The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[seasmith]

In the Marines, we were told...

'Leathernecks' are born, not made.
I'm glad you survived and evolved, good on ya...

[CharlesChandler]

@Sparky,

Jeffrey is speaking from first-hand experience, and he is speaking from the heart. His insights are uncommonly crisp. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has yet to isolate his frustrations, but this is only a problem for those who care to engage at that level. He makes a lot of broad generalizations, which are easy to refute, but notice that viscount aero offers constructive criticisms -- he identifies specifically where he disagrees. A generalized insult in response to a broad generalization that you don't like is not constructive. Anyway...

viscount to jw:

To say that is very reaching and silly.

Compared to what gibberish jw has been spouting, that is a compliment!

But, Wal Thornhill invites alternative views, even the ones presented with arrogance and ignorance.

OK, so with all of Thornhill's open-mindedness, in what respect has his position evolved in the last 10 years? Pointed questions have been asked about specific aspects in EU theory. Will they ever be answered? Is anybody even working on these problems? It's rather sounding like, "This is our story and we're sticking with it." That isn't genuine open-mindedness. If he solved all of the riddles 10 years ago, it would be reasonable to still be reiterating all of the same points. But no, not all of the riddles have been solved.

Lloyd & I have been working on identifying the principal tenets of the various theories, the criticisms, and the rebuttals. The format that seems to work the best is similar to MIT's Deliberatorium, where people can make assertions, and then criticisms appear as sub-topics under the assertions, and rebuttals appear as sub-topics under criticisms. This way, you can scan for the principal assertions that interest you, and then find all of the arguments associated with that topic nested under the assertion. The stellar/solar modeling section is the most detailed. If Wal, or any other EU proponent, is actually willing to respond to any of the open questions, we'd be happy to enter the info. Otherwise, they'll remain unanswered questions, and other theories that are actually addressing issues that have been raised will prevail.

The one thing that we really like about formal arguments is that they eliminate band-standing -- you can't just repeat the same stuff over and over, evading the questions, and burying the issues. Each distinct assertion is only one item in the outline. Say it as many times as you like elsewhere, but in an outlined debate, if it's the same statement, it only gets written once. And if there is a criticism, it appears directly under the assertion. And if there is no rebuttal, it's obvious. Most of this thread, from what I can tell, would reduce to just a couple of assertions, and a few criticisms -- the rest is senseless band-standing. We're convinced that a huge amount of decent intellect is being squandered in these threads, and that we could make a lot more progress if we identify the essential issues, and lay out the logic. So we'd like to encourage anybody who wants to see progress in astrophysics to get involved in these formal debates.

OK, that's enough band-standing for our anti-band-standing strategy (at least for now...).

[viscount aero]

Similarities between Marines and Graduate Students (institutionalized humans).

The vast majority of establishment scientists do not understand what mental conditioning is. They think that their schooling and ideas are perfect, flawless, correct and that they are on the right path for the progress of humanity. We have a problem though, it has spun wildly out of control. Their attitude towards their beliefs and ideas has gotten way out of hand. Those that have degrees and titles and seem to be authorities on the matter of what is correct and real concerning nature have been abusing their positions of power.

The best way I can explain this is this: In the Marines, we were told we were badass. Unstoppable. That the "terrorists" lived in other countries and that we must destroy them and all of their evil ways. I believed this. I thought I was a "freedom fighter". This is not true at all. I was a tool for a military industrial complex much larger than what I could perceive. I literally risked my balls for rich people's political and socio-economic gains.

In graduate school and college, people are told (who do science degrees) that their ways are perfect, their methods flawless, that if there was something to be known or understood, it would have already been figured out. A sort of pathological sense of omniscience becomes the name of the game, similar to the kind of mental conditioning I was conditioned to in the Marines (invincibility).

After I got out I realized I was not invincible. I bled. I suffered (am still suffering) a very bitter depression from unprogramming from the delusion of invincibility. It's a sort of cognitive dissonance if you will, experiencing pain and not believing that there is a problem. A complete denial of the human side of me, that I am fallible and that I can break and die.

