The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[Sparky]

jw: Which is it there plasma people?

New insight? Mad idea?

Old news? Obvious idea?

I think it's obvious. So I explained it. I did what Copernicus did. I have explained something that has baffled humanity for thousands of years.

It's not a difficult theory to read I promise. A 5th grader can understand.

Confrontational and condescending.

lloyd: "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected"

jw: This is not scientific because it has never been observed. Solar flares are observed but no planets the size of Earth come flying out. Unless you know something I don't.

-

Lloyd wrote:* Jeffrey said regarding "planets sometimes result from fissioning from the star and ejected"..---

jw:
"This is not scientific because it has never been observed".

Lloyd * I think it's scientific to make hypotheses. Comets are known to fission, and stars appear sometimes to explode, which means they may end up in two or more pieces. Some ancient myths sound as if the ancients may have witnessed Venus fissioning from Saturn or Jupiter or something. So fissioning seems to be a reasonable hypothesis. Besides, I think it would even fit into your theory fairly well.
* I haven't read your theory in detail, but I skimmed through it. We could probably learn quite a bit from each other, if you'd post brief summaries of each phase of your theory and let us comment and refer you to other information that may help develop your theory more thoroughly. Your theory that I saw seems to lack references to data etc, and that's something scientists want to see with any theory. Your idea about rock formation seems likely to be inaccurate, since some scientists have found that many layers of rock tend to form all at once from flooding and the like, that is before they become hardened. We can help you find such info, if you like.

jw:Do I need references to state that the Earth is a giant ball? Or that it orbits around the sun? Do I need acceptance from "scientists"? No! I am the best scientist. I do science! I do explanation. I do not require degrees or labels or acceptance or nobel prizes nonsense. This is for the birds!---

This is not difficult to understand. I have already explained it to my 7 year old niece.

Arrogant and dismissive! Lloyd offered to help, which it appears that jw needs.
But jw prefers to confront and dismiss all such suggestions with condescending, if not arrogant pufferey.!

Lloyd:- "novas and supernovas do occur and that's very similar to fissioning."

A reasonable answer, ignored by jw!

So, what is it Jeffrey, coming in with a confrontational attitude and arrogance, while
expressing a dogmatic, bald assertion! Does anyone at TB qualify to understand your very complicated hypothesis?

[JeffreyW]

To address the "water in stars" thunderbolts picture of the day with reference to the general theory of stellar metamorphosis:

There is no such thing as a "red giant". They are just normal red dwarf stars in normal stages of evolution. Red dwarfs in stelmeta become brown dwarfs as they age, which then become grey dwarfs, which then become blues then black dwarfs.

The reason why they are considered to be "giant" is the same reason why quasars are considered to be incredibly large, larger than spiral galaxies: Their distances are miscalculated.

With red giants, they look at them in the same way one of the tbolts videos on youtube describes the miscalculation of distance with quasars: The astronomers think they are viewing 747's on the horizon (red giants), yet they are actually just flies buzzing around their heads (red dwarfs).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0161v1.pdf

Red giant stars and basically all gigantic stars that contain thousands of times the brightness of the Sun were theorized from highly inaccurate parallax measurements. They are a figment of the imagination of mathematical physicists that do not understand basic star science. They are simply much closer red/orange stars that are vastly smaller. [1] The red giant star Betelgeuse is not hundreds of light years distant and the size of our inner solar system it is right next door as normal red dwarf star about .05 light years from us.

There is no place for red giant stars in stellar metamorphosis. Besides, if red giants were so big, they wouldn't be red in electric universe. They would be blue, as their current density would be overwhelmingly massive. More surface area = brighter the star. If Betelgeuse or any "giant red star" was as big as EU and establishment claim they are, then they would not be red, they would be blue.

As to the "water in the star", all stars form water as they age. The hydrogen plasma and oxygen plasma combine in the atmosphere and rains down as water vapor on the interior surface during late red dwarf stages and early auburn/brown dwarf stages. This is what begins the cooling of the core. As the star continues evolving, the water simply stays around. This means that all stars will eventually have water much further in their lifespans. The surface water will eventually evaporate back into outer space from the extreme radiation of host transfers. As the magnetic field of the star dies, it will also simultaneously lose its atmosphere, and the water oceans, eventually becoming a barren wasteland.

[Sparky]

How can one argue logically against gibberish, when coming from one who will not consider anything outside of their delusion?
Fissioning is part of nature! :

[viscount aero]

http://youtu.be/bXaDO-U_2yA

Stars/Planets orbiting the central mass, which is the RATIO of EM radiation or absorbtion. :roll

I don't quite follow. Celestial bodies are orbiting a "central mass" that is the "ratio of EM radiation/absorbtion"--ratio to what? Moreover how is orbiting a mass "a ratio of EM" ? What are you saying?

