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 CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:44 pm

This is making more sense by the second. ;)

Something that always bothered me about the idea that the planets accreted from the same matter as the Sun, and in the same process, is the direction of the rotation. If the whole thing is rotating (due to Lorentz forces in an external magnetic field, or whatever), we can understand why the Sun rotates. But if inflow bands are going to condense into planets, they don't have the same overall rotation. In fact, in a cyclonic inflow band, the inner side of the band is moving faster than the outer, because of the Rankine acceleration nearer the source of the centripetal force. This means that if the inflow band condenses, the relative motions within the band "should" result in anti-cyclonic rotation. So all of the planets should rotate in the opposite direction as the Sun. Thus the accretion disc theory has a boo-boo.

But what if the dusty plasma is condensing, and what if the whole thing has angular momentum, but what if it isn't all converging on the same spot? You could get a bunch of little condensations at various points near the centroid of the dusty plasma, and they might all condense for the same reasons, and rotate in the same direction, but each as discrete entities.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:41 am

CC..:
This is making more sense by the second.


Charles :roll: Why are we beating a dead horse? :? The argument is not between the highly speculative accretion model and the absurd metamorphosis model, but what this board is for, the EU model, which has a great deal of supportive evidence. ;)

Of course, every body in the universe came from a sun, but none were suns that burnt out and shrank down to the size of pluto. :roll:

Fission makes sense. 8-)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:19 pm

Sparky wrote:The argument is not between the highly speculative accretion model and the absurd metamorphosis model, but what this board is for, the EU model, which has a great deal of supportive evidence. Of course, every body in the universe came from a sun, but none were suns that burnt out and shrank down to the size of pluto.

First, this is the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" forum. The "Electric Universe" forum is a bit more strict, being just for discussion of the EU model, and not for alternative theories, which are supposed to go here. But note that even on the EU board, you still get to disagree, as it should be. :)

Second, Jeffrey is saying that stars form by Marklund convection, which IS the EU model. (There I disagree with him, but that's between me & him.) So I don't see how he's far enough outside of the EU paradigm to get a categorical smack-down like that. All he's saying is that stars & planets are the same thing, just in different stages of development. I can't recall ever seeing EU literature that contended that stars & planets are fundamentally different. It is a fact that this particular "new insight" is Jeffrey's, not Wal's. Do people other than Wal get to have new insights?

Third, anybody who cares to engage in open discussions of the actual theories, without the sort of territorialism that is becoming commonplace here, is encouraged to do so on my site. There are detailed discussions of Miles Mathis (with whom I disagree), aether theory (which I don't utilize in my work), the "shock dynamics" alternative to plate tectonics (with which I partially agree), the Younger-Dryas impact theory, Saturnian theory, etc. There are other sections for politics, economics, religion, history, and anything else you want to discuss. So it isn't the "CC Fan Club Site". :) It's for anything you want to discuss, so long as you employ just enough courtesy & respect to enable a productive discussion. You can also post articles, which you can edit after-the-fact. The combination of being able to post articles and discuss them, right on the same site, opens up a lot of possibilities for idea builders. So bring us all of those ideas that you've been having a hard time developing on other sites. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:56 pm

A star is born via z-pinch. This is observed as the ant nebula, the bow tie nebula, and other z-pinches which take interstellar gas and ionizes it, thus the gas becomes a plasma. The plasma then takes up the most efficient shape in which to contain the ionization which is a nearly perfect sphere. These are understood as "stars". They are dissipative events and are not "powered" by electrical currents or fusion. Similar to other large scale dissipative structures. They are the largest scale dissipative structures that we have contact with.

After that the plasma starts recombining and cooling forming gas, all the while differentiating the chemicals based on their ionization potential. This is understood as Marklund convection which happens AFTER the star is born. Marklund convection does NOT birth stars, it only happens as the star cools and starts becoming a "gas giant". The iron and low ionization potential elements move towards the center, the higher potentials move to the outside while combining with other elements forming what are called molecules. We can even see this convection in the differentiated bands on Jupiter. As a matter of fact Marklund convection itself IS weather itself. Ionized material is constantly sorting itself out and dissipating the difference in the form of storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms, rain, lightning, etc.

The gas then starts depositing as crystalline structure forming land, which is further cooled because the ionized hydrogen and oxygen combine as well forming water in large amounts which has very high heat capacity. Only with gas giants the marklund convection (weather) is happening with different elemental combinations, temperatures and higher pressures. For instance geology has no explanation for silicon dioxide formation. Sure quartz is solid rock and can grow by silicon dioxide deposition, but how did the silicon combine with the oxygen in the first place? It had to be ionized! It was a full plasma! As well as water oceans. Did gravity squeeze the hydrogen into oxygen? That is nonsense, it had to be ionized in earlier stages of metamorphosis. The oceans were once "plasma oceans". All rocks all minerals, all lava, all water all the chemicals and molecules on the Earth were not together early in the Earth's history, they all combined over many billions of years. The entire Earth was once a giant plasma ball! It was larger than the Sun.