On the other hand, graduate students of science are in a complete denial of the human side, that they could be completely hopelessly wrong about everything. They say, no, we would admit if we were wrong. The truth is that they don't. They plow through their degrees, agreeing nonstop just for approval, to get money, careers, grants, awards, positions at universities, etc. Standing up for what they believe is right is looked down upon, you have to first bow before the "gods" before you access the halls of cult science. The integrity is ripped out of their chests, and shit on by the peer reviewers. Those who have fresh new ideas are censored and ridiculed. Its like the Milgram Experiment on a vast scale. Convince people that they are right about everything and give them power and they will believe it and abuse it.

But science, true science is not a cult. It's just a method of inquiry. It incorporates valid philosophy and is self correcting. A real scientist does not need approval from the "gods" of establishment. They don't need to be peer reviewed to bring up valid points and share discovery. They can make discoveries of their own. Many scientists already realize this. Many scientists realized this many years ago, long before I was even born.

Well-said.

The parallels are there. What you speak of is the military-science-industrial complex as it is an intertwined entity. Peer reviews are a form of ritual and initiation into this complex. And it is self-perpetuating.

[Sparky]

jw

In graduate school and college, people are told (who do science degrees) that their ways are perfect, their methods flawless, that if there was something to be known or understood, it would have already been figured out.

You can not justify that absurd statement. It is just nonsense!
I agree with you on some things, but overlooking your attacks on those who disagree with you just to make Jeffrey feel good is not helpful to this forum, or you.

Tearing down EU proponents and "science" will not do anything but alienate those who could help you..

We all have evil in our lives. We live in an evil world. We adopt delusions to make sense of the illusions we face. Spiritual teachers suggest to get over it and move on!!

[Sparky]

There's a new kind of planet to add to Kepler's cornucopiaof alien worlds,----16 new planets ranging between one and four times the size of Earth. -----a rocky core surrounded by a puffed-up envelope of gas, which scientists are calling "sub-Neptunes" or "mini-Neptunes."-----a rocky core encased in a hydrogen- and helium-rich envelope. These kinds of mysterious planets don't exist in the solar system. The planets vary from having a puffy, thick envelope to having no envelope at all.

Other than being suspect of conclusions made by the standard model, I don't know what this means for planet production. There is a chart that is too small for me to read, but seems to point out the center where these planets are associated.

Is there enough information to come to any viable conclusion.?

[JeffreyW]

Similarities between Marines and Graduate Students (institutionalized humans).

The vast majority of establishment scientists do not understand what mental conditioning is. They think that their schooling and ideas are perfect, flawless, correct and that they are on the right path for the progress of humanity. We have a problem though, it has spun wildly out of control. Their attitude towards their beliefs and ideas has gotten way out of hand. Those that have degrees and titles and seem to be authorities on the matter of what is correct and real concerning nature have been abusing their positions of power.

The best way I can explain this is this: In the Marines, we were told we were badass. Unstoppable. That the "terrorists" lived in other countries and that we must destroy them and all of their evil ways. I believed this. I thought I was a "freedom fighter". This is not true at all. I was a tool for a military industrial complex much larger than what I could perceive. I literally risked my balls for rich people's political and socio-economic gains.

In graduate school and college, people are told (who do science degrees) that their ways are perfect, their methods flawless, that if there was something to be known or understood, it would have already been figured out. A sort of pathological sense of omniscience becomes the name of the game, similar to the kind of mental conditioning I was conditioned to in the Marines (invincibility).

After I got out I realized I was not invincible. I bled. I suffered (am still suffering) a very bitter depression from unprogramming from the delusion of invincibility. It's a sort of cognitive dissonance if you will, experiencing pain and not believing that there is a problem. A complete denial of the human side of me, that I am fallible and that I can break and die.

