiny area, ie the solar system?

[nick c]

The moon is a stellar core. The radiometric dating samples from the Apollo mission brought back pieces of the moon that were up to 26+ billion years old.

The moon is the core of a star that was born and died long before the Earth fully formed a crust. This is why there are "lava oceans" on only one side of the moon. The Earth was heating that side of the moon up. Mystery solved.

Are you familiar with the Electric Universe's attack upon radiometric dating, especially in a situation such as the lunar surface which has been sculpted by enormous electrical discharges?

You can thank me later.

[Sparky]

Sparky wrote:So, what is powering our sun now? Is it still in a z-pinch?

JeffreyW ,

Sparky, we must come to an understanding before we can move on.-----We can also then come to a more reasonable conclusion as to what "powers" the sun.----What would make much more sense is that the sun resembles a large hollow electric bubble. The bubble has so much "gravity" because it "pushes" out the vacuum? Maybe? What do you think?

How does the sun "resemble" a hollow bubble? Just because there are temp. gradations? The earth and it's atmosphere have varying
gradations also. Is the earth hollow?

What vacuum? If there were a vacuum, what pushes it out, and why?

You can't convince me that the moon is a dead star by repeating that scenario. Saturn and Jupiter may have acted as a stars at one time. Now you say that they are going to shrink to the size of our moon? It does not make sense. You have a quantity of matter, and unless you compress it, it will occupy the same space.

Birkeland currents separate elements by atom weight. Denser elements may be affected more by gravity than lighter ones in the environment of the sun. There is so much "churning", I don't know what is happening.

You have not presented a sound argument. Dead stars? I don't know. It seems reasonable that if the star was disconnected from it's power source, that it would go into glow, then dark mode, and maybe cool off. I don't know. If such a thing did happen, then we should see more very large, cold planets.


Maybe once a star becomes a star, it can not be disconnected from it's power source.

A theory requires some evidence! And should make sense! Nonsense should require proof to elevate it above the level of nonsense! Black holes. Nonsense! Big Bang. Nonsense!
Dark energy and matter. Nonsense! The moon was once a star. Nonsense! We don't know where it came from or how it was formed, and the last on my list of probabilities is that it was a star. Well, i take that back. Next to the last. The last is the nutjob theory that it is a manufactured satellite, put in orbit to spy on humanity or something.