[Sparky]

What are you saying?

Mocking sarcasm of Jeffrey's definition of mass, which he won't own up too.

[nick c]

There is no such thing as a "red giant". The reason why they are considered to be "giant" is the same reason why quasars are considered to be incredibly large, larger than spiral galaxies: Their distances are miscalculated.

The red giant star Betelgeuse is not hundreds of light years distant and the size of our inner solar system it is right next door as normal red dwarf star about .05 light years from us.

There are some observations that when considered together, show these assertions to be quite wrong.

1. Your comparison to quasars is not valid since quasar distances are derived via red shift not parallax. Betelgeuse is near the outer limit of the parallax method thus decreasing the precision, however, it is safe to say that it is hundreds of light years away. Galaxies and quasar distances are measured using entirely different techniques. It is apples and oranges, the two techniques are totally different.

2. Parallax measurements are reasonably accurate, it is a matter of triangulation. The smaller the apparent movement the farther away the star.

3. Betelgeuse is telescopically visible as a disk, see:
http://www.aavso.org/vsots_alphaori
Since the measurement by triangulation is very small, Betelgeuse must be very far away, and since it is visible as a disk from the Earth then it's (red plasma glow) diameter must be very large by stellar standards. Mainstream is correct in this regard, however, their assumption that Red Giants are super massive may not be correct. (For an EU interpretation of Red Giant stars see: The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star )

4. If Betelgeuse were a red dwarf "about .05 light years from us" then it would be extremely fast moving (for a star) across the sky. At a distance of 1/2 ly its' Proper Motion would be quite noticeable over time. Yet check old star charts, Betelgeuse is in the same spot in the constellation of Orion. It should have moved out of that configuration a long time ago, yet that has not occurred. The simplest explanation for its' low proper motion is that it is not a nearby star, but rather hundreds of ly's distant.

All of these, put together, tell us that Betelgeuse is a red giant hundreds of light years away.

[viscount aero]

Jeffrey will love this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4MIFnpWG4s
The "Impossible" Exoplanet | Space News

The star HD 106906 adopted Gallifrey (HD 106906b). Problem solved. The reason why its impossible to "them" is because they suffer from serious disorder of omniscience. Common disorder among cosmology people. Declaring it impossible yet there it is, falsifying their nebular hypothesis belief system. Yes, belief system, the nebular hypothesis was false from the get go, it violates conservation of angular momentum laws, thin disks don't become spheres in outer space.

Yes and yet more of these kinds of discoveries surface every year--stark findings that entirely contradict nebular collapse theory. Yet the theory is never declared null and void. Therefore, the standard model cannot be falsified nor replaced.

Why will they ignore this? Who knows. My guess is that they want to go back to the belief system of "god did it" quit asking questions you pleb. Evidence? Well, the wikipedia page hints at them wanting to go back to god:

I believe in God but not in the way they think God did it. They will ignore the finding because then it will unravel the entire shirt with one thread. They don't want to do that. If neb collapse is thrown out then that will lead to an investigation of supernovae and then stellar models. Then that will give way to questioning standard models for stellar formation and that will lead to questioning black holes, big bang, everything. It is a glass house.

[JeffreyW]

Jeffrey will love this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4MIFnpWG4s
The "Impossible" Exoplanet | Space News

The star HD 106906 adopted Gallifrey (HD 106906b). Problem solved. The reason why its impossible to "them" is because they suffer from serious disorder of omniscience. Common disorder among cosmology people. Declaring it impossible yet there it is, falsifying their nebular hypothesis belief system. Yes, belief system, the nebular hypothesis was false from the get go, it violates conservation of angular momentum laws, thin disks don't become spheres in outer space.

Yes and yet more of these kinds of discoveries surface every year--stark findings that entirely contradict nebular collapse theory. Yet the theory is never declared null and void. Therefore, the standard model cannot be falsified nor replaced.

Why will they ignore this? Who knows. My guess is that they want to go back to the belief system of "god did it" quit asking questions you pleb. Evidence? Well, the wikipedia page hints at them wanting to go back to god:

I believe in God but not in the way they think God did it. They will ignore the finding because then it will unravel the entire shirt with one thread. They don't want to do that. If neb collapse is thrown out then that will lead to an investigation of supernovae and then stellar models. Then that will give way to questioning standard models for stellar formation and that will lead to questioning black holes, big bang, everything. It is a glass house.

I like to look at it like a house of cards. Take out the bottom cards, nebular hypothesis, then the top cards fall almost immediately. They will probably continually prop up this nonsense with more ad hocs. The establishment doesn't want to be exposed for the circus atmosphere they are propping up. They don't want to be called out, yet it has to be done or else we risk continuation of the beliefs systems of big bang, dark matter, black hole, fissioning/nebular hypothesis until the end of time.