On the other hand, graduate students of science are in a complete denial of the human side, that they could be completely hopelessly wrong about everything. They say, no, we would admit if we were wrong. The truth is that they don't. They plow through their degrees, agreeing nonstop just for approval, to get money, careers, grants, awards, positions at universities, etc. Standing up for what they believe is right is looked down upon, you have to first bow before the "gods" before you access the halls of cult science. The integrity is ripped out of their chests, and shit on by the peer reviewers. Those who have fresh new ideas are censored and ridiculed. Its like the Milgram Experiment on a vast scale. Convince people that they are right about everything and give them power and they will believe it and abuse it.

But science, true science is not a cult. It's just a method of inquiry. It incorporates valid philosophy and is self correcting. A real scientist does not need approval from the "gods" of establishment. They don't need to be peer reviewed to bring up valid points and share discovery. They can make discoveries of their own. Many scientists already realize this. Many scientists realized this many years ago, long before I was even born.

Well-said.

The parallels are there. What you speak of is the military-science-industrial complex as it is an intertwined entity. Peer reviews are a form of ritual and initiation into this complex. And it is self-perpetuating.

My gunnery sergeant in the first company I was with in Okinawa said it the best:

"The nail that sticks out gets hammered."

The parallels between military lifestyle and the rank structure of establishment physics are uncanny. From not being allowed to speak up if you don't have rank, to getting the shit jobs first before you can get the cool ones (again because of rank and time in grade), the mental conditioning, the "club" mind-set (either you are a part of the club and did your time or you're not, who gives a shit if you actually have good ideas).

It's that bureaucratic approach to science which is killing it. Free-wheeling is not allowed because it upsets the status quo. As a sergeant I could not just walk up to the Colonel of the base and say, "Listen dude, shit is all sorts of messed up, you need to fix, A, B, C, etc. That's the same thing I'm doing. I have no "formal degree", yet I'm trying to tell the "Base Commander" or the "Professors Emeritus" of universities to take their theories and shove it, they are incorrect. What is accepted and allowed is based on the bureaucratic structure itself and not actual understanding or progress. So many careers rest on the structure remaining in tact, thus if a new theory comes along and upsets it, it will get immediately rejected. The nail that sticks out will get hammered. This is why Halton Arp (RIP) was kicked out of telescope time. He was a nail that stuck out, so he got hammered.

[JeffreyW]

@Sparky,

Jeffrey is speaking from first-hand experience, and he is speaking from the heart. His insights are uncommonly crisp. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has yet to isolate his frustrations, but this is only a problem for those who care to engage at that level. He makes a lot of broad generalizations, which are easy to refute, but notice that viscount aero offers constructive criticisms -- he identifies specifically where he disagrees. A generalized insult in response to a broad generalization that you don't like is not constructive. Anyway...

I think his insults are constructive actually. I mean, not constructive for theory development, but constructive for me because I am learning how to hold myself back and learning to not take his same attitude towards new understandings and possibilities. In essence, I do not enjoy hearing what people think of the idea that star evolution is planet formation itself in that a "planet" is nothing but an evolving star, and a "star" is a new planet, esp when its just insults, but at the same time we are dealing with humans here. We cannot expect too much of them.

It is okay if they think it is crazy, illogical or whatever. I'm fine with that now. I'm conditioning myself to the enormous amount of ridicule I will receive from others for standing up for myself and stating what's on my mind, regardless of the consequences. I'm not the bravest of individuals, but I do have convictions that are not for sale, unlike many establishment scientists. Wave a few thousand dollars in front of them and they will do backflips, its pathetic really.

I think what is going to happen now is that I will continue to defend myself and this theory and not actually insult people, but that they will take it as insulting for the sheer fact that they disagree with it. In other words, this theory itself is an insult to people and I'm not even calling people names. Think about that. All people have to do is read it and they will get insulted, even though I'm not trying to insult people!

This is the problem with many scientific understandings that were new! They conflict with what people believe! So when an idea conflicts with your belief system, how are you going to treat that idea? You are going to go on the defense. To people in the 20th century the Earth was a round ball that orbits the Sun. The two have completely mutually exclusive life paths, as well as the other objects. Their lifepaths have no similarities except for the fact that they are orbiting each other.