After many hundreds of millions of years the star slowly morphs into what your scientists call "planets". This process happens all over the universe. Billions of stars = billions of planets. They are the exact same objects only different stages to their evolution into mostly neutralized matter. This neutralized matter is called "rocks and minerals".

Well, absurd. I know. I also know people are going to claim credit for this discovery as if I don't even exist, but hey, I'm not about pity parties, I'm just hear to try and help EU out, regardless if they won't listen or say I'm stupid, or engaging in "pseudoscience" like a few of you guys have said. I have no choice but to repeat this information and try to help people as much as I can regardless if they don't care or think it's already explained.

The train has already left the station.

-Jeffrey Wolynski
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:26 pm

@Jeffrey: sorry for misrepresenting your position (i.e., z-pinches versus Marklund convection). I still disagree. :) I don't think that the bipolar jets of planetary nebulae are a unidirectional current that is getting pinched in the middle. Rather, I believe that the matter is leaving in the bipolar jets, going in both directions, and therefore has to be streaming inward in the accretionary disc (though we agree that the standard model of accretion is in rough shape).

@Sparky: my disagreement with Jeffrey isn't stopping me from helping him get his material set up on my site -- contentious points and all. My reasoning is that I might disagree, but I've been wrong before, and even in cases where I still think that I'm right, I've learned from studying other theories. They always have something that they're particularly good at explaining. So I want to know what that is, and why my model sucks in comparison. ;) And frequently, models are not mutually exclusive. For example, I disagree on how stars are born, but I didn't have a detailed model on what happens to the remnants, but Jeffrey does. So I added a reference to Jeffrey's work at the end of my model. That's the way to be.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:27 am

@Charles

One thing I want to reinforce is the observation of astronomy related matters. We must be able to observe what we propose, so for stars to have proper birthing we should be able to point to one and say, "look a birthing star". It doesn't matter how much theory development we do, it is all for naught if we can not show a picture of it.

this is why black hole theory should have never got off the ground. zero observation = fantasizing.

I propose supernovas/novas are stars being born. My justification is that language itself has already provided the clue as in the case of the definition for planet (wandering star). Nova = new.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:33 am

call me crazy. lol

The establishment is backwards with most processes. It's like that game where you take a whole bunch of cards and they have pictures on them, and you have to place them in their appropriate sequence of events. that's all. The supernovas should be the first event not the last, as well they leave "supernova" remnants, which are brand spankin new stars that are really hot and bright.

I have never thrown a grenade in the Marines and seen a grenade remnant remain in the spot where it exploded. The astro people have lost their minds.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:42 am

From http://www.space.com/17715-planetary-nebula.html :
"The term "planetary nebula" is a misnomer. It was coined by William Herschel, who also compiled an astronomical catalog. Herschel had recently discovered the planet Uranus, which has a blue-green tint, and he thought that the new objects resembled the gas giant."

Was Herschel wrong or right, is it a misnomer? Is there evidence that planetary nebula always produce stars, or maybe the smaller ones produce gas giants?

Anyway there is a lot of confusion; they are indeed not the end of stars but the beginning, strange that mainstream do call them now > preplanetary nebulae, indicating they do know it is a beginning...

Image:
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2008-21-b-print.jpg

Tripple stars? or stars and planets, and stars becoming planets.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:24 am

D_Archer wrote:From http://www.space.com/17715-planetary-nebula.html :
"The term "planetary nebula" is a misnomer. It was coined by William Herschel, who also compiled an astronomical catalog. Herschel had recently discovered the planet Uranus, which has a blue-green tint, and he thought that the new objects resembled the gas giant."

Was Herschel wrong or right, is it a misnomer? Is there evidence that planetary nebula always produce stars, or maybe the smaller ones produce gas giants?

Anyway there is a lot of confusion; they are indeed not the end of stars but the beginning, strange that mainstream do call them now > preplanetary nebulae, indicating they do know it is a beginning...

Image:
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2008-21-b-print.jpg

Tripple stars? or stars and planets, and stars becoming planets.

Regards,
Daniel


Daniel,

Terminology is a huge mess in the world of astronomy because what appeared so far away and small is turning out to be much bigger/different than we supposed.

Stellar metamorphosis doesn't state stars and planets, or stars becoming planets, it is:

Stars are planets. A star is a young planet (still plasma and very hot), and a planet is an ancient star (mostly solid structure and cool). The intermediate stages of metamorphosis are "mislabled" gas giants, ice giants, etc.