[JeffreyW]

There is no such thing as a "red giant". The reason why they are considered to be "giant" is the same reason why quasars are considered to be incredibly large, larger than spiral galaxies: Their distances are miscalculated.

The red giant star Betelgeuse is not hundreds of light years distant and the size of our inner solar system it is right next door as normal red dwarf star about .05 light years from us.

There are some observations that when considered together, show these assertions to be quite wrong.

1. Your comparison to quasars is not valid since quasar distances are derived via red shift not parallax. Betelgeuse is near the outer limit of the parallax method thus decreasing the precision, however, it is safe to say that it is hundreds of light years away. Galaxies and quasar distances are measured using entirely different techniques. It is apples and oranges, the two techniques are totally different.

2. Parallax measurements are reasonably accurate, it is a matter of triangulation. The smaller the apparent movement the farther away the star.

3. Betelgeuse is telescopically visible as a disk, see:
http://www.aavso.org/vsots_alphaori
Since the measurement by triangulation is very small, Betelgeuse must be very far away, and since it is visible as a disk from the Earth then it's (red plasma glow) diameter must be very large by stellar standards. Mainstream is correct in this regard, however, their assumption that Red Giants are super massive may not be correct. (For an EU interpretation of Red Giant stars see: The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star )

4. If Betelgeuse were a red dwarf "about .05 light years from us" then it would be extremely fast moving (for a star) across the sky. At a distance of 1/2 ly its' Proper Motion would be quite noticeable over time. Yet check old star charts, Betelgeuse is in the same spot in the constellation of Orion. It should have moved out of that configuration a long time ago, yet that has not occurred. The simplest explanation for its' low proper motion is that it is not a nearby star, but rather hundreds of ly's distant.

All of these, put together, tell us that Betelgeuse is a red giant hundreds of light years away.

Its an analogy.

Red giants: the measurement technique, parallax::Quasars:the measurement technique, redshift

Not to mention parallax as an accurate determinate of distance for stars past 500 light years is statistically unsound.
Rho Cassiopeiae is supposedly a yellow hypergiant at a distance of 8200 light years.

Yet the measurement of error completely swallows the measurement itself.

.28 ± .58 mac (millarcseconds)

Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.

In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.

Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.

[JeffreyW]

Look at this. Do they really expect people to believe this? This is what you get when you think parallax is accurate to any degree for stars outside of our solar system.

[Sparky]

The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star
Posted on June 28, 2009 by Wal Thornhill

The red supergiant star Betelgeuse, the bright reddish star in the constellation Orion, has steadily shrunk over the past 15 years, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. Betelgeuse’s radius is about five astronomical units, or five times the radius of Earth’s orbit. The average speed at which the radius of the star is shrinking over the last 15 years is approximately 470-490 miles per hour. That means the star’s radius has shrunk by a distance equal to the orbit of Venus

Dim red stars like Betelgeuse do not have the same power control mechanism. They respond to variation in their power supply instead by varying the surface area of their glowing plasma sheath—in other words, their visible size. Our own Sun varies slightly in size, much to the puzzlement of astrophysicists. However, what is called “the photosphere” of Betelgeuse is physically and electrically nothing like the photosphere of bright stars.

The decrease in diameter of Betelgeuse over 15 years suggests a slow change in the power input to Betelgeuse. Shrinking is a normal response of a glow discharge plasma sheath to an increase in the availability of electrons from the galactic plasma. Such an increase may be due to rising current in the local galactic circuit. Or it may be due to a decrease in dustiness of the plasma near the star (dust particles tend to scavenge electrons). Our Sun registers such a change through the sunspot cycle and X-ray output.

[nick c]

Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.

In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.

Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.

Did you even read my post? Nothing in your response addresses the issue about the distance and size of Betelgeuse. You just simply have laid down a smokescreen of statements and avoided the issues raised. You made the statement that Betelgeuse was about one half of a light year from the Sun, and I showed that observations make that assertion impossible. Yes parallax becomes less and less accurate as distances increase, but if there is a detectable shift in position than a reasonably accurate distance can be determined through triangulation. If there is no apparent shift in a star's position using parallax, than that means the star is beyond the range of the method and therefore it is even further away, that is more than five or six hundred light years.
Read the 4 points in my post once again. Your assertions about the non existence of Red Giant stars and Betelgeuse being at a 1/2 ly distance are simply not in any way supported by the facts.
It is just plain wrong.

[viscount aero]

There is no such thing as a "red giant". The reason why they are considered to be "giant" is the same reason why quasars are considered to be incredibly large, larger than spiral galaxies: Their distances are miscalculated.