Yet, in the 21st century, we have realized that their lifepaths are one in the same. The objects are different ages! The young ones are mostly plasma, the middle aged ones are gaseous and much less voluminous, the older ones are solid/liquids, the ancient ones have almost completely neutralized into little balls and their thick atmospheres have but almost completely vanished! Stellar evolution is planet formation! The process in which a star cools and dies is the EXACT same process in which a "planet" is formed.

Will this be accepted? Nope. It conflicts with the dominate world view. Stars and planets are mutually exclusive. They are not! A star is a young planet and a planet is an ancient/aging star!

[Sparky]

jeffrey, you have no idea how I think. It is not your hypothesis that I object to.
I object to your arrogance and hostile posts, and to total disregard of what others are saying unless it suits your narrow minded views. You apparently, from what you have said, think of yourself as "superior" and of high, if not educated intellect. All one has to do is read through this thread to see that that is a wild delusion. No, you have no idea what I read and listen to and how open to other ideas I am. True, I am not as "superior" as you think you are, but I serve my online needs by various ways.
And I really do feel sorry for you, if what you have expressed is the totality of your humor, intellect and cognition

[CharlesChandler]

Well, some people accepted it, just on the basis of its sheer merit. But not everybody is like that.

As concerns how regimented the scientific community is, anybody who disagrees with that should just go over to the JREF or CosmoQuest forums, and say anything at all that isn't quite kosher, and wait 5 minutes. Yes, you're going to get hammered!!! And yes, it's plainly obvious that they have somehow come to believe that their way is the only way. They even seem to think that they're doing you a favor by smacking you down. After all, the sooner you realize how foolish you've been, in thinking outside of the box, the sooner you'll fall in with the lemmings and get happy again. It worked for them, didn't it? Some of us don't get pleasure out of running with a pack of fools, but I guess that's our problem, right?

Still, the negative responses are always more than what one would expect. I "try" to remember times when I dismissed an idea, which later turned out to be correct, or at the very least, it was still a decent idea, and deserved more consideration. We have all done this, whether we admit it or not. And I consider myself to be a reasonable guy. So when my ideas get rejected, I don't always assume that the other guy is an a-hole who is just being ornery -- he might be a decent guy, but something about the way I described it got it put into the wrong category in his mind, and he dismissed it off-hand. Anyway, perhaps nobody is great at this (certainly not me), but I try to keep this in mind.

And in the end, you're just not going to please everybody, especially at first. No great idea was ever accepted right away, so this is just part of the territory. But you're doing the right thing in getting your stuff in the archives (such as vixra). I need to do that with my stuff. At least that way you'll get credit for it -- after you're dead. Still, it's fun, even for the living. We understand the significance of what we're doing here.

[JeffreyW]

But you're doing the right thing in getting your stuff in the archives (such as vixra). I need to do that with my stuff.

Post your stuff to vixra.org immediately Charles. Do not procrastinate this, it is important. It's a third party site that does not censor material via peer review and other bureaucratic wet blankets. If you do not have the time or patience, I can do it for you. Send the papers to me in either word or pdf. I think you have my email.

[Sparky]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/12 ... can-see-2/

A second generation of stars in the globular cluster NGC 6752 stopped evolving. -----The idea that stars evolve is one of those unjustifiable preconceptions with which observations are interpreted and understood. With that idea for ink, astronomers can draw explanatory curves through the observed characteristics of particular stars. The curves are collected into a Theory of Stellar Evolution, which is claimed to be verified by all the observations that lie on the curves (or at least close to them).---No one has actually observed any particular star evolve. No one has seen a star move along the curve theoretically set out for it. A few have been observed to jump from one curve to another but they were easily ignored.----A recent discrepant observation may require more effort. It is of stars in a globular cluster that have characteristics far from the calculated curve of cluster evolution. Cluster stars are supposed to evolve through a giant phase in which they eject much of their mass. But astronomers found “[a]s many as 70% of the stars were not undergoing the final nuclear burning and mass-loss phase.” One observer remarked, “so there will be 70% fewer of the brightest stars than theory predicts. It also means our computer models of stars are incomplete and must be fixed!”----If stars are externally powered by galactic electric circuits, their characteristics will vary with changes in the currents that drive them. A surge or “brown-out” will cause a star to jump to another spectral class or to explode. See, for example, the section “Stellar Evolution Counter-Examples” in Donald E. Scott’s book The Electric Sky, pp. 159-162 (online at http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm).

