The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

[JeffreyW]

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.

Charles,

The statement: "after their formation in a Z-pinch, stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galaxy."

is the beef I have with electric universe theory.

Does a human's umbilical cord remain attached to the mother as the baby grows up lives its life as a grown human being, or is the umbilical cord cut after it is born? Electric Universe believes the umbilical cord remains, regardless if it is 100% clear there is no umbilical cord after the star is born. The incoming electrical energy births the star, but once the star is born, there is no need to continue supplying current, the star will dissipate the energy as heat and light and eventually die, solidifying into gaseous structure, and eventually end up as a small differentiated round ball similar to the Earth, Venus, Mars, etc.

Thus meaning there is a fundamental difference between EU and stellar metamorphosis. EU takes the stance that all stars are connected no matter what stage of evolution they are, stellar metamorphosis states that only the young ones which are being born in the magnetic pinch (z-pinch) are attached to each other and to the larger environment as a whole. After the stars are born, there is no "electrical connection", the stars are dissipative events, all the DC current is flowing away from the aging star (not towards it), this is known as solar wind.

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer you in this thread. [...] I suggest that you open a thread and pursue that line of inquiry.

Been there, done that, many times, and no, the questions were never answered. I got flamed the way somebody from the EU gets flamed on JREF or CosmoQuest.

BTW, Jeffrey & I disagree on several significant points, so no, I'm not just getting hypnotized by his smooth talking. But with us, disagreement is OK -- it makes us think.

[Sparky]

Been there, done that, many times, and no, the questions were never answered. I got flamed the way somebody from the EU gets flamed on JREF or CosmoQuest.

I'm looking for those threads....I did respond to one of your threads..

I need to read the "positive sun or whatever" thread...

But this thread with Jeffrey is not even beginning to be constructive for scientific debate.
He has no idea of that concept. So, if you start a thread about star models, I have a few questions for you... I am no good at all with explaining, but a bit better at asking questions....

[Native]

I think we all in this forum can agree that the Standard Theory explanation of “gravity forming stars out of a cosmic cloud that suddenly decide to collapse” is nonsense and the very same goes for the standard Nucleosynthesis Theory (formations of basical elements) which subsequently also is very wrong, based on the same theory as with the formation of our Solar System.

It demands much higher dynamic energies and velocities to sort out and heat up the gases and particles in a cosmic cloud up to the (plasma) melting stages in order to create stars, planets and moons. These electric and magnetic energies and velocities can be found in the centers of galaxies and since our Solar System clearly and logically is an orbiting and integrated part of the Milky Way galactic formation, the theory of the Solar System formation shall be connected directly to the galactic formation.

“Spiral galaxies” are not just galaxies; they can be categorized in two main exemplary types:

1. Galaxies with at very tight-spindled arms and an overall inwards turning motion with a very luminous center, suggesting a high velocity of a beginning star formation.
2. Galaxies with open spindled arms and a less luminous center and 2(4) bars telling of a slower velocity of formation and an overall outgoing motion via the bars and out in the galactic arms.

Allthough these two types have their actual overall outlook of inwards and outwards going motion, both types of galaxies have of course a circuit and cyclic flow of electromagnetic formation.

What is formatted of stars and planets in a galactic center, of course depends on what is moving into the center to be formatted via the central Z-Pinch. Here, all kind of different gas- and particle compositions can be thought of flowing into the galactic center via the galactic funnels (polar holes/”black holes”) where gases and particles are mixed into smaller and larger spheres of pure stars and pure “metallic planets” – and everything elsemixed ups of starry and planetary in between these pure formations. Read a more specific (in some extension a generally one) explanation of the formative process here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0200v1.pdf

- Since all planets in our Solar System orbits the Sun and since all Moons orbits their planets, it is logically to me that the general formation of the Sun; Planets and Moons etc. has taken place farily simultaneously in the galactic center, thus confirming the age of the system to be approximately 4.6 bill. years old.

NB: In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf (page 21) Jeffrey Wolinsky write: “As this happens the Earth and most of the other cooling stars will eventually lose orbit with the Sun as it is empirically known that the Earth is moving away from the Sun at 15 cm per year”.