The red giant star Betelgeuse is not hundreds of light years distant and the size of our inner solar system it is right next door as normal red dwarf star about .05 light years from us.

There are some observations that when considered together, show these assertions to be quite wrong.

1. Your comparison to quasars is not valid since quasar distances are derived via red shift not parallax. Betelgeuse is near the outer limit of the parallax method thus decreasing the precision, however, it is safe to say that it is hundreds of light years away. Galaxies and quasar distances are measured using entirely different techniques. It is apples and oranges, the two techniques are totally different.

2. Parallax measurements are reasonably accurate, it is a matter of triangulation. The smaller the apparent movement the farther away the star.

3. Betelgeuse is telescopically visible as a disk, see:
http://www.aavso.org/vsots_alphaori
Since the measurement by triangulation is very small, Betelgeuse must be very far away, and since it is visible as a disk from the Earth then it's (red plasma glow) diameter must be very large by stellar standards. Mainstream is correct in this regard, however, their assumption that Red Giants are super massive may not be correct. (For an EU interpretation of Red Giant stars see: The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star )

4. If Betelgeuse were a red dwarf "about .05 light years from us" then it would be extremely fast moving (for a star) across the sky. At a distance of 1/2 ly its' Proper Motion would be quite noticeable over time. Yet check old star charts, Betelgeuse is in the same spot in the constellation of Orion. It should have moved out of that configuration a long time ago, yet that has not occurred. The simplest explanation for its' low proper motion is that it is not a nearby star, but rather hundreds of ly's distant.

All of these, put together, tell us that Betelgeuse is a red giant hundreds of light years away.

Thank you, Nick, for that link to the Alpha Orionis article. I had no idea about most of that

"The outer edge of Betelgeuse's circumstellar envelope extends well over a trillion kilometers from the star — so light from the star takes a good two months to escape the gas shell. In the outer reaches of this vast globe, the density is extremely low. In volume, Betelgeuse exceeds the Sun by a factor of at least 160 million even at minimum. Yet the actual mass of the star is probably no more than about 20 solar masses, which means that the average density must be in the range of .00000002 to about .00000009 the density of our Sun. Such star material has a density of less than one ten-thousandth the density of ordinary air. A star of such tenuous nature has often been called a "red-hot vacuum" (Burnham, 1966)."

Put this way Betelgeuse is virtually a nebula.

It is amazing that such a thing, one mere object, is incredibly mysterious and fascinating. And yet there are trillions of trillions (possibly infinite numbers) of such objects in the cosmos! It is mind-boggling.

[viscount aero]

Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.

In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.

Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.

Did you even read my post? Nothing in your response addresses the issue about the distance and size of Betelgeuse. You just simply have laid down a smokescreen of statements and avoided the issues raised. You made the statement that Betelgeuse was about one half of a light year from the Sun, and I showed that observations make that assertion impossible. Yes parallax becomes less and less accurate as distances increase, but if there is a detectable shift in position than a reasonably accurate distance can be determined through triangulation. If there is no apparent shift in a star's position using parallax, than that means the star is beyond the range of the method and therefore it is even further away, that is more than five or six hundred light years.
Read the 4 points in my post once again. Your assertions about the non existence of Red Giant stars and Betelgeuse being at a 1/2 ly distance are simply not in any way supported by the facts.
It is just plain wrong.

To the motion parallax issue, if I am connecting the dots correctly here, I believe radio interferometry uses the same principle when imaging celestial bodies and in determining their approximate distances and velocities. A reference star is used as a "control", ie, a slowly moving/distant object in the far background, against nearer "faster" moving ones. In the case of interferometry an array of telescopes is used in conjunction with other arrays at distant locations on the Earth. Array 1 with Array 2 with distant background star = triangulation of motion parallax.

[viscount aero]

Why not just say parallax doesn't work for huge distances like this? In stellar metamorphosis, there are no "giant" stars, as the Sun is already giant. They would rather trust math equations than their own intuition, yet the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting atop their shoulders is discarded and distrusted as if the human brain is not of the universe itself. ????? I guess they like circus atmosphere with black holes, super giant stars, dark matter, etc.

In other words to genuinely comprehend how incredibly massive the Sun already is, is to look at "giant theoretical stars" with not only a grain of salt, but of a dump truck of salt.

Common sense dictates that these stars are not brighter because they are super giant massive large stars, but stars that are vastly closer than what the mathematicians condition their followers to believe.

To the highlighted statement, I think that is not an issue of common sense. To that, your comment is erroneous. Super-giant stars may exist. I don't think that mere "common sense" rules out their existence. To say that is very reaching and silly.