[Sparky]

“External electrical or gravitational stresses on a star may cause some of its internal positive charge to be offset from the center of the star. And since like charges repel, the offset charge will tend to accelerate toward the surface. It is a form of internal lightning. This process may lead to the expulsion of a substantial portion of the positively charged interior of the star. The visible result is a nova, or star-wide lightning flash, as electrons in the stellar atmosphere rush toward the emerging positively charged matter. The ejected material constitutes a powerful electric current, which generates its own magnetic field. That magnetic field constricts the charged matter to form a jet. The leading matter is neutralized and stops accelerating, causing the following charged matter to pile into it. So is born a companion star or gas giant planet. This explains why so many stars have been found to have extremely close-orbiting gas giant planets.”

However, a star’s apparent size is purely an electric discharge phenomenon, dependent on its environment, and bears little relationship to its physical size. The best example is a red giant star, which has a low energy glow discharge so far from the central star that it can envelop an entire planetary system.

[pavlink]

This explains why so many stars have been found to have extremely close-orbiting gas giant planets.”[/b]

So far we can only observe giant planets.

Jun 03, 2013
(Phys.org) —A team of astronomers using ESO's Very Large Telescope has imaged a faint object moving near a bright star. With an estimated mass of four to five times that of Jupiter, it would be the least massive planet to be directly observed outside the Solar System. The discovery is an important contribution to our understanding of the formation and evolution of planetary systems.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-lightest-e ... d.html#jCp

The other smaller ( and further away ) we just don't see.

[CharlesChandler]

External electrical or gravitational stresses on a star...

Can anybody explain the nature of these stresses? Since they're the prime mover in this "explanation", it's a legitimate question. Without identifying the physical forces responsible for the phenomena, this is no better than mainstream astrobabble.

In the linked webpage, it sounds like Thornhill is talking about the Pannekoek-Rosseland field. The paragraph immediately preceding the quote goes like this:

Beyond plasma cosmology we enter the realm of electrical stars and electrical cosmogony. The history goes as follows: after their formation in a Z-pinch, stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galaxy. The gravitational field inside a star distorts atoms in the star to form tiny electric dipoles. These atomic dipoles align to produce a weak radial electric field. Under the influence of that field, electrons tend to drift toward the surface, leaving a positively charged interior. It is the mutual repulsion of the positive charge within a star that supports the bulk of its envelope against gravity. A central fire is not necessary. However, a star’s apparent size is purely an electric discharge phenomenon, dependent on its environment, and bears little relationship to its physical size. The best example is a red giant star, which has a low energy glow discharge so far from the central star that it can envelop an entire planetary system.

How does he get from "stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galaxy" to talking about "the gravitational field inside a star" (which causes the Pannekoek-Rosseland field)? And how is the PR field going to suddenly flare up into a nova? Or create a sustained discharge in a red giant?

Will there ever be any attempt to answer any of these questions? Or are we just supposed to accept Thornhill's vague statements from 2005 as the final word? That was 9 years ago, folks.

[Sparky]

Charles, I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer you in this thread. You may have legitimate questions, but you have aligned yourself with Jeffrey and his unscientific attitude will keep the more informed people away. I suggest that you open a thread and pursue that line of inquiry.

I like your explanations. But, you may be picking up some frustration from Jeffrey and the result may be against your normal nature. Maybe continue to expand on what you think is the correct model.

Meanwhile, I will continue to post EU material, just to show people who are not versed in it that there is no connection to Jeffrey's mystical revelation.