AD: Regardingless his theory of cooling, this confirms my conviction that our Solar System was created in the galactic centre and mowed outwards in the galactic surroundings, still reflecting this actual expanding motion by the Sun-Earth annually increasing distance as well as the annually increased distances between the Eath and the Moon.

Gravity doesn´t work here neither as it doesn´t work in the galactic center - because everything is in steadily motion and therefore no specific location can be subscribed to "supermassive gravity forces".

[Sparky]

- Since all planets in our Solar System orbits the Sun and since all Moons orbits their planets, it is logically to me that the general formation of the Sun; Planets and Moons etc. has taken place farily simultaneously in the galactic center, thus confirming the age of the system to be approximately 4.6 bill. years old.

It may be logical to you, but it sounds silly to me....

[Native]

- Since all planets in our Solar System orbits the Sun and since all Moons orbits their planets, it is logically to me that the general formation of the Sun; Planets and Moons etc. has taken place farily simultaneously in the galactic center, thus confirming the age of the system to be approximately 4.6 bill. years old.

It may be logical to you, but it sounds silly to me....

@Sparky,
"Silly" isn´t an adjective that promotes a respectful; factual and fruitful discussion.
What is it that you don´t understand?
What are your explanation of the Solar System formation?

[Sparky]

We can't have a discussion if you insist on believing that , "general formation of the Sun; Planets and Moons etc. has taken place farily simultaneously in the galactic center"

From observation, that is nonsense. It appears that you are the one who does not understand, and if you wish to discuss science you need a bit more understanding.

What I believe is not relevant. Being able to consider other's conclusions, from observation is what I do, even though that is not my strong suit....

[Native]

We can't have a discussion if you insist on believing that , "general formation of the Sun; Planets and Moons etc. has taken place farily simultaneously in the galactic center"

From observation, that is nonsense. It appears that you are the one who does not understand, and if you wish to discuss science you need a bit more understanding.

What I believe is not relevant. Being able to consider other's conclusions, from observation is what I do, even though that is not my strong suit....

@Sparky,
You obviously haven´t read my first post thoroughly since you have missed the fact that our Solar System is an integrated and orbiting part of the galactic rotation and thus also an integrated part of the galactic formation.

If you don´t understand these factual observations - and if you don´t bother to explain your thoughts about the formation of the Solar System or asking question to my post, I just leave you to think - or not - what ever you like.

[Sparky]

We can't have a discussion if you insist on believing that , "general formation of the Sun; Planets and Moons etc. has taken place farily simultaneously in the galactic center"

From observation, that is nonsense. It appears that you are the one who does not understand, and if you wish to discuss science you need a bit more understanding.

What I believe is not relevant. Being able to consider other's conclusions, from observation is what I do, even though that is not my strong suit....

@Sparky,

You obviously haven´t read my first post thoroughly since you have missed the fact that our Solar System is an integrated and orbiting part of the galactic rotation and thus also an integrated part of the galactic formation.

Irrelevant to what I was commenting on.! : """ "general formation of the Sun; Planets and Moons etc. has taken place farily simultaneously in the galactic center"""

If you don´t understand these factual observations - and if you don´t bother to explain your thoughts about the formation of the Solar System or asking question to my post, I just leave you to think - or not - what ever you like.

Whatever!

here is some good info...: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=11420

[Native]

@Sparky,
Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:31 you answered CharlesChandler:

“I am no good at all with explaining, but a bit better at asking questions...”.

AD: In my opinion, you even fail to ask relevant questions – but apparently, you are very skilled in posting links, which content you don´t use yourself.

Whatever!
here is some good info...: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=11420

AD: About finding and analyze anomalies: Apparently you fail to analyze and combine the galactic rotation anomaly with the overall formation in the galaxy and thus the formation of our Solar System – and you even don´t bother to ask questions in order to exchange your ignorance with new knowledge.

Honestly, what are you doing in an alternative Forum where new ideas and approaches are supposed to thrive? Are you just a conventional troll or what?

[Solar]

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.

Electrical Stress

Gravitational Stress

Galactic influences on the solar system

Pick your subjective poison. There are quite a lot of people and quite a lot scientific endeavors afoot trying - with limited language, concepts, and tools - to describe and/or quantify various qualities of this Universe. Individuals wander around from one expression to next looking for and sometimes arguing for 'Their' version of something to be put succinctly in 'Their' terms. One person's "stress" (electrostatic, magnetic, gravitational, ‘Aetheric’, nuclear etc etc) is another person's "tension". On and on it goes.