I have sent an email to Wal Thornhill to see what he thinks of this understanding. Here is the page that I sent:

http://riffwiki.com/Stellar_metamorphosis

I don't know who made this page, but it is highly appreciated by me. Stellar Metamorphosis got deleted by the wikipedia censors so he designed a similar layout like nothing ever happened. The citations need work but that all will take some time.

-Jeffrey
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:28 am

The Great Dog wrote:How does this post relate to the Picture of the Day articles?

I agree...it seems like a lot of people are merely using the forum to promote their own agendas and not to discuss Electric Universe ideas.

TGD


Stellar Metamorphosis needs plasma (charged material). Electric universe needs plasma. I'm not theorizing in a vacuum here like mathematical physicists do, I'm actually looking at nature and what we can observe:

exoplanet.eu
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:10 am

Here is a paper giving reason of the Sun's real age. This paper goes against the establishment because they believe hot young stars like the sun are OLDER than ancient, much colder stars such as the Earth.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0120v1.pdf

The youngest stars are the hottest and brightest. The oldest stars are cold and dead worlds like Mercury.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:55 am

Here is the paper that I wrote concerning how the initial insight was made so that nobody can claim that I "stole" the idea from anybody. As much as it is ridiculed, there will be a day when people say stuff like, "I knew it the entire time", yet provide no documentation. This is known as a "paper trail".

It's gonna happen. People are going to claim to have known this the entire time, yet as proof, did not as zero documentation exists except for Mr. Abruzzo, Mr. Oparin and myself that star evolution is planet formation itself.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0124v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:05 pm

Aug 23, 2013
~

JeffreyW,

I agree, it is a good idea to put those three graphics together in one document:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0124v1.pdf

seasmith
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:23 am

Seasmith,

Thank you for your input. I also agree that placing diagrams and illustrations are very effective, esp. if they are in one solo document. Visuals are much more effective in this regard, as showing people what I see is essential to good science. The establishment doesn't understand this. They think math equations show things, which is strange because math is in no way a "visualization" technique. Their professors train their students to use the phrase, "the math shows me", or "we see what's going on with the math equations". This kind of training is what the establishment does to their children at university level. It is twisted and allows for vast misinterpretation of basic ideas. Essentially they train their students to believe a math equation is a picture. AS far as I'm concerned I've never seen a math equation that looks like Earth, an oak tree or a lightning bolt.

To keep things on topic for the purposes of this thread, I must introduce a very basic understanding for those who are paying attention.

The Earth has a giant iron core, as well as Mercury, the Moon, and other objects in the solar system. We must determine then how exactly all that iron was essentially welded together. So let us do some logic, without fantasy math equations:

Proof #1
1. Earth has a giant iron/nickel core in the center of it. (given)
2. Gravitation cannot weld iron and nickel. (given)
3. Gravitation cannot explain the giant iron ball in the center of the Earth. (proof)

Proof #2
1. The iron/nickel core of the Earth is large scale structure (given) and gravitation cannot explain how it got there. (given) (proof #1)
2. General relativity is a theory of large scale structure. (given)
3. General relativity is a theory of gravitation. (given)
4. General relativity is not a theory of large scale structure. (proof)

Proof #3
1. General relativity is not a theory of large scale structure. (given from Proof #2)
2. General relativity is a theory that is fundamental to mainstream physics. (given)
3. Mainstream physics does not have a fundamental theory for large scale structure. (proof)

There you go. Mainstream physics does not have a fundamental theory for large scale structure. They have been winging it for 100+ years.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:36 am

For the purposes of this thread I must introduce people to a very simple concept that is in daily use in industry.

For the methods are quite pervasive and use the phenomena known as "plasma, electricity and magnetism".

Arc welding machines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIG_welding (GTAW welding) very, very interesting and no mention at all on any thread here which is very strange to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_welding

The shielding gas would be an inert gas such as argon, or helium. The Sun has lots of that stuff.

just some ideas really. You can't make an iron/nickel core from gravitation. Sorry. I've never seen a "gravity torch" at home depot. It takes an enormous amount of electrical current to make something small like welding together a frame for a bicycle. Just imagine how much power it would take to make an iron core the size of Earth's? Think about it. The Earth at one point had to be a completely ionized plasma. The electrically neutral ground you walk on wasn't so electrically neutral in Earth's very early history. It was a full plasma, which would make the Earth much larger than the Sun's current stages of metamorphosis.

Type in "welding" on the search engine that is attached to this thunderbolts site. Notice how they go over extensively the erosion on Mars. What about the giant iron core? What welded that together? Spacetime warping?

-Jeffrey
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
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 1 guest