For example, it is rather easy to assert that your adoption of Feyman's "like-likes-like" is adopting a variation of his version of "like begets like". Or, a variation of the chemical expression "like dissolves like". The terms are just aphorisms or so; the expression of the general principle of ‘affinity’ and the results thereof but; if I hang my hat on one expression over the other, the opportunity of understanding the essential idea is obscured by personal preference isn’t it? Should I ask of you to change that to "birds of a feather flock together", which carries the same basic principle, instead?

Is Feyman’s adaptation simply more 'acceptable' because a “scientist” reiterated an already existing principle apparent in nature and thereby (somehow) lent said principle some sort of acceptable ‘credence’ somewhere; and to someone?

The quest for “truth” isn’t going to be had through nomenclature and quantification alone but more so in the understanding that overrides and integrates any and all limited expressions of said "truth".

Or are we just supposed to accept Thornhill's vague statements from 2005 as the final word? That was 9 years ago, folks.

It’s actually been several decades in the making overall. The clamor for some quantitative exactitude from the EU isn’t new. A couple of guys with a novel idea and little to no $$ against the onslaught of “big science” seem to finally be getting to achieving something along those lines. Its extremely easy to look at the entirety of the EU’s website and reasoning’s, or to look at the entirety of your own still developing website and reasoning’s (I’ve done both) and quite highhandedly say that neither one of them even remotely compares to the exacting one man army precision of Ari Brynjolfsson’s Plasma Redshift Cosmology, *just* as an example. Did it do any 'good' for Ari to spend years developing all of that insofar as 'mainstream acceptance' goes? No. His motivation, value, and satisfaction with doing so must lay elsewhere. Likewise will your own works become.

Is that what you want? Should I stop following the developments of your own theories and ever burgeoning website because they didn’t cut the muster of my subjective comparison? Should I limit my own opportunity for ‘growth’ by looking at things that way? I know; you know; that the answer is unequivocally, ‘No’. I can get the approach you’ve expressed above from the ‘mainstream’ forums towards the EU; I can even get it towards your own theory via the discussion you had with JREF when you yourself asked the membership there to tone down the very same kind of thing.

Why would you ask them to do that if you can't?

[Sparky]

native:

In my opinion,

[JeffreyW]

In stellar metamorphosis matter creation happens in the center of new born galaxies.

The new matter is ejected outwards. A picture of a galaxy growing new arms is provided below:




Stars themselves don't create matter at all, they just sort it out and dissipate the energy of galaxy birth. This means that young galaxies such as quasars will not have ancient stars like Neptune or the Earth, unless they were dragged out of the galaxy it was ejected from.

Ancient galaxies such as Sag Dwarf were engulfed by the much younger Milky Way. This process added many very old stars to Milky Way's roster.

Here is another galaxy growing new arms:



Notice how they are called "radio galaxies". This is because a radio galaxy is a baby galaxy. Halton Arp was right. What ever object is central to these things, in stelmeta it is hypothesized that they are pulsars, they are the real sources of "fusion", not stars by definition. The establishment is hell bent on trying to show how a "star" creates matter, this is not true at all. All a star does in stelmeta is take the elements, which are in their plasma state, already created as the galaxy grows its new arms, and combines them into all naturally occurring molecules found in nature.

Philosophically the "star" is the gravitationally collapsing dust cloud of establishment. To the establishment the "gravitationally collapsing dust cloud" is separate from "star". A star gravitationally collapses into what people call "planet" over many billions of years, cools, solidifies and hosts life.

[Sparky]

matter creation

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0724a.html

in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy.

[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.

Electrical Stress

Gravitational Stress

Galactic influences on the solar system

No, I wasn't asking for an explanation of stresses in general. I was asking for an explanation of the actual stresses involved in the hypothesis given. If somebody were to explain how a car engine works by saying that certain stresses cause the car to accelerate, that wouldn't be an explanation. Rather, it would be just an observation (albeit in pseudo-technical terminology). To actually explain something, you have to identify the nuts and bolts responsible for the observations. In mechanical engineering, if you keep questioning, you can get explanations all of the way down to the atomic level. That's an explanation. But a thesis that never identifies anything below the level of what is instantaneously observed is not an explanation -- it's just an observation.

For example, it is rather easy to assert that your adoption of Feyman's "like-likes-like" is adopting a variation of his version of "like begets like". Or, a variation of the chemical expression "like dissolves like". The terms are just aphorisms or so; the expression of the general principle of ‘affinity’ and the results thereof but; if I hang my hat on one expression over the other, the opportunity of understanding the essential idea is obscured by personal preference isn’t it? Should I ask of you to change that to "birds of a feather flock together", which carries the same basic principle, instead?

Is Feyman’s adaptation simply more 'acceptable' because a “scientist” reiterated an already existing principle apparent in nature and thereby (somehow) lent said principle some sort of acceptable ‘credence’ somewhere; and to someone?

The quest for “truth” isn’t going to be had through nomenclature and quantification alone but more so in the understanding that overrides and integrates any and all limited expressions of said "truth".

Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle isn't just a "general principle of affinity". It's a specific set of forces. In electrostatics, like charges repel, while opposites attract. According to Langmuir, neutrally charged aggregations of charges shouldn't interact, because there is no net charge, and thus no net repulsion or attraction. (This is why he called quasi-neutral matter "plasma", like the cells in blood that wrap themselves around antigens, and insulate them from the rest of the body.) So according to Langmuir, there should be no reason for molecules to form. If both atoms are net neutral, there is no net electric force. Ah, but molecules do form, and Feynman identified the reason -- there is a net electric force. When two neutral atoms come together, their electrons are attracted to the superimposed positive field between the two nuclei, and then the positive nuclei are attracted to the shared negative charge between them. He then demonstrated that this principle not only forms molecules, but is also important in polymerization. Gerald Pollack went on to show that this same principle is responsible for molecule sorting at the macroscopic. Since the principles are scalable, I go on to say that this is a physical force between Debye cells in space. So this principle can be proved all of the way down to the atomic level, and its effects have been demonstrated on each level. This is the primary organizing principle of the Universe, without which we wouldn't have structured matter -- it would all be just individual atoms. Now that's an explanation.

Or are we just supposed to accept Thornhill's vague statements from 2005 as the final word? That was 9 years ago, folks.

The clamor for some quantitative exactitude from the EU isn’t new.

Sure, he was criticized for lack of specifics when he first made the assertions. And people have been asking ever since. The point is that I'm not seeing any progress. I see a lot of effort going into repeating the same statements over and over on the forums, and in developing better packaging, in the books that Thornhill, Talbott, and Scott published (in 2002, 2006, & 2007), and more recently, in the Space News videos. What I'm not seeing is any progress on the specifics. I'm perfectly willing to listen to somebody flesh out an idea with all manner of vague verbiage. I do it all of the time. But once the idea has surfaced, the next step is to clarify it, and to see if it actually traces down to something physical. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. So the ones that never lead anywhere get tossed, and the ones that still seem physical get explored further. In the end, you have only constructs that can be traced all of the way down to the finest granularity modern science can study, and a trashcan overflowing with ideas that broke down somewhere in that process. That's just how it works, and everybody understands this. But when I see somebody repeating the same vague verbiage for 10 years running, and no progress on tracing the assertions down to possible physical instantiations, I start to wonder why the theorist stopped. Then, if I come along and start proposing ideas that do trace all of the way down to the atomic level, such as the "like-likes-like" principle explaining the collapse of Debye cells into stars, and I get flamed really bad by the "Electric Universe" community, I start to think that the EU has fallen prey to mainstream-itis. That's a disease where you take a position and try to defend it, and if you're not careful, you dig in on that position, and become entrenched. Then, somebody comes along and shows you a way of making some real progress, and you say, "Naaa, I'm dug in here, and I don't do progress anymore -- I just sit here and defend this position." The problem with that is that you get left behind while everybody else moves on, always in search of better ways. And this is what is going to happen to the EU. Flame me all you want, but you're not going to stop me. To me, science isn't a position -- it's a process. When the process is working correctly, it affords constant progress. When it breaks down, people get entrenched, and then they get left behind. It's that simple.